From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Jan 1 06:55:13 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 06:55:13 GMT Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case Message-ID: <3e1290d1.9ff.0@esatclear.ie> [ inline .... ] >> 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. 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. ++++Whow - and a unanimous verdict it seems. 1st off these guys were good ... very good. So any slam aspirations by east could have been bid via 5S or Grand slam via 5NT possibly (maybe this is choose a minor slam ... any anything except 6D). Therefore a prompt 6D is to play. 2nd 6D after a notable pause (forget about pings/Lag - the guy was asked "was he there" twice) is in my view a 6 and a bit diamond bid. 3rd Now over to West - he sure has a block buster ... in the minors. But that HQ is a massive minus especially with the majors sitting over you. I dont want to discredit all the bridge experts here but if my partner says I want to play in 6D then unless I have EVERY continency covered (and I dont with this hand) I do not bid 7. This grand is appalling and IMO to bid it after a blatant pause ... when you are suppose to bend over backwards ... to say pass is not LA is pure rubbish. The ole chestnut - west can't read anything into easts pause - balderdash ... Karel -- http://www.iol.ie From john@asimere.com Wed Jan 1 13:14:51 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 13:14:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] Future equity In-Reply-To: <001901c2b0e8$223316f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <4A256C9F.00064CAA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <001901c2b0e8$223316f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <1ja80KALnuE+EwkY@asimere.com> In article <001901c2b0e8$223316f0$70d8fea9@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >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! TeeHee. Of course you're right Sven, but the law is not difficult. > -- 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 Wed Jan 1 13:16:39 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 13:16:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly In-Reply-To: <001f01c2b0e9$9bbdf020$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <001f01c2b0e9$9bbdf020$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <9jV+EVA3ouE+EwFf@asimere.com> In article <001f01c2b0e9$9bbdf020$70d8fea9@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >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, J=FCrgen > >And it is exactly this "benefit" that I for one cannot accept in the law= s. > >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?) > Nope, I was deadly serious. A well formulated claim protects you from making a later stupid error. A badly formulated claim *is* an error. john >regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >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 john@asimere.com Wed Jan 1 13:21:16 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 13:21:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case In-Reply-To: <3e1290d1.9ff.0@esatclear.ie> References: <3e1290d1.9ff.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <1Tb8oiAMtuE+Ewn6@asimere.com> In article <3e1290d1.9ff.0@esatclear.ie>, Karel writes >[ inline .... ] >>> 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. 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. > >++++Whow - and a unanimous verdict it seems. > >1st off these guys were good ... very good. So any slam aspirations by east >could have been bid via 5S or Grand slam via 5NT possibly (maybe this is choose >a minor slam ... any anything except 6D). Therefore a prompt 6D is to play. > and over a prompt 6D, 7D is clear. the hesitation does not particularly suggest between 5 and 3/4 diamonds or 6 and a quarter diamonds. > >2nd 6D after a notable pause (forget about pings/Lag - the guy was asked "was >he there" twice) is in my view a 6 and a bit diamond bid. > >3rd Now over to West - he sure has a block buster ... in the minors. But that >HQ is a massive minus especially with the majors sitting over you. I dont want >to discredit all the bridge experts here but if my partner says I want to play >in 6D then unless I have EVERY continency covered (and I dont with this hand) >I do not bid 7. This grand is appalling and IMO to bid it after a blatant pause >... when you are suppose to bend over backwards ... to say pass is not LA is >pure rubbish. > >The ole chestnut - west can't read anything into easts pause - balderdash ... > > >Karel >-- >http://www.iol.ie > >_______________________________________________ >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 blml@dybdal.dk Wed Jan 1 16:17:58 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 17:17:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Future equity In-Reply-To: <4A256CA0.00078BED.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256CA0.00078BED.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 11:40:21 +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. (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". You are very welcome to have your opinion about L64A, Richard, but I am afraid I must insist that I know better than you what the reason for the DBF's suggestion is (though it seems we haven't explained it very well). And a "tend[ency] to be inequitable to the offending side", as you say, was absolutely not in any way a reason, or part of a reason, for our suggestion. I consider the current L64A fine in regards to equity; in fact, I believe that the problem with it is precisely that it has become too complicated because of an attempt to make it more equitable than earlier versions were. I do not know for certain whether the other participants in the DBF suggestion agree with that, but any possible lack of equity in the current L64A was not mentioned during the drafting of that suggestion, and it is therefore certainly not a reason for the suggestion. >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). Yes; it is of course important that a change does not create an equity problem where there was none before. The point here is not to improve equity compared to the current rule, but to ensure that the change we suggested (in order to achieve simplicity) does not create a new equity problem. >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. Of course simplicity is not the only issue in a rule. Nobody said it was. But it is IMO the only problem with the current L64A, and it is the one issue that led the DBF to suggest a change. I fail to see how the fact that you can invent a rule that is horrible in regards to equity, can be used to argue that the current (quite different) rule has an equity problem - or that such a problem should have been a reason for the suggestion by the DBF. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Jan 1 16:17:59 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 17:17:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Future equity In-Reply-To: References: <4A256C9F.00064CAA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:58:24 +0000, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >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, You won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with that. > and insofar as it's a penalty provision it's about as >equitable as one can get. I agree with that. >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 :) I notice two things in what you write above (apart from Sven's objection): * The word "most", and * The fact that you seem to be thinking only of rulings made after the board has been completed; they are not the problematic ones. When you are called after trick 5 to rule a trick 4 revoke, and you explain carefully to the players how the penalty will depend on how many of the remaining 8 tricks the offending side takes, and whether one of those tricks happen to be won with a heart in offender's hand, does it really never happen that the players have a problem understanding it and/or end up being confused so that they play badly as a result? In my experience, that certainly happens once in a while. In addition, even inexperienced directors can have problems, primarily because the wording of L64A is bad. Revokes are so common that IMO the penalty really should be simple enough to not confuse anybody (except possibly rank beginners) when they hear it explained. It would also be nice if it were simple enough for players to be able to remember and use without a TD present. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jan 1 16:31:11 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 11:31:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] New Year's thoughts Message-ID: <200301011631.LAA01979@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Happy New Year, everyone. In David Stevenson's absence, I'm sending this message of holiday cheer, a few reflections on the past, and some wishes for the future. For those who don't know, David was the founder of BLML. Markus Buckhorn set up the original mailing list but was not a regular reader or contributor. Probably because of the vagaries of time zones and events, I actually subscribed to the list before David did, second only to Markus. The date was 1996 April 24. I don't seem to have a list of other early subscribers, but Herman certainly was one. Another was Richard Bley, and Henk was pretty early too. Maybe Herman or another early subscriber will have a list. On thinking over our history, it seems to me we have made enormous progress in certain areas and little or none in others. Perhaps that last is not true, though: at least we have identified areas where consensus is missing. In spite of that, there is widespread agreement, at least within BLML if not in the wider world, on at least the following: 1. TD's should consult on all judgment rulings. 2. TD's should read most "book" readings from the FLB or at least be prepared to do so. 3. If dummy puts the cards down wrong -- one hidden or whatever -- the defenders should be protected against any resulting damage. 4. The bridge inference to be drawn from some actions varies enormously not only with the particular player but also with location because of significant regional differences. 5. L25B :-) David was a major participant in most, if not all, the above, and in many other discussions that have led to agreement. These may sound like small victories, but please remember that before BLML, there was widespread disagreement even on these basics. For the coming year, I wish for the following. 1. Messages that I can understand. I am not referring to language; our participants whose native language is not English write very clearly. (Thanks! I know it must be hard work.) Nevertheless, I find the logic of some messages very hard to follow, despite their perfect grammar. 2. Messages that give reasons for the conclusion reached and are not mere assertions. 3. Messages that present new arguments or views rather than simply repeating previous ones. 4. More participation from outside Western Europe and North America. (Yes, I know and am glad for our Australia, New Zealand, and Russia contingents, but their numbers are still small.) I would really love to find out what the rest of the world thinks about the issues we discuss. What is bridge like in China, for example? 5. To the extent there is consensus on BLML, putting the consensus into practice in rulings around the world. That will make bridge an even better game than it already is. In closing, best wishes to all who love bridge. I have no doubt that includes all BLML participants. May all your finesses work in 2003, except when you play for the squeeze. From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Jan 1 16:57:40 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 17:57:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] weighted claims In-Reply-To: <016501c2a697$aac5fdd0$42c7f1c3@LNV> References: <016501c2a697$aac5fdd0$42c7f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:16:21 +0100, "Ton Kooijman" wrote: >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. I agree very much with Ton. It seems to me that: * A claim is not an irregularity; it is a way to play the last tricks quickly. * A bad claim is not an irregularity either; it is a way to play the last tricks badly (but typically not quickly, since the TD will often be needed). The whole point of playing a hand is to distribute 13 tricks between two sides, and that should be reflected in the result unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise. In the case of irregularities, there is such a strong reason. The reason is that most of the irregularities for which we assign split and/or weighted scores are accidents: sometimes partner really needs to think, and sometimes my judgment of what is a logical alternative is not the same as the TD's or the AC's. Therefore we have situations where adjusted scores are needed, even though nobody can be said to be fully to blame for what happened: it was an accident. In such cases, I think there can be good reason to try to repair the problem by leaving the principle of "dividing 13 tricks between two sides" and assigning split and/or weighted scores. In the case of a claim, there actually is a person who is fully to blame. The claimer could have avoided the problem completely, simply by not claiming or by providing an adequate statement. If a player chooses to claim when he should not, then it seems to me to be completely equivalent to a player choosing to plays a heart when it would be a better idea to play a spade. It is a bad play, and it will probably cost him one or more tricks. That is as it should be, and it is also in accordance with all the best principles of bridge that when one side loses tricks by playing badly, then the other side gets the full benefit. So I am quite happy with the "any doubtful points" wording and with its consequences: no split or weighted scores in claims situations. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jan 1 17:03:47 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 12:03:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case Message-ID: <200301011703.MAA02182@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel" > >> 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 > 6D after a notable pause ... is in my view a 6 and a bit diamond bid. I don't think anyone else agrees with this. Can you demonstrate it? That's what L16 requires in order to rule 7D illegal. The question of LA's isn't clear to me. Has the online service adopted a definition? If not, I suppose the one in the Code of Practice is probably what should be used. From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Jan 1 17:09:15 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 18:09:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Year's thoughts In-Reply-To: <200301011631.LAA01979@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200301011631.LAA01979@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 11:31:11 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >I don't seem to have a list of >other early subscribers, but Herman certainly was one. Another was >Richard Bley, and Henk was pretty early too. Maybe Herman or another >early subscriber will have a list. =46or the historically interested, here is a complete copy of the message from Steve that announced the birth of BLML: >To: allebendig@aol.com, david@blakjak.demon.co.uk, = elandau@cais.cais.com, > willner@cfa183.harvard.edu, hermandw@innet.be, jd@pip.dknet.dk, > JBC@nov.cri.dk >Subject: bridge-law mailing list >From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) >Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:02:32 -0400 >Cc: markus@octavia.anu.edu.au > >Markus Buchhorn has set up a list for us. His directions follow. > >----- Begin Included Message ----- > >>From markus@octavia.anu.edu.au Wed Apr 24 07:54 EDT 1996 >Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 21:52:42 +1000 >From: Markus Buchhorn >To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu >Subject: Re: Request for list server > >G'day Steve > >Well - I had some time to kill, and have now installed majordomo on >rgb.anu.edu.au. It was a learning experience (it still is! :-) ). > >I've created a list called bridge-laws for want of any other short >descriptive name - if you have a better name I'm open to suggestions. >I've also invented a small intro to the list which is pretty vague. = Again, >suggestions would be great. > >So to the nitty-gritty: > >e-mail to 'majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au' >Subject: > >In the body put > >'subscribe bridge-laws' (without the quotes) > >and it should respond a.s.a.p. with the info page. The actual address >for sending items is 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' (ignore the fact that >rgb gets replaced with octavia every now and again...). All admin stuff >goes via majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au. > >Please feel free to advertise this list. I think it'll be quite = interesting >to see what sort of audience (size/type) this gets. > >If of course somebody else has set up a list then break it to me gently. >I won't be hurt - honest ! I've learnt a lot at worst :-). > >Cheers, > Markus > >P.S. note that it's my first majordomo list - somethings may still be = broken >(i.e. std disclaimers apply :-) ). > > > >----- End Included Message ----- > >The majordomo part seems to work and gives the following: > >----- Begin Included Message ----- > >>From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Wed Apr 24 11:38 EDT 1996 >Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 01:36:50 +1000 >To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu >From: majordomo@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Welcome to bridge-laws >Reply-To: majordomo@octavia.anu.edu.au > >-- > >Welcome to the bridge-laws mailing list! > >If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, >you can send mail to "majordomo" with the following command >in the body of your email message: > > unsubscribe bridge-laws willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) > >Here's the general information for the list you've >subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: > > >This is the bridge-laws mailing list, being served from the=20 >Internet Bridge Archive on rgb.anu.edu.au. > >This list is meant to be a forum to discuss the Game of Bridge and its = Laws >(and related issues). It is not a discussion list for = How-To-Build-Bridges >or what the traffic regulations are for Bridges. I've had questions >along those lines - I want to make it clear this isn't the right place. > >This is my first use of majordomo and as a mailling list admin - please >go easy on me. All my other lists (2 :-) ) are done with pure aliases. > >This charter/info will change as people contribute suggestions - which = are >heartily invited ! > >This list is being archived (I hope) and will be browseable from the IBA >Web pages (http://rgb.anu.edu.au/Bridge) one day.... > >Cheers, > Markus > >Markus Buchhorn, Parallel Computing Research Facility | Ph: +61 6 = 2492930 >email =3D markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail =3D CISR, I Block, | Fax: +61 = 6 2490747 >Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia | Mobile: 017 = 970715 > > >----- End Included Message ----- > >I have suggested the following modification to the introductory message. >Anybody with other suggestions should contact Markus. > >> This list is meant to be a forum to discuss the Game of Bridge and its= Laws >> (and related issues). It is not a discussion list for = How-To-Build-Bridges >> or what the traffic regulations are for Bridges. I've had questions >> along those lines - I want to make it clear this isn't the right = place. > >I'd suggest the following substitution/addition: > >This list is a forum for the card game of Contract Bridge. It is not a >discussion list for How-To-Build-Bridges or what the traffic >regulations are for bridges. I've had questions along those lines -- I >want to make it clear this isn't the right place. > >This list is intended specifically for relatively technical discussion >of bridge Law and procedures. Most questions about "What should the >correct ruling be?" belong in the Usenet newsgroup rec.games.bridge, as >does any other bridge matter that is likely to be of wide interest to >typical players or fans. On the other hand, material of interest only >to directors and others closely concerned with the rules of the game >goes to this list. > >Please note that messages to "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" will be sent >to everyone on the list. Administrative messages like "subscribe" and >"unsubscribe" go to "majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au". Don't get the two >confused! From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Jan 1 20:37:10 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 09:37:10 +1300 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case In-Reply-To: <3e1290d1.9ff.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000001c2b1d5$94034d70$602f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Karel > Sent: Wednesday, 1 January 2003 7:55 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Online Bridge case > > > [ inline .... ] > >> 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. 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. > > ++++Whow - and a unanimous verdict it seems. > > 1st off these guys were good ... very good. So any slam > aspirations by east > could have been bid via 5S or Grand slam via 5NT possibly > (maybe this is choose > a minor slam ... any anything except 6D). Therefore a prompt > 6D is to play. > > > 2nd 6D after a notable pause (forget about pings/Lag - the > guy was asked "was > he there" twice) is in my view a 6 and a bit diamond bid. Surely ... or maybe a stretch on 5 and a bit. If you rule against 7d when it makes by an analogous argument you could rule against passing 6d when 7d doesn't make. This is clearly not a valid position - west must be allowed to bid something. On the actual hand holding the west cards I would find it hard to imagine a hand that is worth a jump to the 6-level, with no aces, when I might have been pushed to the five-level that would not have decent play for the grand. In fact I would be more concerned that due to the hesitation that partner didn't really have a 6d bid since it seems extremely unlikely that east a passed hand could try for a grand missing all the aces. If the question occurred I think that it is more likely that the hesitation suggests pass and therefore that this should be the disallowed logical alternative. Wayne From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Jan 1 11:51:17 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 11:51:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case References: <3e1290d1.9ff.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000401c2b1d9$ffde6620$3640e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 6:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Online Bridge case > > 3rd Now over to West - he sure has a block > buster ... in the minors. But that HQ is a massive > minus especially with the majors sitting over you. > I dont want to discredit all the bridge experts here > but if my partner says I want to play in 6D then > unless I have EVERY continency covered (and I > dont with this hand) I do not bid 7. This grand is > appalling and IMO to bid it after a blatant pause > ... when you are suppose to bend over backwards > ... to say pass is not LA is pure rubbish. > > The ole chestnut - west can't read anything into > easts pause - balderdash ... > +=+ "O Lord, thou hast seen my wrong: judge thou my cause." ("But do not judge mine enemy innocent..." ? ). 1. 6D says "I judge that I want to play in six opposite a hand in the lower range of your possible holdings". 2. It is not that "west can't read anything into east's pause"; he knows east has something to think about. However, it is less than certain what he can read; whether to bid 5 or 6 is one possibility. With only Q x x x diamonds and an outside King that may not be working, it is a real possibility. 3. West has a far, far more useful hand than might have been the case. Not to convert 6 to 7 would be unthinkable. 4. For those up with the subject, it is a "hot seat" auction. 5.. Karel is entitled to an opinion, but that opinion has no value for purposes of judging the cause. Karel was involved at the table. Karel asked and has been answered. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Jan 1 11:52:31 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 11:52:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly References: Message-ID: <000501c2b1da$010f9320$3640e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 12:43 PM Subject: [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 ~ +=+ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > The prose is florid and the statement is clamorous > nonsense: > +=+ I will seek to avoid countering insult with insult. However, Jurgen would appear to think that the same laws apply when you do not claim as when you claim. He also appears to disregard the binding effect of the WBFLC ruling that I quoted some way back, an attitude of insubordination foreign to the normal policies of Zone 1. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jan 1 23:05:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 09:05:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case Message-ID: <4A256CA1.007D2A3D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Grattan wrote: >+=+ "O Lord, thou hast seen my wrong: judge >thou my cause." ("But do not judge mine enemy >innocent..." ? ). > >1. 6D says "I judge that I want to play in six >opposite a hand in the lower range of your possible >holdings". Not necessarily. It could mean that, "I am a lunatic overbidder, so I hope that you have the necessary extra values and perfect fit so that I scrape home on a double squeeze." If I was East, that would be the likely meaning. :-) >2. It is not that "west can't read anything into >east's pause"; he knows east has something to >think about. However, it is less than certain what >he can read; whether to bid 5 or 6 is one possibility. >With only Q x x x diamonds and an outside King >that may not be working, it is a real possibility. I agree that the two possibilities for the break in tempo were either: a) East holding cards which were worth calling 5 & 1/2 Diamonds, or, b) East holding cards which were worth calling 6 & 1/2 Diamonds. I also agree that if 50% of East's tempo-breaks are due to holding 5 & 1/2 Diamonds cards, and 50% of East's tempo-breaks are due to holding 6 & 1/2 Diamonds cards, then 7D is not demonstrably suggested over Pass. *However.* Suppose this particular East's tempo-breaks show an underbid 90% of the time, and an overbid 10% of the time. Then the break in tempo *does* demonstrably suggest an underbid. The fact that the actual East cards were consistent with calling 5 & 1/2 Diamonds - the 10% chance of an overbid - is Lawfully irrelevant. >3. West has a far, far more useful hand than >might have been the case. Not to convert 6 to 7 >would be unthinkable. > >4. For those up with the subject, it is a "hot >seat" auction. I agree with this judgement that 7D is the only logical alternative. But this is not a matter of Law; it is conceivable that an Appeals Committee of West's peers (such as kitchen-bridge players) would judge that Pass was another logical alternative. >5. Karel is entitled to an opinion, but that >opinion has no value for purposes of judging the >cause. Karel was involved at the table. Karel >asked and has been answered. My answer to Karel is that his posting contained no errors of Law. The difference between Karel and the majority of blml is in two matters of judgement; what a particular break in tempo demonstrably suggests, and whether there is a solitary logical alternative. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Jan 1 23:20:37 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 23:20:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case References: <4A256CA1.007D2A3D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000e01c2b1ec$7bf90230$d600e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Online Bridge case > > > Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ "O Lord, thou hast seen my wrong: judge > >thou my cause." ("But do not judge mine enemy > >innocent..." ? ). > > > >1. 6D says "I judge that I want to play in six > >opposite a hand in the lower range of your possible > >holdings". > > Not necessarily. It could mean that, "I am a lunatic > overbidder, so I hope that you have the necessary > extra values and perfect fit so that I scrape home on > a double squeeze." > +=+ Note that my words were 'I want' - not 'I should want', or 'I would reasonably wish', or 'most players would wish'. +=+ From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Jan 1 23:39:32 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:39:32 +1300 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case In-Reply-To: <4A256CA1.007D2A3D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000001c2b1ef$0d18e2b0$d09037d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Thursday, 2 January 2003 12:05 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Online Bridge case > > > > > Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ "O Lord, thou hast seen my wrong: judge > >thou my cause." ("But do not judge mine enemy > >innocent..." ? ). > > > >1. 6D says "I judge that I want to play in six > >opposite a hand in the lower range of your possible > >holdings". > > Not necessarily. It could mean that, "I am a lunatic > overbidder, so I hope that you have the necessary > extra values and perfect fit so that I scrape home on > a double squeeze." > > If I was East, that would be the likely meaning. :-) > > >2. It is not that "west can't read anything into > >east's pause"; he knows east has something to > >think about. However, it is less than certain what > >he can read; whether to bid 5 or 6 is one possibility. > >With only Q x x x diamonds and an outside King > >that may not be working, it is a real possibility. > > I agree that the two possibilities for the break in > tempo were either: > > a) East holding cards which were worth calling 5 & 1/2 > Diamonds, or, > > b) East holding cards which were worth calling 6 & 1/2 > Diamonds. > > I also agree that if 50% of East's tempo-breaks are > due to holding 5 & 1/2 Diamonds cards, and 50% of East's > tempo-breaks are due to holding 6 & 1/2 Diamonds cards, > then 7D is not demonstrably suggested over Pass. > > *However.* > > Suppose this particular East's tempo-breaks show an > underbid 90% of the time, and an overbid 10% of the time. > Then the break in tempo *does* demonstrably suggest an > underbid. The fact that the actual East cards were > consistent with calling 5 & 1/2 Diamonds - the 10% chance > of an overbid - is Lawfully irrelevant. I do not agree with this logic Richard. There is additional information - West has a rock. Even if a priori there is only a 10% chance of an overbid I believe that those odds are not definitive in terms of making any particular decision. In particular on this occasion we know or can be fairly certain that partner is not making an underbid as partner has no aces etc. Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Jan 1 23:40:31 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:40:31 +1300 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case In-Reply-To: <000401c2b1d9$ffde6620$3640e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000101c2b1ef$2fcc6660$d09037d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Thursday, 2 January 2003 12:51 a.m. > To: bridge laws mailing list > Subject: Re: [blml] Online Bridge case > > > 4. For those up with the subject, it is a "hot > seat" auction. For those of us who are ignorant explain the jargon please. TIA Wayne From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jan 2 01:35:25 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 20:35:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. In-Reply-To: <005b01c2b11e$c4464530$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <200212312107.QAA26300@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030101193806.00a3eb50@pop.starpower.net> At 05:48 PM 12/31/02, Sven wrote: >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????? The laws simply do not do this. This player may be too exhausted to know which of two potential lines is better, but he can be sure that if he tries this ploy he will receive the score for the worse of the two possible lines... unless he is hallucinating severely, and contemplating two lines one of which is totally irrational: "I think I can take five tricks with AKQJ2 opposite 6543, but I wonder whether I should start with the ace or the deuce"? "I think I can take two tricks with A3 opposite K2, but I wonder whether I'm supposed to play the king or the deuce under the ace"? I don't think so. Or even... "I have AKQJ8/K/-/- and LHO just played the HA, but I wonder whether the HK or the S8 is the more likely winner"? Nope. >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. And nobody wants to change this; our debate in this thread is solely over how we shall judge "any doubt on his intentions". >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. Obviously, I am not a Burn school hard-liner, but I do agree with Sven's implication that some in this forum would go too far. I certainly do think that his hypothetical exhausted player might be muddled enough, but need not be under the influence of strong hallicinogens, for something like "I think I can take five tricks with A1032 opposite KQ954, but I wonder whether I should start with the ace or the king". This is a stupidity, but not an irrationality on the order of misplaying AKQJ2 opposite 6543 or A3 opposite K2. > > > 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? We could start by getting rid of the pernicious fallacy implied by "'irrational' (for his class)", and recognizing that "irrational" means irrational, period. Like not realizing that the ace is the only card in a suit higher than the king. > > 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. Mechanical rules are very nice, but will never cover every situation, unless we force ourselves to presume irrational plays, or to refuse to presume stupid but not irrational ones, when they don't happen to be covered by those rules mechanically applied. Some common sense will always be needed, and, if forced to a choice, I would rather see us rely purely on common sense without any mechanical rules, than rely purely on mechanical rules without any common sense. > > > 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. That's OK, if we realize that "what the claimer has demonstrated with his statement" is not necessarily that he will follow his statement literally regardless of what might subsequently transpire after he begins to do so. >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). I think it's safe to presume that he can count a suit to 13 (will not play AKQJ2 opposite 6543 by playing A,K,Q,2, thinking that 9+3=13), but if Sven is saying that we cannot presume that he can draw the necessary implications from counting a hand to 13, then I agree. I also agree that we cannot presume that he has necessarily remembered the played cards unless he has so demonstrated in his statement (note "demonstrated", which is not the same as "explicitly stated"). But we can presume that he knows that aces beat kings, kings beat queens, trumps beat non-trumps, etc. We can also presume, as the laws currently require, that he would see the opponents' plays, not make mechanical errors pulling his cards, and not make illegal plays. Do we really want players saying things like "I know exactly what the right play is but I am almost exhausted so I might easily accidentally pull my cards in the wrong order. Therefore I claim and trust that the Director will award me the number of tricks I deserve under normal conditions, not mentioning anything about being so tired that I can hardly hold my cards and so might accidentally drop the wrong one on the table if I play on"? Well, yes, I, for one, do. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Jan 2 02:28:43 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 02:28:43 GMT Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case Message-ID: <3e13a3db.1f5a.0@esatclear.ie> > 1. 6D says "I judge that I want to play in six >opposite a hand in the lower range of your possible >holdings". +++ To be honest where the guy got 6D from I'll never know. 4NT could be any 1 of a million hands even a sacrifice. DQxxxx and HKxx = 6D !! cripes > 2. It is not that "west can't read anything into >east's pause"; he knows east has something to >think about. However, it is less than certain what >he can read; whether to bid 5 or 6 is one possibility. >With only Q x x x diamonds and an outside King >that may not be working, it is a real possibility. +++ let me ask you this. Lets say instead of bidding 6D east bids 5D with a long pause. Do we still allow west now to bid 6D ?? > 3. West has a far, far more useful hand than >might have been the case. +++ precisely and that is the whole point. West underbid his hand the 1st time !! If west is going to bid slam over any response from partner why did he not bid 5NT or 5S etc the 1st time ?? He didn't bid it because he doesn't have the values for game let alone a grand opposite a huge number of hands his partner may have. So what he did was he underbid his hand and was then "planning" to bid on or pass depending on partners bid, note partners bid, not partners pause !! How many cases have we seen where the bidder makes a forcing bid with substancial extras "planning" to bid further over partners reponse and is then compromised by partners actions ?? I've read loads of such cases. Each time while further action is quite reasonable over a smooth response from partner - over questionable actions from pd the same action is not reasonable and other LA's become possible. This is unquestionably such a case. I am not arguing that west is not allowed to bid 7D - he can bid whatever he wants so long as his hand stands up on its own merit to support that bid. You all feel its the clearest 7D ever. I disagree. These guys had the bidding arsenal and experience to explore for a slam/grand without resorting to long pauses. Lets cut to the chase - 6D pause - indicates a problem with the hand, some features/extras above and beyond a 5D bid. With no problems we get a prompt 5D. After lenghty consideration East felt these extras where worth a 6D bid. West is now aware that East has a hand which is better than 5D and which is good enough in Easts mind to go to 6 opposite a nebulous 4NT. During this pause west has been given time and assurance that East should have DQJ & the critical CQ OR some compensating distribution. If not what is east deliberating over ?? Over a prompt 6D by East, West MAY figure out or convince himself that East has these key cards and is entitled to bid on. The message a prompt 6D gives is "Pd 6D is the max I think we can make, you may not count on anything extra from me". IMO this clear message from Pd includes the possibility of - pd NOT having the QC, - having 2 spades, - not having the KH, - not to mention the opponents bidding suggesting bad breaks, would be sufficient to deter me from bidding 7D and thereby creating the obvious LA - Pass. - what I am arguing is that if 7D makes it gets rolled back to 6D+1 and if it goes down the result stays. Why ?? Pd's actions (pausing) have compromised our planned actions which we should bend over backwards to avoid if there is a LA. The laws should protect the opps in these circumstances. Apparently not. -- http://www.iol.ie From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Thu Jan 2 07:18:29 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 02:18:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case In-Reply-To: <4A256CA1.007D2A3D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030102021157.01df7e58@mail.comcast.net> At 06:05 PM 1/1/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >I agree that the two possibilities for the break in >tempo were either: > >a) East holding cards which were worth calling 5 & 1/2 > Diamonds, or, > >b) East holding cards which were worth calling 6 & 1/2 > Diamonds. > >I also agree that if 50% of East's tempo-breaks are >due to holding 5 & 1/2 Diamonds cards, and 50% of East's >tempo-breaks are due to holding 6 & 1/2 Diamonds cards, >then 7D is not demonstrably suggested over Pass. > >*However.* > >Suppose this particular East's tempo-breaks show an >underbid 90% of the time, and an overbid 10% of the time. >Then the break in tempo *does* demonstrably suggest an >underbid. The fact that the actual East cards were >consistent with calling 5 & 1/2 Diamonds - the 10% chance >of an overbid - is Lawfully irrelevant. However, West's own holding must be taken into account; the meaning of the UI must be taken in the context of the AI. Regardless of East's normal underbidding tendencies, West has AI that East is not underbidding on this hand, and as a result, the UI demonstrably suggests that East is overbidding. From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jan 2 07:50:13 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 07:50:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case References: <3e13a3db.1f5a.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000f01c2b233$f8efda60$540de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Online Bridge case > > +++ let me ask you this. > +=+ No further profit is to be had. It is time to disengage courteously from the subject. +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jan 2 08:16:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 08:16 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case In-Reply-To: <3e1290d1.9ff.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote: > [ inline .... ] > >> 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 > I do not bid 7. This grand is appalling and IMO to bid it after a > blatant pause ... when you are suppose to bend over backwards ... to say > pass is not LA is pure rubbish. I think almost everybody who posted agreed that pass was an LA. > The ole chestnut - west can't read anything into easts pause - > balderdash ... It's not that we "can't read anything" - it's that we can't read a precise message. We have all played with partners who would stretch to 6D after considerable thought on x,xxxx,QJxxxx,xx. Personally I am of the opinion that a long pause in this type of situation more often means "stretch" than "extras". As such I would feel obliged to bid the contra-indicated 7D also an LA (eschewing the suggested pass). When I look at the East hand I still consider 6D a "stretch" - East had a 5.5D bid. Tim From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Thu Jan 2 12:27:09 2003 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 13:27:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case References: Message-ID: <006b01c2b25a$473ee460$25b54351@noos.fr> I have read a lot of comments on this case. There seems to be a notable pause. Well a notable pause in this sequence seems rather normal te me. First, just of sudden you have to take a high level decision. Second, the strength, distribution and intention of 4NT is anybody's guess (yes it is something with minors). So the guy needs time to come to his senses. After that he has to evaluate his own hand. So normal tempo is this situation is notable longer than what to bid over 1NT - 3 NT by opponents. So the notable pause might well be within acceptable bounds (no UI). But let's make a very long pause (UI). Then still it is hard to put a real meaning into it. Most comments say he could be only thing about 5D,6D and 7D. Nonsense. If he thinks he has the values for 6D (but nobody can tell you what that really is) he might have considered 6C or a pick the suit 5H or 5S cuebid. Or he might be thinking about the meaning of 5H, 5S,5NT. Who knows. In Holland we have come up with a guideline for this type of situations. If the guy thinks long enough to produce UI and then makes a weak bid (here 5C or 5D) we tend to be strict because then the UI is very clear (he was thinking of something more positive). But if he makes a positive bid (AND the UI is hard to pinpoint) we tend to let them play bridge. So my ruling would be no UI. Forget about LA because anything is a LA in situations where nobody knows what is going on. Besides, only one thing is sure in my opinion, it is inconceivable that partner has been thinking about 7D, so for this reason alone 7D has not been suggested by the pause (so even if there was UI it was not that UI). To conclude, the 6D bid is lunatic but produced a good result. Probably the opponents were unhappy about that. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 9:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Online Bridge case > Karel wrote: > > [ inline .... ] > > >> 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 > > > I do not bid 7. This grand is appalling and IMO to bid it after a > > blatant pause ... when you are suppose to bend over backwards ... to say > > pass is not LA is pure rubbish. > > I think almost everybody who posted agreed that pass was an LA. > > > The ole chestnut - west can't read anything into easts pause - > > balderdash ... > > It's not that we "can't read anything" - it's that we can't read a precise > message. We have all played with partners who would stretch to 6D after > considerable thought on x,xxxx,QJxxxx,xx. Personally I am of the opinion > that a long pause in this type of situation more often means "stretch" > than "extras". As such I would feel obliged to bid the contra-indicated > 7D also an LA (eschewing the suggested pass). When I look at the East > hand I still consider 6D a "stretch" - East had a 5.5D bid. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jan 2 13:18:51 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 08:18:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims, classes, and clarity In-Reply-To: <4A256CA0.001A1323.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030102081426.00a4fd90@pop.starpower.net> At 12:02 AM 12/31/02, richard.hills wrote: >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)* Or we could simply add to the Definitions: "Incontrovertable: So obvious that it doesn't take a mind reader to figure it out." But seriously, folks, isn't that the way we interpret it in real life situations now? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From gester@lineone.net Thu Jan 2 15:56:03 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:56:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hot seat jargon. References: <000101c2b1ef$2fcc6660$d09037d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <003101c2b277$fa857da0$332a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; "'bridge laws mailing list'" Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 11:40 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Online Bridge case > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > > Sent: Thursday, 2 January 2003 12:51 a.m. > > To: bridge laws mailing list > > Subject: Re: [blml] Online Bridge case > > > > > > 4. For those up with the subject, it is a "hot > > seat" auction. > > For those of us who are ignorant explain the jargon > please. > > TIA > > Wayne > +=+ I quote from the WBF Code of Practice for appeals committees, as extended November 2001, in connection here with calls made under pressure of opponents' actions: "Hot Seat Rulings" An ACBL appeals committee passed comments that fit very well with WBF thinking in relation to what they called 'hot seat' auctions. It is desirable to exhibit extra tolerance in relation to a 'hesitation' when a player encounters an unprecedented situation in the auction. Thought was given to requiring a twenty second pause behind screens over a skip bid; there was also discussion of a possibility this might extend to abnormal situations encountered in the auction because of opponents' extraordinary agreements. These are questions that may arise again if we are unsuccessful in securing the desired irregularity of movement of the tray. An aspect that has special significance, when a player meets a quite unusual bidding situation and takes time to deliberate, is how clearly it is apparent to partner what is the nature of his problem. In such a situation a player may have to think from scratch what action is appropriate, and it is not altogether rare that he may have all three options - pass, double (redouble), and bid, and a choice to make. If a Director is inclined to find that the partner's subsequent bid* is suggested by the breach of tempo, the first consideration is to judge whether the message from the 'hesitation' is unclear. A sympathetic treatment of the law here should be an aim and it is an area in which regulating authorities may find it helpful to give guidance. ------------------------------------------------------------ *January 2003 - reading this today I think I might have written 'action' rather than 'bid'. :-) GE. +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jan 2 16:12:18 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:12:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case Message-ID: <200301021612.LAA07587@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > > >> 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 > From: "Karel" > Lets say instead of bidding 6D east bids 5D with a > long pause. Do we still allow west now to bid 6D ?? As Jaap pointed out, this would be a completely different case. When East pauses and then selects a _minimum_ action, the suggestion of extra values is pretty clear. There is no such inference in the actual auction. > Lets cut to the chase - 6D pause - indicates a problem with the hand, Yes. > some features/extras above and beyond a 5D bid. Once again, how do you propose to "demonstrate" this? No one else agrees with it, and in actual fact, East had nothing resembling extras. > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > I think almost everybody who posted agreed that pass was an LA. I think Tim left out a "not." My own view is that under the CoP standard, it's a very close question whether pass is a LA or not. Of course it doesn't matter in the actual case, because the UI doesn't suggest one LA over another. From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jan 2 23:06:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 23:06 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case In-Reply-To: <200301021612.LAA07587@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > I think almost everybody who posted agreed that pass was an LA. > > I think Tim left out a "not." Nope. The impression I got from the original responses was that 7D was "normal, best action, what I would decide" but that a genuine decision existed - and one which players of a lesser standard could easily get wrong. I am personally of the opinion that punting (and it was) a grand is a decision which almost always has an LA (although of course I'd have bid 7D myself!). > My own view is that under the CoP standard, it's a very close question > whether pass is a LA or not. Of course it doesn't matter in the actual > case, because the UI doesn't suggest one LA over another. This was the strongest impression I got. Pass may well be an LA but we can't be bothered to think too hard because 7D clearly isn't suggested. Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Jan 3 07:30:04 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 07:30:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case References: Message-ID: <001301c2b2fa$13e973f0$842de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Online Bridge case > > This was the strongest impression I got. Pass > may well be an LA but we can't be bothered to > think too hard because 7D clearly isn't suggested. > > Tim > +=+ I am of the opinion that 7D is not demonstrably suggested over another logical alternative by the UI from the slow call. However, this exercise has been academic since no answer was wanted to the question put unless it supported the questioner's position. ~ G ~ +=+ From karel@esatclear.ie Sat Jan 4 22:12:16 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:12:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case In-Reply-To: <001301c2b2fa$13e973f0$842de150@endicott> Message-ID: +=+ I am of the opinion that 7D is not demonstrably suggested over another logical alternative by the UI from the slow call. However, this exercise has been academic since no answer was wanted to the question put unless it supported the questioner's position. ~ G ~ +=+ +++ I think Jaap's comment about underbid/overbid is an excellent idea. I'm also happy to see a slow 5D bid would be treated differently. I also agree with those who feel 7D is a punt - 7D is far from obvious. My reason in bringing this case was not as Grattan feels, self gratification, but to question how the law deals with various levels of ability (which it currently doesn't and IMO should). If this 7D punt had occured in my local club made by some LOL who got so excited with her hand over 6D that she just had to bid 7D - I'd take it on the chin. She knows no better and never will - who cares it's a social game. This wasn't the case. One opp was an international the other a strong player. Both of these players are well capable of making deductions from tempo. We all agree that the slow 6D is a 5.5 - 6.5 diamond bid. As West can't know whether its an overbid or an underbid we allow the 7D bid. My argument is that if a good player pauses and then bids 6D's anyway he will have the values for a 6D bid in one form or another (ie) he is not a 5.5 bid but a full 6 now. Leaving the actual hand aside, if I was west i hear 2 types of auction. (1) 4NT ... 6D. I'd expect something like S(xx) H Kx(xx) DQxxxx(x) Cxxx(x). I'd be pretty certain I'm missing a key card or possibly two. I have a 4 loser hand and need pd to cover em ... pretty unlikely. I'd still consider 7D and may or may not bid 7D. (2) 4NT ... Longgg pause 6D. I'd immediately think - whats he thinking about ?? He must have something to think about - one thing for sure, he's not minimum. All I really need is both minor Q's & 5+ trumps to make 7. Infact with both minors he'd probably bid 5NT so we're likely to be able to set up the clubs and now that i think about it he must have one or both Major Kings for bidding 6D. This ENFORCED extra time afforded to me to visualise/analyse Pd's values would give me considerable impetus to consider strongly if not bid 7D. Note the difference ... over a prompt 6D I may or may not bid 7D. Over a pause I'm forced to try and figure out what "Problem" pd has and in so doing "discover" that my pd may well have the hand I need for the grand. My expectation would be in direct proportion to my partners abilities. A strong partner has more options available and doesn't require a long pause to work em out. A strong partner wont punt opposite nebulous values (obviously this east is an exception). Finally and not least - a strong pd knows that a prolonged pause will put severe pressure on me and wont put me in that situation !! IMO stronger players should be held to a much higher standard and ruled against more frequently and harshly. I'd go so far as to say that in pausitis cases (and others), we should not say well we can't figure out what he was pausing over but assume the worst for strong players and rule accordingly. Karel From adam@tameware.com Sat Jan 4 23:00:58 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 18:00:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:12 PM +0000 1/4/03, Karel wrote: >I'd go so far as to say that in pausitis cases (and others), we should not >say well we can't figure out what he was pausing over but assume the worst >for strong players and rule accordingly. Suppose West had passed 6D, and suppose further that North held C Qxx so that 12 tricks were the limit of the hand. How would you rule? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sun Jan 5 00:09:47 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 15:09:47 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case In-Reply-To: <006b01c2b25a$473ee460$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > In Holland we have come up with a guideline for this type of situations. If > the guy thinks long enough to produce UI and then makes a weak bid (here 5C > or 5D) we tend to be strict because then the UI is very clear (he was > thinking of something more positive). But if he makes a positive bid (AND > the UI is hard to pinpoint) we tend to let them play bridge. An interesting idea, and one with some history to it, I think. This is the first I've heard of it in quite some time. In my club we have a gentleman who was a director in the past (he would have taken his exam in ACBLand under the 1975 laws) but neither directed nor played much for many years. He has recently become more active again (and finally caught up with the 1997 changes in the laws.) Several times I have overheard him telling people (when it comes up in conversation - not giving a ruling) that "if you hesitate and pass, your partner is barred, but if you hesitate and take a positive action, he can still do as he likes." I've been trying, with difficulty, to convince him it's not actually as simple as that. I am wondering if, at one time, this actually WAS the rule, or at least a widely-circulated slight simplification of it (kind of like "a psych has to surprise partner as much as the opponents.") In cases where there is an underbid available but not an overbid, or in "non-pass is suggested over pass" or vice-versa cases, it may well be a useable guideline. (I realize Jaap is not proposing making this the rule in all UI situations.) GRB From SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com Sun Jan 5 01:36:27 2003 From: SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com (SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 20:36:27 EST Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <91.287862ac.2b48e61b@aol.com> In a message dated 05/01/03 00:19:14 GMT Standard Time, siegmund@mosquitonet.com writes: > Several times I have overheard him telling people (when it comes up in > conversation - not giving a ruling) that "if you hesitate and pass, your > partner is barred, but if you hesitate and take a positive action, he can > still do as he likes." I've been trying, with difficulty, to convince him > it's not actually as simple as that. Yes, this is a most popular misconception that I find myself exorcising from players time after time. To demonstrate that, as Siegmund says, "it's not as simple as that", I often tell the story of an incident that took place at a BBL Congress in Buxton, England, a few years ago in the Swiss Pairs. I was playing against one of the top juniors (I'm sure he was only school age) who was on my left and in a competitive situation, my partner hesitated for a long time before passing my LHO's bid. It came round to me and I also passed. At this point, LHO called the TD to reserve his rights as I had passed! As it happened, I had no logical alternative to passing as I had already overbid my hand earlier in the auction. LHO was keen for me to compete so that he could make a lucrative penalty double. I was quite impressed with the youngster's reserving of his rights in that situation and I relate the incident to suggest that sometimes it could actually be wrong to pass after partner has hesitated before passing and how a TD will examine each case on its merits. I doubt, of course, that anyone has ever heard of a ruling against a pass in such circumstances, but maybe someone can surprise me! Best wishes from Barrie Barrie Partridge Derbyshire, England From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Jan 5 07:50:42 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 23:50:42 -0800 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <91.287862ac.2b48e61b@aol.com> Message-ID: <000e01c2b48f$9f1e95e0$4d981e18@san.rr.com> From: > siegmund@mosquitonet.com writes: > > > Several times I have overheard him telling people (when it comes up in > > conversation - not giving a ruling) that "if you hesitate and pass, your > > partner is barred, but if you hesitate and take a positive action, he can > > still do as he likes." I've been trying, with difficulty, to convince him > > it's not actually as simple as that. > > Yes, this is a most popular misconception that I find myself exorcising from > players time after time. > > To demonstrate that, as Siegmund says, "it's not as simple as that", I often > tell the story of an incident that took place at a BBL Congress in Buxton, > England, a few years ago in the Swiss Pairs. I was playing against one of the > top juniors (I'm sure he was only school age) who was on my left and in a > competitive situation, my partner hesitated for a long time before passing my > LHO's bid. It came round to me and I also passed. At this point, LHO called > the TD to reserve his rights as I had passed! > > As it happened, I had no logical alternative to passing as I had already > overbid my hand earlier in the auction. LHO was keen for me to compete so > that he could make a lucrative penalty double. > > I was quite impressed with the youngster's reserving of his rights in that > situation and I relate the incident to suggest that sometimes it could > actually be wrong to pass after partner has hesitated before passing and how > a TD will examine each case on its merits. > > I doubt, of course, that anyone has ever heard of a ruling against a pass in > such circumstances, but maybe someone can surprise me! > Never heard of such, no, but the situation could arise (theoretically) for an adverse ruling when a player passes opposite a hesitating partner. Imagine someone who loves to open ultra-light hands in third position, but when partner has hesitated fears that he will get into trouble by bidding. A pass has been "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation, and L16 requires that he make the bid he would normally make, which is an LA for him. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From HauffHJ@aol.com Fri Jan 3 10:45:50 2003 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 05:45:50 EST Subject: [blml] law78-non-scorers Message-ID: <2d.28e96d62.2b46c3de@aol.com> --part1_2d.28e96d62.2b46c3de_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable LAW78-nonScorers Law 77 does not know negative Scores. But such values are widely used for non-scorers when establishing ranking lists via law 78.=20 Below you will find some basic facts regarding "Non-Scorers".=20 Below is a short version of the complete text, published under www.bridgeassistant.com/web-b14e, which includes strategies. Direct commentaries to the author are welcome. The influence of evaluation in Scoring methods=20 Introduction: In MP-pair tournaments, the best ones show in front of the=20 winners list,=20 and the weak ones at the end, but wether you are number one, or two, or thre= e=20 etc.=20 depends on luck. As fortuitousness (good or bad cards) can be eliminated in= =20 all=20 species of matches, we have to dig deep into the evaluation system, to find=20 out=20 the reasons of the deficiency of the actually played type of MP events. Summary (short): evaluation in tournaments uses a mixture=20 of methods. The reciprok method leads to unjust results. BASIC FACTS Winner finding in bridge is based on scores. They have a numerical value=20 from 50 to 7600. If two pairs compete one of these pairs gets a score, the=20 other not. This is sufficient to establish a winner list, when many pairs=20 compete within the same tournament. All you need to do is to sum up scores=20 won per pair.=20 The law of Duplicate Contract Bridge listed this method under =A778C, "total= =20 point scoring".=20 It uses the numerical value "zero" for the non-scorers. But it could happen, that in a contest all deals show the high cards in the=20 EW=20 section, and no NS pair would be able to score. There are several main=20 methods=20 to overcome the situation, and they are used single or in combination.:=20 1) play a big number of boards and hope, that highcards are evenly=20 distributed to both sides ;=20 2) select boards by "playweight", before the competition starts; =20 3) to play a great number of deals from both sides in two innings. 4) to form a team-of-four, where the members of each team play the NS side as well the EW side, (one of these pairs scores) ; and=20 5) to attribute a score to the Non-scorers. There are several possibilities to do this, and they are listed below. 6) employ the MP or IMP counting method. THE WAY TO MP AND IMPs The bridge world developed two more main branches (methods) of evaluation,=20 and our strategies in bidding and play depend on them.=20 Tey are : A) matchpoint method: you win popints from each board (78A); B) scores transformed into IMPs (78B) With the m a t c h p o i n t m e t h o d you get MP (matchpoints), two if= =20 you=20 are better and 1 (one) if you ar equal to the others in a board. With the IMP method ( International MatchPoint), your scores are transforme= d=20 into IMPs. . Within this method: your score is compared to one ( or more)=20 other scores. =20 The difference is taken, and the difference then is, with the help of a=20 table, transformed=20 into IMPs. By this figures a held smal and they are better to accumulate. In= =20 this sense we could say that IMP are "shrinked scores" . Table: the lawmakers invented a method to diminuish the effect of high sc ores.=20 Without this method, the result of o n e board only could topple the=20 outcome of all other boards.=20 There are t h r e e d i f f e r e n t m a i n c o n c e p t s of=20= =20 evaluating in IMPs:=20 1) comparing "against average", other name is "against DatumScore" or=20 "Butler". The bottom=20 line of this method is easy to see: you want to know how much (in IMPs) you=20 are better=20 or poorer compared to the average.=20 2 comparing in IMPs "across the field" of a board. The general idea=20 is the same as in MP-tournaments: you compare your result to all=20 other results in a board. But instead of MP you get IMPs =3D=20 transformed score differences.=20 3 comparing against the "NS result of the other table", which needs =20 two pairs acting against an other team.=20 This is known as "Team-of-four match.=20 This type of match is actually considered as an event where results are=20 considered just. These concepts will have influence on your strategies. SCORER AND NON-SCORER =20 We have to face the fact that the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" (LAW)=20 shows=20 scores for only one of two competing pairs within a given board/deal. The LA= W=20 makes no provisions for the non-scorers. The same happens in a fishing contest: if you dont catch fish, there will be= =20 no=20 price and you will not be named in the winners list. But non-scorers are evaluated in real life, and there are different methods=20 to do this.=20 Here is a - uncomplete - list: a) zero score b) reciprok=20 c) by tricks made=20 c) by groups e) others The z e r o s c o r e m e t h o d says, if you dont catch a score then= =20 you have=20 nothing. In mathematical terms this is "nought" or zero; "a point on the=20 scale of an=20 instrument from which a positive or negative quatity is reckoned" (Oxford=20 concise).=20 It uses the numerical value "zero" for the non-scorers. The r e c i p r o k m e t h o d attributes the positive quantity of the= =20 scorer as a=20 negative quantity ( win =3D loss) to the non-scorer. If the scorer makes a=20 score of 120,=20 then his opponent gets -120. This is a double evaluation: if we evaluate, we collect information to a=20 given item.=20 Evaluating reciprok tells nothing new about the non-scorer.=20 In fact, this method establishes something unjust. In many cases, one of the pair has no chance to declare because of high card= =20 distribution, but this fact does not make a good or bad player. The ability=20 of the non-scorer=20 should be measured by other items, but not by the action of the declarer.=20 The g r o u p e v a l u a t i o n method distinguishes between three=20 types of non-scorer:=20 1) the one where his opponent made his contract,=20 2) the one where his opponent fell,=20 and 3) where the declarer did purposedly not make his contract, to avoid=20 a higher score of his opponent ( successfull defense). The t r i c k m e t h o d takes into account, that the non-declares=20 will=20 try to make as many tricks as possible, independent wether the declarer=20 did bid slam, game or partscore. It will make no difference: whether the=20 non-declarer made this 1 tricks against a slam, game or part score, he will= =20 get=20 the same amount of rewards.=20 Within the MP method, internal values between 1 and 49 could be used as vehicel of value for the calculation.=20 Within the IMP method, an real "score" could be attributet to each trick=20 made. The use of a score value for the Non-Scorer is a fact, which has=20 heavy influence on justice in evaluation. L I K E W I T H L I K E This is a general rule for just results, we must compare like with like. It is valid in many cases: For movements: any pair must compete against the same number of opponents.=20 Any section or group within a bigger event must have the same number of pair= s ( If not, a method of compensation must be employed). For accounting: if we establih a movement for a bridge tournament, we have=20 the choice to compare the results (of all boards) of those pairs, which=20 played=20 troughout the tournament NS hands or EW hands ( generally called Mitchell=20 movements). This procedure excludes fortuitousness (good or bad cards), as=20 there is no difference in the hands played. This is one of the great=20 advantages=20 of bridge in comparison to all other card games. If players change direction from NS to EW during an event, then the result=20 depends on luck and is not just (Howell and "scrambled Mitchel" type=20 tournament). A great number of deals played within an event might reduce the effect of=20 luck. u n i l a t e r a l / b i l a t e r a l There is one more task of comparison, it must be done/decided within any=20 board. We can compare the results independet of the fact that a players plays from=20 the=20 NS or EW direction (unilateral comparing). Or left side, and right side are= =20 evaluatet=20 in separate. (bilateral comparison). Nothing is said in the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" regarding=20 bilateral or unilateral. Both methods have different effects in matchpoin evaluation. In IMP events the original value of the score is maintained resp=20 transformed, so=20 there is no difference in the effect of both methods. In unilateral comparing we maintain the value relation of the original =20 score.=20 A 420 score would will remain bigger than a score of 50. In bilateral=20 comparing,=20 the effects ot the original scores are altered. A 50 score could have the=20 same=20 effect as a 420 score. Example: NS: 150;120;120;120,0; EW 0;0;0;0;50 .=20 In unilateral evalution "50" is fith in the ranking list;=20 In bilateral evaluation the same "50" is first of the EW-side ranking list. The choice between unilateral or bilateral in MP events depends on our=20 opinion,=20 which method brings more justice. With regard to this point, we should=20 consider,=20 that the possibility to declare depends on the concentration of the "high=20 points" on=20 the left or right side. Insofar, we could take it for just, when we raise= =20 the=20 matchpoint gain for the disadvantegeous side, where the bulk of the=20 non-scorers appear. In Praxi, evaluation is in nearly all tournaments is done bilateral: left=20 side and=20 right side in a board are calculated in separate. I R R E G U L A R I T E S (Non-Scorers left and right side) Board-slips disappear, bords are fouled, scores are miscalculated ond other=20 cases:=20 they have one thing in common: there are no regular scores. How to act ? Evalution is based on comparing scores. There is no dificulty to attribute=20 the lowest possible Score (within a given board) to such Non-Scorers, and at the same time to give MP or IMP in the amount considered just in separate bookkeeping. The lowest possible score will create zero (or near zero) MP or IMPs, but maintain the rights (for MPs/IMPs) of the other contestants in a given board. Progress in modern computer technology made it possible to have perfect=20 tools to run tournaments evaluated by different MP and IMP based methods THE INFLUENCE OF HANDLING The evolution of scoring methods was very much influenced by the method of= =20 calculating scores by hand. This is a common experience in life: present=20 tools=20 delay the invention of new tools. Progress in modern computer technology =20 made i t possible to have perfect tools to run tournaments evaluated by =20 different MP and IMP based methods. In MP events, it is rather simple to attribute MP to the sorers by hand. And= =20 there=20 is little difficulty to find the MP values for the non scorers, because this= =20 is the=20 differenc between top-value of the boards and the MPs made from the scorer.=20 Because of this simple way, the deficiencies of the reciprok method were=20 never=20 discussed or investigated. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The influence of evaluation in Scoring methods (c) 2003 by Paul Hauff, Germany www.bridgeassistant.com HauffHJ@aol.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- ------- --part1_2d.28e96d62.2b46c3de_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable LAW78-nonScorers

Law 77 does not know negative Scores. But such values are widely used
for non-scorers when establishing ranking lists via law 78.
Below you will find some basic facts regarding "Non-Scorers".
Below  is a short version of the complete text, published under
www.bridgeassistant.com/web-b14e, which includes strategies.
Direct commentaries to the author are welcome.

The influence of evaluation in Scoring methods
Introduction: In MP-pair tournaments, the best ones show in front of the win= ners list,
and the weak ones at the end, but wether you are number one, or two, or thre= e etc.
depends on luck.  As fortuitousness (good or bad cards) can be eliminat= ed in all
species of matches, we have to dig deep into the evaluation system, to find=20= out
the reasons of the deficiency of the actually played type of MP events.

Summary (short): evaluati= on in tournaments uses a mixture
of methods.  The reciprok method leads to unjust results.


BASIC FACTS
Winner finding in bridge is based on scores. They have a numerical value from 50 to 7600. If two pairs compete one of these pairs gets a score, the <= BR> other not. This is sufficient to establish a winner list, when many pairs compete within the same tournament. All you need to do is to sum up scores w= on per pair.

The law of Duplicate Contract Bridge listed this method under =A778C, "total= point scoring".
It uses the numerical value "zero" for the non-scorers.

But it could happen, that in a contest all deals show the high cards in the=20= EW
section, and no NS pair would be able to score. There are several main metho= ds
to overcome the situation, and they are used single or in combination.:
1) play a big number of boards and hope, that highcards are evenly distribut= ed to both sides ;
2) select boards by "playweight", before the competition starts; 
3) to play a great number of deals from both sides in two innings.
4) to form a team-of-four, where the members of each team play the
    NS side as well the EW side, (one of these pairs scores)=20= ; and
5) to attribute a score to the Non-scorers.
     There are several possibilities to do this, and the= y are listed below.
6) employ the MP or IMP counting method.

THE WAY  TO  MP  AND IMPs
The bridge world developed two more main branches  (methods) of evaluat= ion,
and our strategies in bidding and play depend on them.
Tey are :
A) matchpoint method: you win popints from each board (78A);
B) scores transformed into IMPs (78B)


With the m a t c h p o i n t   m e t h o d  you get MP (match= points), two if you
are better and 1 (one) if you ar equal to the others in a board.

With the IMP method ( International MatchPoint), your scores  are trans= formed
into IMPs. . Within this method: your score is compared to one ( or more) ot= her scores. 
The difference is taken, and the difference then is, with the help of a tabl= e, transformed
into IMPs. By this figures a held smal and they are better to accumulate. In= this
sense we could say that IMP are "shrinked scores" .
Table: the lawmakers invented a method to diminuish the effect of high score= s.
Without this method, the result of  o n e  board only could topple= the outcome of all other boards.

There are  t h r e e   d i f f e r e n t   &nb= sp; m a i n   c o n c e p t s   of  evaluating in I= MPs:
1) comparing "against average", other name is "against DatumScore" or "Butle= r". The bottom
line of this method is easy to see: you want to know how much (in IMPs) you=20= are better
or poorer compared to the average.
2    comparing in IMPs "across the field" of a board. The gen= eral idea
       is the same as in MP-tournaments: you c= ompare your result to all
       other results in a board. But instead o= f MP you get IMPs =3D
       transformed score differences.
3 comparing against the "NS result of the other table", which needs &nb= sp;
       two pairs acting against an other team.=
This is known as "Team-of-four match.
This type of match is actually considered as an  event where results= are considered  just.

These concepts will have influence on your strategies.

SCORER AND NON-SCORER
We have to face the fact that the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" (LAW)=20= shows
scores for only one of two competing pairs within a given board/deal. The LA= W makes
no provisions for the non-scorers.
The same happens in a fishing contest: if you dont catch fish, there will= be no
price and you will not be named in the winners list.

But non-scorers are evaluated in real life, and there are different methods=20= to do this.
Here is a - uncomplete - list:

a)  zero score
b)  reciprok
c)  by tricks made
c)  by groups
e)  others


The  z e r o   s c o r e   m e t h o d  says,=20= if you dont catch a score then you have
nothing. In mathematical terms this is "nought" or zero; "a point on the sca= le of an
instrument from which a positive or negative quatity  is reckoned" (Oxf= ord concise).
It uses the numerical value "zero" for the non-scorers.


The r e c i p r o k   m e t h o d   attributes  the= positive quantity of the scorer as a
negative quantity ( win =3D loss) to the non-scorer. If the scorer makes&nbs= p; a score of 120,
then his opponent gets -120.
This is  a double evaluation: if we evaluate, we collect information to= a given item.
Evaluating reciprok tells nothing new about the non-scorer.
In fact, this method establi= shes something unjust.
In many cases, one of the pair has no chance to declare because of high card=
distribution, but this fact does not make a good or bad player. The ability=20= of the non-scorer
should be measured by other items, but not by the action of the declarer.
The  g r o u p   e v a l u a t i o n  method distinguish= es between three types of non-scorer:
1) the one where his opponent made his contract,
2) the one where his opponent fell,
and 3) where the declarer did purposedly not make his contract, to avoid a higher score of his opponent ( successfull defense).

The   t r i c k   m e t h o d   takes into acc= ount, that the non-declares will
try to make as many tricks as possible, independent wether the declarer
did bid slam, game or partscore. It will make no difference: whether the non-declarer made this  1 tricks against a slam, game or part score, he= will get
the same amount of rewards.
Within the MP method, internal values between 1 and 49 could be used as
vehicel of value for the calculation.
Within the IMP method, an real "score" could be attributet to each trick mad= e.

The use of a score value for the Non-Scorer is a fact, which has
heavy influence on justice in evaluation.



L I K E   W I T H   L I K E
This is a general rule for just results, we must compare like with like.=
It is valid in many cases:
For movements: any pair must compete against the same number of opponents. <= BR> Any section or group within a bigger event must have the same number of pair= s
( If not, a method of compensation must be employed).
For accounting: if we establih a movement for a bridge tournament, we have <= BR> the choice to compare the results (of all boards) of those pairs, which play= ed
troughout the tournament NS hands or EW hands ( generally called Mitchell movements). This procedure excludes fortuitousness (good or bad cards), as <= BR> there is no difference in the hands played. This is one of the great advanta= ges
of bridge in comparison to all other card games.

If players change direction from NS to EW during an event, then the result <= BR> depends on luck and is not just (Howell and "scrambled Mitchel" type tournam= ent).
A great number of deals played within an event might reduce the effect of l= uck.

u n i l a t e r a l / b i l a t e r a l
There is one more task of comparison, it must be done/decided within any boa= rd.
We can compare the results independet of the fact that a players plays from=20= the
NS or EW direction (unilateral comparing). Or  left side, and right sid= e are evaluatet
in separate. (bilateral comparison).
Nothing is said in the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" regarding bilater= al or unilateral.
Both methods have different effects in matchpoin evaluation.

In IMP events the original value of the score  is maintained resp trans= formed, so
there is no difference in the effect of both methods.

In  unilateral comparing we maintain the value relation of the  or= iginal  score.
A 420 score would  will remain bigger than  a score of 50. In bila= teral comparing,
the effects ot the original scores  are altered. A 50 score could have=20= the same
effect as a 420 score.
Example:  NS: 150;120;120;120,0; EW 0;0;0;0;50 .
In unilateral evalution "50" is  fith in the ranking list;
In bilateral evaluation the same "50" is first of the EW-side ranking list.<= BR> The choice between unilateral or bilateral  in MP events depends on= our opinion,
which method brings more justice.   With regard to this point, we=20= should consider,
that the possibility to declare depends on the concentration of the "high po= ints" on
the left or right  side. Insofar, we could  take it for just, when= we  raise the
matchpoint gain for the disadvantegeous side, where the bulk of the non-scor= ers appear.

In Praxi, evaluation is in nearly all  tournaments is done bilateral: l= eft side and
right side in a board are calculated in separate.


I R R E G U L A R I T E S  (Non-Scorers left and right side)
Board-slips disappear, bords are fouled, scores are miscalculated ond other=20= cases:
they have one thing in common: there are no regular scores. How to act ?
Evalution is based on comparing scores. There is no dificulty to attribute <= BR> the lowest possible Score (within a given board) to such
Non-Scorers, and at the same time to give MP or IMP in the
amount considered just in separate bookkeeping. The lowest
possible score will create zero (or near zero) MP or IMPs, but
maintain the rights (for MPs/IMPs) of the other contestants in
a given board.

Progress in modern computer technology  made it possible to have perfec= t
tools to run tournaments evaluated by  different MP and IMP based metho= ds


THE INFLUENCE OF HANDLING
The evolution of scoring methods   was very much influenced by the= method of
calculating scores by hand. This is a common experience in life: present too= ls
delay the invention of new tools. Progress in modern computer technology&nbs= p; made i
t possible to have perfect tools to run tournaments evaluated by 
different MP and IMP based methods.

In MP events, it is rather simple to attribute MP to the sorers by hand. And= there
is little difficulty to find the MP values for the non scorers, because this= is the
differenc between top-value of the boards and the MPs made from the scorer.=20=
Because of this simple way, the deficiencies of the reciprok method were nev= er
discussed or investigated.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The influence of evaluation in Scoring methods (c) 2003
by Paul Hauff, Germany
www.bridgeassistant.com
HauffHJ@aol.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------


 --part1_2d.28e96d62.2b46c3de_boundary-- From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Sun Jan 5 16:27:35 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 11:27:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <000e01c2b48f$9f1e95e0$4d981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin L French writes: Never heard of such, no, but the situation could arise (theoretically) for an adverse ruling when a player passes opposite a hesitating partner. Imagine someone who loves to open ultra-light hands in third position, but when partner has hesitated fears that he will get into trouble by bidding. A pass has been "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation, and L16 requires that he make the bid he would normally make, which is an LA for him. ____________________________________________________________________________ _ I had just the opposite case some weeks ago. After a contested auction, North hesitates, touch the P and bid 4C. East calls me and all agree on the hesitation. East pass and South bid 5C. Then somebody told: "No problem, South bid". They all agreed and I leaved the table. After the game, just curious, I looked at the deal. South has such a hand that 6C is a logical alternative. 5C could have been suggested by the slow 4C bid (and more by the fact that North touched the P card). (In ACBL land, a bid is made if the bidding card is hold near by the table or put on the table. Touching a card is UI for partner.) So it works both ways. Players tend to think that there is no problem if they P on partner hesitation followed by a P. The same when partner hesitates and bid; they are sure they then can bid without any restriction. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Jan 5 21:19:22 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 16:19:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case Message-ID: <200301052119.QAA12171@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Gordon Bower > Several times I have overheard him telling people (when it comes up in > conversation - not giving a ruling) that "if you hesitate and pass, your > partner is barred, but if you hesitate and take a positive action, he can > still do as he likes." I've been trying, with difficulty, to convince him > it's not actually as simple as that. You are correct about the rule now, of course. > I am wondering if, at one time, this actually WAS the rule, or at least a > widely-circulated slight simplification of it No, it was never the rule, at least as far as I can tell. I suppose it isn't the worst simplification ever invented, but it's not one I recall being widely circulated. Perhaps it was a guideline suggested in some TD course. Actually, it doesn't strike me as much of a simplification. Surely "Do the opposite of whatever partner suggests unless doing so is ridiculous," isn't too complicated. Come to think of it, the exact text of L73C (which I paraphrased) isn't very complicated either. Here's a brief summary of the history, as best I can provide it. Perhaps others will wish to amplify or correct mistakes. Prior to 1975, transmitting and using UI were conduct offenses. There was no way to adjust a score without, in effect, convicting someone of misconduct, perhaps coming close to cheating. The 1975 Laws introduced the innovation widely credited to Edgar Kaplan, where there were explicit restrictions on what actions the receiver of UI could take. This made "using UI" a mere technical offense, subject to score adjustment as required. There was also an implicit distinction between what we might call "normal UI" and what could be called "invidious UI," with more severe restrictions after receiving the latter. The UI restrictions were codified more clearly in the 1987 Laws, and the distinction between different types of UI was removed. However, there was no change in effect in typical hesitation cases, which were invidious UI under the 1975 Laws. The 1997 Laws added the word "demonstrably" to L16A. I think the majority view is that this represented a clarification rather than a change. So here we are. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Jan 5 22:15:56 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 14:15:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case References: <200301052119.QAA12171@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002801c2b508$073b7c60$4d981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > Here's a brief summary of the history, as best I can provide it. > Perhaps others will wish to amplify or correct mistakes. > > Prior to 1975, transmitting and using UI were conduct offenses. There > was no way to adjust a score without, in effect, convicting someone of > misconduct, perhaps coming close to cheating. Not right, Steve. From the 1963 Laws: If a player other than declarer conveys information to his partner by means of a remark or an unmistakable gesture or mannerism that suggests a call, lead, or play, or plan of play; and if attention is drawn to the offense and the Director is summoned forthwith, the Director may: (a) direct that the auction or play proceed normally, if he considers that the illegal information is immaterial. (b) prohibit the offender's partner from making any call or play predicated on the unauthorized information or direct the partner to proceed in such manner as, in the Director's judgment, will best protect the rights of the nonoffending side. (c) direct that the auction or play continue, reserving the right to assign an adjusted score if he considers that the result was affected by the illegal information. (d) assign an adjusted score forthwith. Nothing about misconduct here, in this very poor Law that implies that a hesitation in itself is an infraction, and there may be no redress if the TD isn't called when the UI occurs. > > The 1975 Laws introduced the innovation widely credited to Edgar > Kaplan, where there were explicit restrictions on what actions the > receiver of UI could take. It seems to me that the 1963 Laws had similar restrictions. The real change was in actions the TD could take, as he could no longer control the play of the UI receiver. > This made "using UI" a mere technical > offense, subject to score adjustment as required. There was also an > implicit distinction between what we might call "normal UI" and what > could be called "invidious UI," with more severe restrictions after > receiving the latter. The 1975 adjectives actually used were "accidental" and "illegal." > > The UI restrictions were codified more clearly in the 1987 Laws, and > the distinction between different types of UI was removed. However, > there was no change in effect in typical hesitation cases, which were > invidious UI under the 1975 Laws. > > The 1997 Laws added the word "demonstrably" to L16A. I think the > majority view is that this represented a clarification rather than a > change. Yes, at the time it was said that the change only put L16A in accordance with actual practice, which was to ignore far-fetched legal bickering that some believed was justified by the prior adverb "reasonably." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 6 02:09:28 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:09:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Gyromancy Message-ID: <4A256CA6.000A3101.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >Gyromancy - A kind of divination said to >have been practised by walking round in a >circle or ring till the performer fell from >dizziness, the manner of his fall being >interpreted with reference to characters or >signs previously placed about the ring, or >in some such way. William Whitney, The Century Cyclopedia and Dictionary. New York, 1889. In the thread "Online Bridge case", Karel wrote: [big snip] >>I'd go so far as to say that in pausitis >>cases (and others), we should not say well >>we can't figure out what he was pausing >>over but assume the worst for strong >>players and rule accordingly. In my opinion, "strong players" is too broad a category. However, "strong players in regular and long-standing partnerships" face particular constraints. In the early stages of the partnership between Edgar Kaplan and Alfred Sheinwold, both players frequently psyched, a popular tactic in the 1950s. However, in the latter stages of their partnership, Kaplan and Sheinwold eliminated psyching. This was because Kaplan had now clocked extensive experience facing Sheinwold, so Kaplan now subliminally "knew" whenever Sheinwold perpetrated a psyche, and Kaplan wished to avoid any ethical dilemmas. *But* ... One should not divine, "if it hestitates, shoot it". If, in a regular expert partnership, a player makes a slow penalty double, their regular expert partner should not be shot for passing the penalty double. In this case, the slowness of the penalty double gives UI that demonstrably suggests the removal of the double. One should not rule against a regular expert partner for selecting a logical alternative that is *contra-indicated* by the UI, merely because of the divination "assume the worst". Best wishes Richard From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jan 6 13:16:16 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 08:16:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case In-Reply-To: <002801c2b508$073b7c60$4d981e18@san.rr.com> References: <200301052119.QAA12171@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030106081122.00a58c60@pop.starpower.net> At 05:15 PM 1/5/03, Marv wrote: >From: "Steve Willner" > > > The 1997 Laws added the word "demonstrably" to L16A. I think the > > majority view is that this represented a clarification rather than a > > change. > >Yes, at the time it was said that the change only put L16A in >accordance with >actual practice, which was to ignore far-fetched legal bickering that some >believed was justified by the prior adverb "reasonably." Nitpicking alert! The change put L16A in accordance with its original intention, contravening actual practice at the time, which was *not* to ignore far-fetched legal bickering that some believed was justified by the prior adverb "reasonably". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Mon Jan 6 13:23:51 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:23:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: Message-ID: <00d001c2b587$13808f40$eb053dd4@b0e7g1> And you applied Law81C6, is not it? Ben > > I had just the opposite case some weeks ago. After a contested auction, > North > hesitates, touch the P and bid 4C. East calls me and all agree on the > hesitation. > East pass and South bid 5C. Then somebody told: "No problem, South bid". > They > all agreed and I leaved the table. After the game, just curious, I looked at > the deal. South has such a hand that 6C is a logical alternative. 5C could > have > been suggested by the slow 4C bid (and more by the fact that North touched > the P card). (In ACBL land, a bid is made if the bidding card is hold near > by > the table or put on the table. Touching a card is UI for partner.) > > So it works both ways. Players tend to think that there is no problem if > they > P on partner hesitation followed by a P. The same when partner hesitates and > bid; they are sure they then can bid without any restriction. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jan 6 13:40:23 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 14:40:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: Laval: (In ACBL land, a bid is made if the bidding > card is hold near > > by > > the table or put on the table. Touching a card is UI for partner.) This surprises me. The WBF has made a proposal for the use of bidding boxes in which the ACBL (ACBL-members) were involved. In this regulation model a call is made when the bidding card has left the bidding box. Does this mean that the ACBL is not following its own (shared) ideas concerning the use of BB? ton From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jan 6 15:05:39 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 10:05:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030106095706.00a5b790@pop.starpower.net> At 08:40 AM 1/6/03, Kooijman wrote: >Laval: > > (In ACBL land, a bid is made if the bidding > > card is hold near > > > by > > > the table or put on the table. Touching a card is UI for partner.) > >This surprises me. The WBF has made a proposal for the use of bidding >boxes >in which the ACBL (ACBL-members) were involved. In this regulation model a >call is made when the bidding card has left the bidding box. Does this >mean >that the ACBL is not following its own (shared) ideas concerning the >use of >BB? The WBF proposal seems too harsh. A player reaches for the bid box, removes a bid card, looks at it, realizes that it is not the bid he intended to make, returns it to the box, takes another bid card, looks at it, and puts it on (or faces it near) the table. Do we really want a regulation that says that the bid on the first-pulled bid card was made, and therefore that the bid he intended to make is a change of call subject to L25? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 6 15:17:41 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:17:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030106095706.00a5b790@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001301c2b596$c1e11230$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Eric Landau" ...... > The WBF proposal seems too harsh. A player reaches for the bid box, > removes a bid card, looks at it, realizes that it is not the bid he > intended to make, returns it to the box, takes another bid card, looks > at it, and puts it on (or faces it near) the table. Do we really want > a regulation that says that the bid on the first-pulled bid card was > made, and therefore that the bid he intended to make is a change of > call subject to L25? I cannot see any problem here: If his first action is (by regulation) considered to be a call then his right to change that call with no penalty is clearly stated in Law25A. regards Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jan 6 15:21:57 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 16:21:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: > > At 08:40 AM 1/6/03, Kooijman wrote: > > >Laval: > > > > (In ACBL land, a bid is made if the bidding > > > card is hold near > > > > by > > > > the table or put on the table. Touching a card is UI > for partner.) ton: > > > >This surprises me. The WBF has made a proposal for the use > of bidding > >boxes > >in which the ACBL (ACBL-members) were involved. In this > regulation model a > >call is made when the bidding card has left the bidding box. > Does this > >mean > >that the ACBL is not following its own (shared) ideas concerning the > >use of > >BB? Eric: > The WBF proposal seems too harsh. A player reaches for the bid box, > removes a bid card, looks at it, realizes that it is not the bid he > intended to make, returns it to the box, takes another bid > card, looks > at it, and puts it on (or faces it near) the table. Do we > really want > a regulation that says that the bid on the first-pulled bid card was > made, and therefore that the bid he intended to make is a change of > call subject to L25? This is what we wrote down (we: WBFLC including ACBL-members) some years ago (I think it is more than some, in '96 preparing the laws of '97, though this is not law but regulation). And I don't see why it is too harsh. Yes apply L25 when the card is not the (eventually)intended one. To be honest I don't understand at all the distinction between faces it near the table and putting it on the table, it should be a chosen one of those. Every bidding card that nearly touches the table will either be taken back in the box or be put on the table a split second later. ton From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jan 6 15:33:16 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:33:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Online Bridge case Message-ID: <200301061533.KAA26662@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Marvin L. French" > Not right, Steve. From the 1963 Laws: > > If a player other than declarer conveys information to his partner by means of > a remark or an unmistakable gesture or mannerism that suggests a call, lead, > or play, or plan of play; and if attention is drawn to the offense and the > Director is summoned forthwith, the Director may: [four options, one of which is an eventual adjusted score] Thanks for setting me straight on this, Marv. I was unaware of these provisions and don't recall them ever being applied in practice. My idea that "using UI" was treated as a conduct offense came from Edgar Kaplan's commentaries, but apparently that was only part of the story. From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Jan 6 15:46:02 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 16:46:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030106095706.00a5b790@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030106095706.00a5b790@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <9s8j1vsep2pregj633i306d07aj77ohc8l@heimdal.i.softco.dk> On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 10:05:39 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >The WBF proposal seems too harsh. A player reaches for the bid box,=20 >removes a bid card, looks at it, realizes that it is not the bid he=20 >intended to make, returns it to the box, takes another bid card, looks=20 >at it, and puts it on (or faces it near) the table. Do we really want=20 >a regulation that says that the bid on the first-pulled bid card was=20 >made, and therefore that the bid he intended to make is a change of=20 >call subject to L25? That is the regulation we have (and have had for a very long time) in Denmark. The sequence of events you describe happen often; it is a legal L25A correction of a call, nobody calls the TD, and it works fine in practice. The advantage of that regulation is that you are not allowed to change your mind after you have removed the card from the box. That seems reasonable to me. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jan 6 15:48:08 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:48:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <200301061548.KAA26684@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > I cannot see any problem here: If his first action is (by regulation) > considered to be a call then his right to change that call with no > penalty is clearly stated in Law25A. I believe David Stevenson once claimed that L25A doesn't apply if the original call is an insufficient bid. Now that I look more closely, I am not sure whether this is correct or not. Also, I'm confused about inadmissible calls. Can they be corrected under L25A? In any case, L25A requires the TD to make a judgment about intentions. Surely it's easier if the only judgment is one of fact. I'm with Eric: the bidding box regulations ought to give a player a reasonable chance to have a careful look at the card he is holding before the call is considered "made." Why shouldn't they be analogous to the L45C2 rules for declarer's play? Perhaps I'm influenced by my own clumsiness. I quite often get hold of the wrong card and can't tell until it is all the way out of the box or nearly so. But I never get it more than a few centimeters away from the box before correcting, and there is never any problem here in the ACBL. (Actually, that first part isn't quite true. Once in a great while, when the bidding cards are really sticky, I have to take them all out of the box and shuffle through them to find the card I want. When this happens, though, I say something.) I can't recall that a TD has ever been called, in fact. Would there be a problem elsewhere? From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 6 16:23:43 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:23:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass In-Reply-To: <9s8j1vsep2pregj633i306d07aj77ohc8l@heimdal.i.softco.dk> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030106095706.00a5b790@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030106095706.00a5b790@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030106171441.02343880@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:46 6/01/2003 +0100, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 10:05:39 -0500, Eric Landau >wrote: > > >The WBF proposal seems too harsh. A player reaches for the bid box, > >removes a bid card, looks at it, realizes that it is not the bid he > >intended to make, returns it to the box, takes another bid card, looks > >at it, and puts it on (or faces it near) the table. Do we really want > >a regulation that says that the bid on the first-pulled bid card was > >made, and therefore that the bid he intended to make is a change of > >call subject to L25? > >That is the regulation we have (and have had for a very long time) in >Denmark. The sequence of events you describe happen often; it is a >legal L25A correction of a call, nobody calls the TD, and it works fine >in practice. > >The advantage of that regulation is that you are not allowed to change >your mind after you have removed the card from the box. That seems >reasonable to me. AG : another, related problem : it has been said before that a player who hesitates, then bids, or who toys with his bidding cards, then bids, will seldom be penalized because the amount of UI transmitted will be low. Example : 1S pass ... 3S (limit) One can hardly know whether the player wanted to bid only 2S, or some bid stronger than 3S. In this case, the score will seldom be corrected. However, something slightly different happened to me in a recent rounament : 1S 2H pass ...3H Partner had fiddled his bidding cards (in the part of the BB containing the bids) before bidding 3H. The case is slightly different : if partner wants to bid, but doesn't know what to bid, his hand should be marginaly strong, not marginally weak, for a 3H bid. The UI points towards bidding more. How would you react ? The end of the story : I had a very strong hand and felt I could bid 4H. The opponents called the TD. They didn't call him again at the end of the deal, because 4H went down (we should have played 3NT). The hands : Axx xxx AQ10xxx Jxxx Jx Qxxx AQ Kx Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jan 6 16:10:46 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 11:10:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <001301c2b596$c1e11230$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030106095706.00a5b790@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030106110348.00a4cad0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:17 AM 1/6/03, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > The WBF proposal seems too harsh. A player reaches for the bid box, > > removes a bid card, looks at it, realizes that it is not the bid he > > intended to make, returns it to the box, takes another bid card, looks > > at it, and puts it on (or faces it near) the table. Do we really want > > a regulation that says that the bid on the first-pulled bid card was > > made, and therefore that the bid he intended to make is a change of > > call subject to L25? > >I cannot see any problem here: If his first action is (by regulation) >considered to be a call then his right to change that call with no >penalty is clearly stated in Law25A. It would seem so, but there will inevitably be some who will argue that the player's looking at the card, registering its denotation and realizing that it was not his intended call constitutes a "pause for thought". Why should we open the door to the potentially resulting hassles? Why, for that matter, should we want the law to require that the TD be called for a ruling? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jan 6 16:23:55 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:23:55 +0000 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030106171441.02343880@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <409B9108-2193-11D7-9F2C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 04:23 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > However, something slightly different happened to me in a recent > rounament : > > 1S 2H pass ...3H > Partner had fiddled his bidding cards (in the part of the BB > containing the bids) before bidding 3H. > The case is slightly different : if partner wants to bid, but doesn't > know what to bid, his hand should be marginaly strong, not marginally > weak, for a 3H bid. There are other possible explanations for the pause for thought - inadequate trump support is one possibility. > The UI points towards bidding more. > > How would you react ? > > The end of the story : I had a very strong hand and felt I could bid > 4H. The opponents called the TD. They didn't call him again at the end > of the deal, because 4H went down (we should have played 3NT). > The hands : Axx xxx > AQ10xxx Jxxx > Jx Qxxx > AQ Kx Doesn't the hand as given contradict your suggestion that "his hand should be marginally strong, not marginally weak"? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jan 6 16:23:23 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 11:23:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030106111303.00a5ac80@pop.starpower.net> At 10:21 AM 1/6/03, Kooijman wrote: >Eric: > > > The WBF proposal seems too harsh. A player reaches for the bid box, > > removes a bid card, looks at it, realizes that it is not the bid he > > intended to make, returns it to the box, takes another bid > > card, looks > > at it, and puts it on (or faces it near) the table. Do we > > really want > > a regulation that says that the bid on the first-pulled bid card was > > made, and therefore that the bid he intended to make is a change of > > call subject to L25? > >This is what we wrote down (we: WBFLC including ACBL-members) some >years ago >(I think it is more than some, in '96 preparing the laws of '97, >though this >is not law but regulation). And I don't see why it is too harsh. Yes apply >L25 when the card is not the (eventually)intended one. > >To be honest I don't understand at all the distinction between faces >it near >the table and putting it on the table, it should be a chosen one of those. >Every bidding card that nearly touches the table will either be taken back >in the box or be put on the table a split second later. I'm not sure I understand it either, but it seems to me that the rule for bid cards ought to be the same as the rule for playing cards, i.e. worded similarly to L45C2. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Jan 6 17:22:18 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:22:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <00d001c2b587$13808f40$eb053dd4@b0e7g1> Message-ID: And you applied Law81C6, is not it? Ben _____________________________________________ No, because nobody asked for a ruling after South's 5C bid nor later. Should I? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From john@asimere.com Mon Jan 6 19:33:29 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 19:33:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <001301c2b596$c1e11230$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030106095706.00a5b790@pop.starpower.net> <001301c2b596$c1e11230$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <001301c2b596$c1e11230$70d8fea9@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Eric Landau" >...... >> The WBF proposal seems too harsh. A player reaches for the bid box, >> removes a bid card, looks at it, realizes that it is not the bid he >> intended to make, returns it to the box, takes another bid card, looks >> at it, and puts it on (or faces it near) the table. Do we really want >> a regulation that says that the bid on the first-pulled bid card was >> made, and therefore that the bid he intended to make is a change of >> call subject to L25? > >I cannot see any problem here: If his first action is (by regulation) >considered to be a call then his right to change that call with no >penalty is clearly stated in Law25A. > the EBU interpretation of a call being made is: "... call withdrawn from the box with apparent intent ..", so if you pull the wrong bid out the call has *NOT* yet been made. >regards Sven > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Jan 6 21:03:43 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 22:03:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030106095706.00a5b790@pop.starpower.net> <001301c2b596$c1e11230$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <88rj1v4kcoo3si7599jf998m8j2d3f7gkm@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 19:33:29 +0000, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >the EBU interpretation of a call being made is: > >"... call withdrawn from the box with apparent intent ..", so if you >pull the wrong bid out the call has *NOT* yet been made. In Denmark, we used to have a wording much like that. =46airly recently, we changed it to say something like "intent to make a call" - not necessarily intent to make *the* call that was actually withdrawn from the box. Otherwise, we would be in the absurd position that (a) LHO would not know when it was his turn to bid: how long do you need to wait before you can be sure that the call lying on the table on front of your RHO was intentional? If you call, and it then turns out that RHO had pulled the wrong card (and thus, as I understand what John wrote, has not called at all in the EBU), then you have called out of turn, and I don't see any law allowing the TD to not penalize that. (b) L25A would effectively be cancelled by that regulation, since there would be no such thing as a inadvertent call (because it is not a call at all if it is inadvertent). So it seems to me that the only sensible interpretation of a wording like "with intent" in this situation must be the one we now have clearly specified in Denmark: i.e., if you pull the wrong card, it is still "with intent" and L25A applies. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Jan 6 21:21:13 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:21:13 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030106111303.00a5ac80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Eric Landau wrote: > > > The WBF proposal seems too harsh. A player reaches for the bid box, > > > removes a bid card, looks at it, realizes that it is not the bid he > > > intended to make, returns it to the box, takes another bid > > > card, looks > > > at it, and puts it on (or faces it near) the table. Do we > > > really want > > > a regulation that says that the bid on the first-pulled bid card was > > > made, and therefore that the bid he intended to make is a change of > > > call subject to L25? > > > I'm not sure I understand it either, but it seems to me that the rule > for bid cards ought to be the same as the rule for playing cards, i.e. > worded similarly to L45C2. > But there is one big difference. It is easy to see what bid someone has pulled out of the box, the instant the bid leaves the box, even if it's not placed on the table. (Okay, if someone jumps you can't always tell from across the table if they picked 3S or 4S - but you always know what suit they pulled out and usually +-1 level how high they bid.) Heck, I once annoyed my partner by playing the first several boards of a session with my bidbox facing away from me, selecting my own calls by feel and checking they were right by looking at the back of my own box. Also,notice that we have different parts of L45C for defenders (who have to worry about passing information to partner) and declarer (who isn't automatically in trouble for accidentally exposing a card). During the bidding, all 4 players have to worry about passing UI to partner, so it seems to me the bidbox rules should parallel 45C1, not 45C2. My conclusion: taking a card from the bidbox, whether faced on the table or not, should be treated similarly to exposing a card's face in the play - and the WBF appears to have gotten it right. GRB From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Jan 6 21:51:48 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 22:51:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <200301061548.KAA26684@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200301061548.KAA26684@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:48:08 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Sven Pran" >> I cannot see any problem here: If his first action is (by regulation) >> considered to be a call then his right to change that call with no >> penalty is clearly stated in Law25A. > >I believe David Stevenson once claimed that L25A doesn't apply if the >original call is an insufficient bid. Now that I look more closely, I >am not sure whether this is correct or not. IMO it is not correct. Since L25A does not mention insufficient bids, while another part of L25 (L25B1 footnote) specifically says that it does not apply when the original call is an insufficient bid, it seems fairly clear to me that L25A does apply. > Also, I'm confused about >inadmissible calls. Can they be corrected under L25A? I don't see why not. An important property of an inadvertent call is that because it is inadvertent, there is no reason at all to consider what call it actually was: there was no thought behind it, so the only sensible thing to do with it is to change it. This is also consistent with the fact that other parts of L25 specifically mention illegal calls, while L25A does not. >In any case, >L25A requires the TD to make a judgment about intentions. Surely it's >easier if the only judgment is one of fact. I think that what we have here is a cultural difference of the type where those who are used to one regulation worry that the other regulation will give problems in practice, and vice versa. When I read what Eric and Steve writes, I get the impression that there is no practical problem with the way they do it in the ACBL. On the other hand, I know from experience that the way we do it is not a problem. Where you worry about the judgment as to whether it is L25A or L25B, I worry more about the judgment that is needed in the ACBL about the UI produced by any change of a "non-call" seen by partner. And the judgment is basically the same: if it is L25A in Denmark, then it is useless and harmless UI in ACBL; if it is L25B in Denmark, then it is probably serious UI in ACBL. You need the judgment in both places. >I'm with Eric: the bidding box regulations ought to give a player a >reasonable chance to have a careful look at the card he is holding >before the call is considered "made." Why shouldn't they be analogous >to the L45C2 rules for declarer's play? A player can take a careful look at a playing card he is about to play without showing it to anybody else, and a declarer can even show the card to the other players with no harm to anybody but himself. This is reflected in L45C2's very lenient attitude. But a player cannot take a careful look at a bidding card without showing it to the rest of table. If it should be analogous to the rules for playing cards, it should surely be analogous to L45C1 rather than to L45C2. And in practice, you don't need to move a bidding card very far before your partner can see which one it is. When judging how far a bidding card needs to be moved in order to be a call, you should IMO not consider inadvertant calls at all: it makes no difference whatsoever whether we call it a L25A change or "no call made". Instead, we should focus on the real difference: how far should you be allowed to move a *deliberately* selected bidding card and still be allowed to change your mind? That is the main difference between the two types of regulation we are talking about here, and (with a risk of being influenced by the fact that it is what I am used to) I believe the best decision here is not to be lenient about changes of mind when partner has probably seen the first call. The (ACBL) alternative provides more UI situations and fewer L25 situations. A minor difference is that when I, in Denmark, see that my RHO has taken a call out of the box and is waving it in the air while discussing the previous hand with his (or my) partner, I can bid - where in the ACBL, I would be bidding out of turn if I did so. >Perhaps I'm influenced by my own clumsiness. I quite often get hold of >the wrong card and can't tell until it is all the way out of the box or >nearly so. But I never get it more than a few centimeters away from >the box before correcting, and there is never any problem here in the >ACBL.=20 I often do that too. That is no problem in Denmark either. You just correct it (whether or not you are aware that what you are doing is a L25A correction), and nobody calls the TD. Note that L25A does not require calling the TD: performing a L25A correction is not an irregularity at all, it is a perfectly legal part of the game (unless the first call was illegal: that is of course an irregularity, but the TD is not needed if nobody calls attention to it). >(Actually, that first part isn't quite true. Once in a great >while, when the bidding cards are really sticky, I have to take them >all out of the box and shuffle through them to find the card I want. >When this happens, though, I say something.) I can't recall that a TD >has ever been called, in fact. Would there be a problem elsewhere? Not here. "Saying something" makes it clear that your reason for touching lots of bidding cards is not to make all those calls, and only when you select one in a call-like way would you be ruled to have removed that particular call from the box with the intention of calling. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Sun Jan 5 18:43:11 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:43:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] law78-non-scorers References: <2d.28e96d62.2b46c3de@aol.com> Message-ID: <000d01c2b4ea$4c76b470$70d8fea9@WINXP> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C2B4F2.ADDC5AA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable After reading the original message a couple of times I am still in the = dark on the purpose of this posting. If it is an argument for abandoning law 78C I concur. However, I must = consider this law (almost?) dead, the only place I have seen total points scoring = used=20 is in my book: "International Bridge Test, Complete record of bidding, play & scores in "Duplicate" Contract Bridge Match between England & America. The match comprised 200 boards and was played in September 1930 in what we would call "teams of four". I fail completely to see any relevance of this posting when Match points or IMP scoring (whether Butler or across the field) is used. Might I be enlightened in a not too voluminous posting? Sven ----- Original Message -----=20 From: HauffHJ@aol.com=20 To: blml@rtflb.org=20 Cc: THOURETELGA@aol.com=20 Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:45 AM Subject: [blml] law78-non-scorers LAW78-nonScorers Law 77 does not know negative Scores. But such values are widely used for non-scorers when establishing ranking lists via law 78.=20 Below you will find some basic facts regarding "Non-Scorers".=20 Below is a short version of the complete text, published under www.bridgeassistant.com/web-b14e, which includes strategies. Direct commentaries to the author are welcome. The influence of evaluation in Scoring methods=20 Introduction: In MP-pair tournaments, the best ones show in front of = the winners list,=20 and the weak ones at the end, but wether you are number one, or two, = or three etc.=20 depends on luck. As fortuitousness (good or bad cards) can be = eliminated in all=20 species of matches, we have to dig deep into the evaluation system, to = find out=20 the reasons of the deficiency of the actually played type of MP = events. Summary (short): evaluation in tournaments uses a mixture=20 of methods. The reciprok method leads to unjust results. -------- I have taken the liberty to snip the balance of the post. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C2B4F2.ADDC5AA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
After reading the original message a = couple of=20 times I am still in the dark on
the purpose of this = posting.
 
If it is an argument for abandoning law = 78C I=20 concur. However, I must consider
this law (almost?) dead, the only = place I have seen total points scoring used =
is in my=20 book:
"International Bridge Test, Complete = record of=20 bidding, play & scores
in "Duplicate" Contract Bridge = Match between=20 England & = America.
 
The match comprised 200 boards and was = played in=20 September 1930
in what we would call "teams of=20 four".
 
I fail completely to see any relevance = of this=20 posting when Match points
or IMP scoring (whether Butler or = across the field)=20 is used.
 
Might I be enlightened in a not too = voluminous=20 posting?
 
Sven
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 HauffHJ@aol.com=20
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 = 11:45=20 AM
Subject: [blml] = law78-non-scorers

LAW78-nonScorers

Law 77 does not know = negative=20 Scores. But such values are widely used
for non-scorers when = establishing=20 ranking lists via law 78.
Below you will find some basic facts = regarding=20 "Non-Scorers".
Below  is a short version of the complete = text,=20 published under
www.bridgeassistant.com/= web-b14e,=20 which includes strategies.
Direct commentaries to the author are = welcome.

The influence of evaluation in Scoring = methods=20
Introduction: In MP-pair = tournaments, the best=20 ones show in front of the winners list,
and the weak ones at the = end, but=20 wether you are number one, or two, or three etc.
depends on = luck.  As=20 fortuitousness (good or bad cards) can be eliminated in all =
species of=20 matches, we have to dig deep into the evaluation system, to find out =
the=20 reasons of the deficiency of the actually played type of MP=20 events.

Summary (short): evaluation in tournaments = uses a=20 mixture
of methods.  The reciprok method leads to unjust=20 results.
-------- I have=20 taken the liberty to snip the balance of the=20 post.
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C2B4F2.ADDC5AA0-- From ethemu@ixir.com Mon Jan 6 15:50:01 2003 From: ethemu@ixir.com (Ethem Urkac) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:50:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] i cant get messages Message-ID: <000101c2b59b$7cf11d50$43d3fdd4@ethemhome> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01C2B5AC.0944C760 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Sir, Can you please help me. I cant get mails Ethem Urkac ------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01C2B5AC.0944C760 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Sir,
Can you please help me. I cant get=20 mails
 
Ethem = Urkac
------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01C2B5AC.0944C760-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 6 23:00:56 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:00:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: <4A256CA6.007CC32A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> "Lords of the Ring" is the title of a history of Australian boxing. In the thread, "Passing after slow pass", an interesting issue concerning bidding boxing was raised by Steve Willner: >I believe David Stevenson once claimed that >L25A doesn't apply if the original call is >an insufficient bid. Now that I look more >closely, I am not sure whether this is >correct or not. [snip] One of the CTDs of Australia has a different belief about L25A in the context of an insufficient bid. After a bidding box auction which commenced 1S - (Pass) - 1S, the CTD permitted the conversion of the second 1S call to 1NT under L25A. Presumably the idea that L25A does not apply to insufficient bids is based upon a reading of the final sentence of L25A: >>If legal, his last call stands without >>penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the >>applicable Law. The tangled grammar of the final sentence of L25A was due to original inattention by the WBF LC. The word "illegal" was originally intended by the WBF LC to be associated with the phrase "his last call". The phrase "his last call" was originally intended by the WBF LC to mean the post-L25A change to a second call (which was originally intended by the player), *not* the pre-L25A original call (which was post-haste amended to the last call by the player due to original inattention by the player). Therefore, the overall original intention of the WBF LC in writing the final sentence of Law 25A was to cater for a player who was both inattentive in an original call, and the same player had an original inattentive intention to make an illegal call which was revealed to be the inattentive original intention of the player in the non-original call the player subsequently corrected to. Newted? Sorry, I wish to correct that last question. My original intention was to write the question: Noted? Best wishes, Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jan 7 00:20:11 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:20:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity Message-ID: <4A256CA7.00002E8F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "Passing after slow pass", Jesper Dybdal wrote: [big snip] >Note that L25A does not require calling >the TD: performing a L25A correction is >not an irregularity at all, it is a >perfectly legal part of the game [snip] Disagree. Calling twice (before the next call of partner) is an irregularity contrary to the rotation requirement of Law 17C. If attention is drawn to such an irregularity, then Law 9B requires the summoning of the TD. My belief is that Law 25A merely defines that a *particular* Law 17C irregularity is not penalised. Evidence for my belief is the phrase "without penalty" in Law 25A. Jesper interprets Law 25A as overruling Law 17C, but neither Law 25A nor Law 17C contain a cross-reference specifically saying so. Noted? Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Tue Jan 7 07:28:40 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:28:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity References: <4A256CA7.00002E8F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000901c2b61e$671579d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: ......... > In the thread "Passing after slow pass", > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > [big snip] > > >Note that L25A does not require calling > >the TD: performing a L25A correction is > >not an irregularity at all, it is a > >perfectly legal part of the game > > [snip] > > Disagree. Calling twice (before the > next call of partner) is an irregularity > contrary to the rotation requirement of > Law 17C. If attention is drawn to such > an irregularity, then Law 9B requires > the summoning of the TD. > > My belief is that Law 25A merely > defines that a *particular* Law 17C > irregularity is not penalised. Evidence > for my belief is the phrase "without > penalty" in Law 25A. > > Jesper interprets Law 25A as overruling > Law 17C, but neither Law 25A nor Law 17C > contain a cross-reference specifically > saying so. There is a matter of judgement involved. If a player at his turn to call says something like "1 Di..... er.. 1 Heart" or pulls a pile of bid cards from the box and restores the 1NT card back into the box before bidding 1S then we have (extreme) cases of a Law 25A corrections with normally no need for the TD. On the other hand if a player after LHO has made a call looks very surprised down on his own bid card(s) and utters something like "1NT??? I never meant to bid 1NT, I wanted to bid 1S!!!" then on it's face we have an equally apparent Law25A case but with more reason to summon the TD. I agree with Jesper: Most L25A cases can and ought to be resolved with no need for TD. regards Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Jan 7 07:49:39 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 07:49:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin References: <3.0.6.32.20030107134622.008dda30@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <001e01c2b621$6d8f0260$ce17e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; ; Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:46 AM > > Hello Grattan > > On a slightly tangential topic - in the past you > have disseminated the minutes of WBFLC meetings. > I have not seen anything post-Montreal. Is this > because the main discussion involved future law > drafts and these have been distributed separately > to the NCBOs? > > Regards > Laurie > +=+ Minutes of WBFLC meetings in Montreal are amongst the documents posted on Anna Gudge's web site at www.bridge.ecats.co.uk I have not traced the updating of the Code of Practice (Nov 2001) as yet but I am hoping this will also appear there eventually (unless I have missed it and it is actually there already). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jan 7 08:16:33 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 09:16:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: > So it seems to me that the only sensible interpretation of a wording > like "with intent" in this situation must be the one we now > have clearly > specified in Denmark: i.e., if you pull the wrong card, it is still > "with intent" and L25A applies. > > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. The Dutch join Denmark, therewith following the suggested WBF line, which is remarkably consistent with the two possibilities as described in L25. I remember we had a discussion about 'intent' before and I tried to convince blml that 'intent' was related to the purpose for taking a bidding card out of the box: to make a call, and not for example because the card with 2 hearts on it was put behind the card with 2 diamonds and had to be replaced (something they use 'j'adoube' for when playing chess; seems to be an old olympic sport). ton From henk@ripe.net Tue Jan 7 08:19:44 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:19:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] i cant get messages In-Reply-To: <000101c2b59b$7cf11d50$43d3fdd4@ethemhome> Message-ID: Ethem, > Can you please help me. I cant get mails Your subscription was set to "no mails" due to excessive bounces of mails on your side. I've reset this. If this happens again, you can reset this yourself by going to the subscriber page: http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml 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 axman22@hotmail.com Mon Jan 6 22:16:46 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:16:46 -0600 Subject: [blml] i cant get messages References: <000101c2b59b$7cf11d50$43d3fdd4@ethemhome> Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C2B59F.025BE6C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It looks like delivery is currently disabled to you. You can change it. Go to the url at the bottom, and, click on the button to see the list of = subscribers: Click on your address to visit your subscription options page. (Parenthesized entries have list delivery disabled.) regards roger pewick ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ethem Urkac=20 To: blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:50 AM Subject: [blml] i cant get messages Dear Sir, Can you please help me. I cant get mails Ethem Urkac ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C2B59F.025BE6C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 
It looks like delivery is currently = disabled to=20 you.  You can change it.
 
Go to the url at the bottom, and, click = on the=20 button to see the list of subscribers:
 

Click on your address to visit your subscription options=20 page.
(Parenthesized entries have list delivery disabled.)

 

regards

roger pewick

 

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ethem = Urkac
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 = 9:50=20 AM
Subject: [blml] i cant get = messages

Dear Sir,
Can you please help me. I cant get=20 mails
 
Ethem=20 Urkac
------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C2B59F.025BE6C0-- From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jan 7 08:30:23 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 09:30:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: > was raised by Steve Willner: > > >I believe David Stevenson once claimed that > >L25A doesn't apply if the original call is > >an insufficient bid. Now that I look more > >closely, I am not sure whether this is > >correct or not. We need David himself to confirm or deny this, or access to his archive. For the moment I have to make my own decision which is that I do not believe David said such a thing ever. An inadvertent call can be every call which is still available in the bidding box. And you do not need to be a precise reader to understand that the last sentence of 25A of course is related to the intended substituted call. Very intelligent work by the LC once more. When the intended call was illegal it has to be made, because there is no pause for thought allowed. > From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jan 7 08:40:12 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 09:40:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity Message-ID: > In the thread "Passing after slow pass", > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > [big snip] > > >Note that L25A does not require calling > >the TD: performing a L25A correction is > >not an irregularity at all, it is a > >perfectly legal part of the game > > [snip] > > Disagree. Calling twice (before the > next call of partner) is an irregularity > contrary to the rotation requirement of > Law 17C. If attention is drawn to such > an irregularity, then Law 9B requires > the summoning of the TD. Which means that a player who wants to change his inadvertent call has to call the TD. We don't need cross references for that conclusion. L 9B is clear enough. I don't need a lengthy thread trying to explain to me that the irregularity is not the inadvertent call but the replacement of it. ton From anna@ecats.co.uk Tue Jan 7 09:59:17 2003 From: anna@ecats.co.uk (Anna Gudge) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:59:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] RE: Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin Message-ID: <575767135FD8E5499A1640167D54CFEC3ABF0C@bruce.ecats.co.uk> The Code of Practice and all the attendant documents are on my site - it is better to use www.ecatsbridge.com as the URL - the one that Grattan has given is not quite correct unfortunately. Go to the Documents section and you will see a link to documents for downloading and then to Appeals Material. All the Code of Practice material is there, and the Minutes are in the WBF Information section - click through WBF Reports and Minutes and you will see the link there. anna -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:cyaxares@lineone.net]=20 Sent: 07 January 2003 07:50 To: Laurie Kelso Cc: bridge laws mailing list Subject: Re: Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin Grattan Endicott To: ; ; Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 3:46 AM > > Hello Grattan > > On a slightly tangential topic - in the past you > have disseminated the minutes of WBFLC meetings. > I have not seen anything post-Montreal. Is this > because the main discussion involved future law > drafts and these have been distributed separately > to the NCBOs? > > Regards > Laurie > +=3D+ Minutes of WBFLC meetings in Montreal are amongst the documents posted on Anna Gudge's web site at www.bridge.ecats.co.uk=20 I have not traced the updating of the Code of Practice (Nov 2001) as yet but I am hoping this will also appear there eventually (unless I have missed it and it is actually there already). ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ From gester@lineone.net Tue Jan 7 11:37:35 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:37:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Did I miss a click? Message-ID: <004501c2b641$63208400$9b1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 3:50 PM Subject: RE: Did I miss a click? Hello Grattan ... Sorry for the delay in responding. Yes it is on the site - as a complete version, and also as the Code, Appeals Examples and Notes on Rulings as separate documents. Go to www.ecatsbridge.com and click the documents section ... Click the link to documents and programs for downloading and go to the Appeals Material link and you will find them all there .. I took the opportunity of tidying them up a bit !! -----Original Message----- From: gester@lineone.net [mailto:gester@lineone.net] Sent: 02 January 2003 12:44 To: Anna Gudge Subject: Did I miss a click? Grattan Endicott References: <4A256CA7.00002E8F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030107130000.0269e2f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:28 7/01/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >There is a matter of judgement involved. >If a player at his turn to call says something >like "1 Di..... er.. 1 Heart" or pulls a pile of >bid cards from the box and restores the 1NT >card back into the box before bidding 1S >then we have (extreme) cases of a Law 25A >corrections with normally no need for the TD. > >On the other hand if a player after LHO >has made a call looks very surprised down >on his own bid card(s) and utters something >like "1NT??? I never meant to bid 1NT, I >wanted to bid 1S!!!" then on it's face we >have an equally apparent Law25A case but >with more reason to summon the TD. AG : in such a case, couldn't the player's hand be a piece of evidence=20 about his intent ? I mean, if the player involved held a 5350 12-count, I=20 guess nobody will pretend he wanted to bid 1NT in the first place. Also,=20 correcting a bid which would be the right one in some system into the=20 systemic bic could be a hint of a player's change of intent (eg correcting= =20 1C to 1S with a 4225 hand, because one plays canap=E9, could mean that one= =20 remembered this too late ; correcting 1H to either 1C or 1S with the same=20 hand is less suspicious). Of course, in both cases, this can only be checked after the deal, or when= =20 dummy spreads, which means we will need a TD to registrate the facts. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 7 12:10:03 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 13:10:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030107130746.026c92c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:40 7/01/2003 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > In the thread "Passing after slow pass", > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > [big snip] > > > > >Note that L25A does not require calling > > >the TD: performing a L25A correction is > > >not an irregularity at all, it is a > > >perfectly legal part of the game > > > > [snip] > > > > Disagree. Calling twice (before the > > next call of partner) is an irregularity > > contrary to the rotation requirement of > > Law 17C. If attention is drawn to such > > an irregularity, then Law 9B requires > > the summoning of the TD. > > >Which means that a player who wants to change his inadvertent call has to >call the TD. We don't need cross references for that conclusion. L 9B is >clear enough. >I don't need a lengthy thread trying to explain to me that the irregularity >is not the inadvertent call but the replacement of it. AG : I will cut it short : the intended replacement is not an irregularity either, as it is allowed by the Laws. And even if it were, the TD should only be called after it occurred. Who wants to call the TD before an irregularity happened ? From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jan 7 12:34:00 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 13:34:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity Message-ID: > > > >Note that L25A does not require calling > > > >the TD: performing a L25A correction is > > > >not an irregularity at all, it is a > > > >perfectly legal part of the game What do you want to say? Every correction demanded by the TD is a perfectly legal part of the game (in theory). But that does not mean that the action that has to be corrected isn't an irregularity. ton > > > > > > [snip]> > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > > > Disagree. Calling twice (before the > > > next call of partner) is an irregularity > > > contrary to the rotation requirement of > > > Law 17C. If attention is drawn to such > > > an irregularity, then Law 9B requires > > > the summoning of the TD. > > > > > >Which means that a player who wants to change his > inadvertent call has to > >call the TD. We don't need cross references for that > conclusion. L 9B is > >clear enough. > >I don't need a lengthy thread trying to explain to me that > the irregularity > >is not the inadvertent call but the replacement of it. > > AG : I will cut it short Too short it seems. Jesper gave as his opinion that making a call you don't want to make (inadvertent or not) constitutes an irregularity. I agree and tried to say so. ton : the intended replacement is not an > irregularity > either, as it is allowed by the Laws. And even if it were, > the TD should > only be called after it occurred. Who wants to call the TD before an > irregularity happened ? From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Jan 7 13:33:54 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 07:33:54 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 2:40 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 17C irregularity > > > > In the thread "Passing after slow pass", > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > [big snip] > > > > >Note that L25A does not require calling > > >the TD: performing a L25A correction is > > >not an irregularity at all, it is a > > >perfectly legal part of the game > > > > [snip] > > Disagree. Calling twice (before the > > next call of partner) is an irregularity > > contrary to the rotation requirement of > > Law 17C. Except for the first and second call, I see nothing in L17 that says that after the second call future players are not precluded from multiple calls at their turn, not that they are granted license to make multiple calls, either. > > If attention is drawn to such > > an irregularity, then Law 9B requires > > the summoning of the TD. > > > Which means that a player who wants to change his inadvertent call has to > call the TD. I am wondering if we are reading the same FLB. In L25 I read twice 'may substitute.....call [sic]'. To the eye this is definition of correct procedure and entitles a player to change his call on his own volition. I don't see a basis that the TD must be called. But I do see a basis that if it makes a difference what a player wants to do based on what the director says, this is pause for thought and forces a ruling into the L25B category. > We don't need cross references for that conclusion. L 9B is > clear enough. > I don't need a lengthy thread trying to explain to me that the irregularity > is not the inadvertent call but the replacement of it. > ton regards roger pewick From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jan 7 14:03:20 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 15:03:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity Message-ID: > > > > > > > In the thread "Passing after slow pass", > > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > > > [big snip] > > > > > > >Note that L25A does not require calling > > > >the TD: performing a L25A correction is > > > >not an irregularity at all, it is a > > > >perfectly legal part of the game > > > > > > [snip] > > > > Disagree. Calling twice (before the > > > next call of partner) is an irregularity > > > contrary to the rotation requirement of > > > Law 17C. > > Except for the first and second call, I see nothing in L17 that says > that after the second call future players are not precluded from > multiple calls at their turn, not that they are granted > license to make > multiple calls, either. > > > > If attention is drawn to such > > > an irregularity, then Law 9B requires > > > the summoning of the TD. > > > > > > Which means that a player who wants to change his > inadvertent call has > to > > call the TD. > > I am wondering if we are reading the same FLB. In L25 I read > twice 'may > substitute.....call [sic]'. To the eye this is definition of correct > procedure and entitles a player to change his call on his own > volition. > I don't see a basis that the TD must be called. But I do see a basis > that if it makes a difference what a player wants to do based on what > the director says, this is pause for thought and forces a ruling into > the L25B category. I rest my case in disbelief. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 7 15:15:31 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 16:15:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030107161310.026c8990@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:33 7/01/2003 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: >I am wondering if we are reading the same FLB. In L25 I read twice 'may >substitute.....call [sic]'. To the eye this is definition of correct >procedure and entitles a player to change his call on his own volition. >I don't see a basis that the TD must be called. But I do see a basis >that if it makes a difference what a player wants to do based on what >the director says, this is pause for thought and forces a ruling into >the L25B category. AG : not necessatily. A less-experienced player might wish to change his inadvertent call, not know whether it is allowed, and summon the TD to ask about his rights. Then, learning he is allowed to if and only if it is truly inadvertent, he might do it - subject of course to appreciation of the plausibility of his claim of inadvertency, but surely we will not automatically decide against it. From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Jan 7 15:11:03 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:11:03 -0600 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 2:30 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > > was raised by Steve Willner: > > > > >I believe David Stevenson once claimed that > > >L25A doesn't apply if the original call is > > >an insufficient bid. Now that I look more > > >closely, I am not sure whether this is > > >correct or not. I remember such a posting. This may have been it: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 7:32 PM Subject: Re: possible L25 controversy Roger Pewick wrote: >Here is an RGB thread that Marvin replied to that might provide some fodder: > >Hirsch Davis" wrote in message > news:mv56bscuj5dvg822tg30kc46lapnpkpeoj@4ax.com... > > On 21 Feb 2000 14:24:36 GMT, laver@Colorado.EDU (Richard Laver) wrote: > > > > > Matchpoints, Standard American, favorable vulnerability > > >You have: > > > AQx > > > Jxxxx > > > Txx > > > Ax > > > RHO You LHO Partner > > > 2H P P 1C/2C/3C > > > P ? > > > Partner bids 1C, insufficiency is mentioned, then she quickly > > >changes to 2C, then looks again and changes to 3C. The director is > > >called, tells you not to utilize unauthorized information. What > > >action do you take? > > > > > When was the director called? Before or after RHO passed? > > > > If before, then the TD has incorrectly applied Law 27. RHO should have >been given the option to accept 1C. If 1C was not accepted and partner >corrected to 3C, then you can bid on as you choose (3N looks about right). > > > I believe that 3C has a much different meaning than the 1C bid, since a 1C >shows opening bid values but 3C does not. In such cases the TD can later >rule that the insufficient bid conveyed information that damaged the >opponents (L27B1(b). TheTD was therefore correct to warn you > against taking advantage of that information, even if calling it UI is not >right. However, it looks as though passing 3C is not a logical alternative >to bidding 3NT, so the 3NT bid is perfectly legal. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) >-- >[rp] > >I am not so inclined to think that the values normally held for 3C are all >that less than for 1C, even though I would think they are a bit more >defined, especially noting the proclivity to open trash at the one level. >But, > >I think here may be a glaring deficiency of L25, but I am not sure. L25 >refers to L27 in such cases. But consider that here L27B was violated- the >change of call [' a so called correction'] was not a correction at all- yet >this is what L27 requires. The correction. itself was not sufficient. I >think there is now reason to want to apply L25B2b2 but that law requires >that the original bid be legal and excludes if the original call was >illegal. Now L25B2a sends you back to the applicable law.[L27] which gives >offender a second chance to correct without penalty. > >I note that L27B1a refers to 'the substituted bid' as distinguished from a >correct call. And in this case because the substituted bid was not legal it >implies that there is a penalty yet does not refer to what penalty. > >L27B2 glaringly omits to cover the case from L27B1a when the substituted bid >was illegal, as it speaks only to 'if the bid is corrected by any other >sufficient bid [not- substituted by an illegal call]...' > >It seems incongruous that a player has a right to change a call to an >illegal call and escape without penalty, and only with UI restrictions upon >partner; but a player who makes a legal call originally gets the penalty >of barring his partner at least one round. > >This situation is rather common and occurs about once a year at my table. I have read this a few times, and cannot see what you are driving at. L25 does not apply: it says so in uncompromising terms: "When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27" It does not say anything about whether the correction was legal or illegal: L25B just does not apply. On to L27. "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass." Well, if it must, it must, so the 2C bid [as well as the 1C bid] are cancelled. That seems clear enough. Suppose the bid is corrected to the lowest in the same denomination [assuming both non-conventional] there is no penalty, but: "If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an adjusted score." That presumably applies to the 1C bid. What about the 2C bid? Under L16C2 it is UI. OK, we all do UI rulings! While all this seems simple enough, i don't understand why you suggest >that a player has a right to change a call to an >illegal call and escape without penalty when he suffers the same penalty as he would have if he had never corrected to 2C, and he has UI restrictions as well. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK regards roger pewick > We need David himself to confirm or deny this, or access to his archive. For > the moment I have to make my own decision which is that I do not believe > David said such a thing ever. An inadvertent call can be every call which is > still available in the bidding box. And you do not need to be a precise > reader to understand that the last sentence of 25A of course is related to > the intended substituted call. Very intelligent work by the LC once more. > When the intended call was illegal it has to be made, because there is no > pause for thought allowed. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jan 7 15:33:32 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 16:33:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kooijman, A." > To: ; > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 2:30 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > > > > > > was raised by Steve Willner: > > > > > > >I believe David Stevenson once claimed that > > > >L25A doesn't apply if the original call is > > > >an insufficient bid. Now that I look more > > > >closely, I am not sure whether this is > > > >correct or not. Roger: > I remember such a posting. Thank you for finding this message. It proofs my trust in David, since this posting has nothing to do with 25A, but is dealing with 25B and then says that 25B does not apply. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 7 16:12:23 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 17:12:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030107165324.02260220@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:11 7/01/2003 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: > While all this seems simple enough, i don't understand why you suggest > >that a player has a right to change a call to an > >illegal call and escape without penalty >when he suffers the same penalty as he would have if he had never >corrected to 2C, and he has UI restrictions as well. AG : I'm with you in claiming that any provision that allows a player to escape with less severe penalties for a specific infringement by creating more infractions should be hunted out, and that any that could be read as such shouldn't. This is a consequence of L72B2. However, we will not always be able to do so. Suppose that a quick-minded player calls for a spade from dummy, then quickly realizes that a heart would have been a better play. He could correct his call to "spade...eight" (or any card absent from dummy) with barely a perceptible pause. The card not being playable, he is asked to play another card, which may well not be as spade, and does so without penalty - the more so as there can't be UI between declarer and dummy (the classical objection to naming a nonexistent card). And he would be quite credible if the spot chosen happened to be level with some heart held by dummy. Speking of designations of unexistent cards, what do you think of the following ? A singleton in dummy is not considered played before it is called. Suppose a player calls an inexistent card from dummy at a moment where he must follow suit with said singleton. Is he deemed to have played this card ? I ask this question, because I regularly use an echo from dummy to tell partner the contract is safe. But a problem arises when dummy holds a singleton in led suit. A possible ploy would be to name a card higher than dummy's singleton. What happens next ? I found another solution : calling for "a high plum". The Laws say I've called for the highest card in the suit from dummy, which happens to be the only one, but partner gets the message. Hey presto ! Best regards, Alain. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jan 7 16:05:27 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:05:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: <200301071605.LAA01539@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > Thank you for finding this message. Thanks from me, too. > It proofs my trust in David, since this > posting has nothing to do with 25A, but is dealing with 25B and then says > that 25B does not apply. I agree that the message _means_ L25B, although at the beginning it says "L25." I think there may have been another message, but I'm not sure. Anyway it doesn't really matter. The important thing is to understand what the Laws really say. Do we all agree that there is _no difference_ between a call "not made" and a call "made but corrected under L25A?" From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 7 16:28:20 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 17:28:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: <200301071605.LAA01539@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030107172514.02462c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:05 7/01/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > Thank you for finding this message. > >Thanks from me, too. > > > It proofs my trust in David, since this > > posting has nothing to do with 25A, but is dealing with 25B and then says > > that 25B does not apply. > >I agree that the message _means_ L25B, although at the beginning it >says "L25." I think there may have been another message, but I'm not >sure. Anyway it doesn't really matter. The important thing is to >understand what the Laws really say. > >Do we all agree that there is _no difference_ between a call "not made" >and a call "made but corrected under L25A?" AG : I suppose many will do, but if you intend to tell us that an insufficient call corrected according to L25A doesn't exist, and is thus *no* insufficient call, then it isn't very useful. Because the fact that the call is insufficient is strong enough evidence to persuade most of us that L25B should apply, ie the correction happens after thinking (in this case, realizing that the bid is insufficient and devising another one). From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jan 7 16:23:07 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:23:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Fw: Did I miss a click? Message-ID: <200301071623.LAA01564@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> (From Anna, via Grattan) > Go to www.ecatsbridge.com and click the documents section ... Click the > link to documents and programs for downloading and go to the Appeals > Material link and you will find them all there .. First, thanks very much to all the people who make these documents available. The direct link to the Download page is http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/BiB/b7/docdefault.asp?page=Appeals+Material The document http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/bib/static/files/Appeals%20Material/WBF%20Code%20of%20Practice%20complete.pdf is a combination of three documents. (I believe they can be obtained separately as well via other links.) Is this the Montreal material? The "Appeals Examples" appear to be a start on the concept of approved jurisprudence. I have only looked at Example 1 so far and have to confess I have my doubts about the conclusion, at least as regards events where CC's are less detailed than in WBF play. A few more comments on the site: There doesn't seem to be information on the provenance of some of the documents either on the site or within the documents themselves. Links from the home page to individual pages Information and Documents work fine, but links from one child page to another (i.e., the green buttons) don't work for me. In an international forum, it would be better to use the ISO standard date format, yyyy-mm-dd. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jan 7 16:26:08 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:26:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: <200301071626.LAA01568@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Because the fact that the call is insufficient is strong enough evidence to > persuade most of us that L25B should apply, ie the correction happens after > thinking (in this case, realizing that the bid is insufficient and devising > another one). Do others agree with this? It strikes me as exactly backwards: an insufficient bid is if anything more likely to be a mispull. What this really shows, of course, is that a Law that requires judgment of a player's intent is inherently problematic. From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Jan 7 16:24:34 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:24:34 -0600 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Roger Pewick'" ; Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 9:33 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > To: ; > > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 2:30 AM > > Subject: RE: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > > > > > > > > > > was raised by Steve Willner: > > > > > > > > >I believe David Stevenson once claimed that > > > > >L25A doesn't apply if the original call is > > > > >an insufficient bid. Now that I look more > > > > >closely, I am not sure whether this is > > > > >correct or not. > > > Roger: > > > > I remember such a posting. > > > > Thank you for finding this message. It proofs my trust in David, since this > posting has nothing to do with 25A, but is dealing with 25B and then says > that 25B does not apply. > > ton I really did mean it when I said 'THis may have been it.' My memory suggests that it was more recent than 2000, hence the disclaimer. regards roger pewick From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Jan 7 16:35:36 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:35:36 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Alain Gottcheiner'" ; Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 6:34 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 17C irregularity > > > > > > > >Note that L25A does not require calling > > > > >the TD: performing a L25A correction is > > > > >not an irregularity at all, it is a > > > > >perfectly legal part of the game > > What do you want to say? Every correction demanded by the TD is a perfectly > legal part of the game (in theory). But that does not mean that the action > that has to be corrected isn't an irregularity. > > ton > > > > > > > > > > > > > [snip]> > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > > > > > Disagree. Calling twice (before the > > > > next call of partner) is an irregularity > > > > contrary to the rotation requirement of > > > > Law 17C. If attention is drawn to such > > > > an irregularity, then Law 9B requires > > > > the summoning of the TD. > > > > > > > > >Which means that a player who wants to change his > > inadvertent call has to > > >call the TD. We don't need cross references for that > > conclusion. L 9B is > > >clear enough. > > >I don't need a lengthy thread trying to explain to me that > > the irregularity > > >is not the inadvertent call but the replacement of it. > > > > AG : I will cut it short > > > Too short it seems. Jesper gave as his opinion that making a call you don't > want to make (inadvertent or not) constitutes an irregularity. I agree and > tried to say so. > > ton When a call is made that one did not intend to make I believe that it is a call one did not intend to make, and doing so is not an irregularity, and, ought not be. regards roger pewick > : the intended replacement is not an > > irregularity > > either, as it is allowed by the Laws. And even if it were, > > the TD should > > only be called after it occurred. Who wants to call the TD before an > > irregularity happened ? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jan 7 23:08:33 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:08:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: <4A256CA7.007D7477.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Stevenson has given me permission to post his contemporary personal response to my initial posting on this "Lords of the Ring" thread. Best wishes Richard David Stevenson: >Hi Richard > >Erk? > >Let me just check: is there any chance [perish the thought!] that you >are confusing L25A with L25B? > >>>I believe David Stevenson once claimed that >>>L25A doesn't apply if the original call is >>>an insufficient bid. Now that I look more >>>closely, I am not sure whether this is >>>correct or not. > >L25B does not apply, I believe. L25A certainly applies to any >mechanical error. > >>One of the CTDs of Australia has a different >>belief about L25A in the context of an >>insufficient bid. After a bidding box >>auction which commenced 1S - (Pass) - 1S, the >>CTD permitted the conversion of the second 1S >>call to 1NT under L25A. > >As would I if it was inadvertent. > >>Presumably the idea that L25A does not apply >>to insufficient bids is based upon a reading >>of the final sentence of L25A: >> >>>>If legal, his last call stands without >>>>penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the >>>>applicable Law. >> >>The tangled grammar of the final sentence >>of L25A was due to original inattention by >>the WBF LC. The word "illegal" was >>originally intended by the WBF LC to be >>associated with the phrase "his last call". >>The phrase "his last call" was originally >>intended by the WBF LC to mean the post-L25A >>change to a second call (which was originally >>intended by the player), *not* the pre-L25A >>original call (which was post-haste amended >>to the last call by the player due to >>original inattention by the player). > >That is the obvious way to read L25A, n'est-ce pas? > >>Therefore, the overall original intention of >>the WBF LC in writing the final sentence of >>Law 25A was to cater for a player who was >>both inattentive in an original call, and >>the same player had an original inattentive >>intention to make an illegal call which was >>revealed to be the inattentive original >>intention of the player in the non-original >>call the player subsequently corrected to. > >Exactly. > >>Newted? >> >>Sorry, I wish to correct that last question. >>My original intention was to write the >>question: >> >>Noted? > >The only strange thing about all this is that I seem [not for the >first time] to have been mis-quoted. > >I have no objection to you quoting this email in full. > >-- >Cheers, David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jan 7 23:29:56 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:29:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: <4A256CA7.007F6A6F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [snip] >I regularly use an echo from dummy to tell >partner the contract is safe. But a problem >arises when dummy holds a singleton in led >suit. A possible ploy would be to name a >card higher than dummy's singleton. What >happens next ? > >I found another solution : calling for "a >high plum". The Laws say I've called for >the highest card in the suit from dummy, >which happens to be the only one, but >partner gets the message. Hey presto ! > >Best regards, > >Alain. I, too, delight in playing high-low in dummy to tell pard the contract is safe. [My style is to subtly play a trey followed by a deuce.] Alain's instant signal of "high" when dummy's singleton has been led at trick one is, unfortunately, an irregularity which is contrary to Law 46A. By deliberately infracting Law 46A, Alain has also infracted Law 72B2. Tsk. Tsk. As TD, I therefore rule that (penalty) Alain must partner me in a session of bridge when Alain next visits Canberra. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jan 8 00:56:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:56:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity Message-ID: <4A256CA8.00038843.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >When a call is made that one did not intend >to make I believe that it is a call one did >not intend to make, and doing so is not an >irregularity, and, ought not be. > >regards >roger pewick Disagree with the "ought not to be". A regularity is without penalty. It is possible that a Law 25A unintended call, or a Law 25A corrected call, may technically be an irregularity contrary to Law 17C. But Law 25A specifically states that such a technical irregularity is also without penalty. As I asked when I attempted to read Stanislaw Lem's novel "The Probe" during a power failure: "Watts The Probe Lem?" Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jan 8 01:52:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 11:52:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin Message-ID: <4A256CA8.0008AE25.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Blmlers who are mathematicians, logicians, or specialists in bridge movements may be able to assist the ABF in a scoring conundrum posed in the November 2002 edition of the Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin. Best wishes Richard Page 4 The Dick Cummings Swiss Pairs - A Scoring Query Phil Gue and Matthew McManus SA & NSW Ed: Phil Gue wrote an article on the Dick Cummings Swiss Pairs for Australian Bridge, including a query on the scoring. Nick Hughes passed this on to Matthew McManus who responded. Australian Bridge ultimately decided to chop that bit, thinking the ABDA Directors Bulletin might be a better forum: Here is what Phil wrote: The final, and a rather strange scoring system covering this! It is a 5-table butler, with 6 boards against each pair, but your score is compared to the middle two of the remaining four tables. You then score the imps against those two scores. The sum of your imps is then your total for the match, with a maximum win of +50 imps and a maximum loss of -100 imps over the 6 boards. It does seem strange that pairs do not compare their score with the same scores as other pairs. For example, if you are the second ranked score on the board you compare with the third and fourth ranked (as does the first ranked), whilst the third compares with second and fourth, and fourth with second and third (as does fifth). Since raw differences are converted to IMPs, I am sure there would be some anomalies in particular scores appearing. I will leave the mathematicians to enjoy the problem. Matthew replied: The scoring method used for the Dick Cummings Blue Ribbon Pairs Final was effectively cross-imping after eliminating the extreme scores. (With 5 tables in play, this left 2 comparisons on each board.) My first experience with this form of scoring was when Richard Grenside implemented it in the successful Grand Prix circuit in Sydney in the late 1980s. It has also been the method used in the Australian Junior Butler Trials over the last few years. The standard datum comparisons regularly draw criticism, so the organising committee for the Sydney Bridge Festival has been attempting to use a different IMP scoring method. Last year, we used crossimping over four tables. This proved unsatisfactory, as a wild result at one table would provide a windfall to some pairs depending purely on the direction you happened to be sitting at the time. Similar difficulties were encountered with the cross-imping format used at the 2002 Australian Team Playoffs; in that event, there were 8 tables playing. It seems that for cross-imping to be effective, a sufficiently large number of comparisons is required to minimise the effect of wild results. The format used in the 2002 DCP attempted to reduce the effect of these wild, extreme results. It may have been that with only five tables in play, the inherent problems with cross-imping were still not eliminated. We continue to investigate what might be the fairest, most valid and effective scoring method. We welcome input from any players in the final of the Dick Cummings Pairs or any others who would like to provide suggestions. A special email address has been set up just for this. Please write to sbfdcp@dodo.com.au We look forward to hearing from you. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 8 01:25:54 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 20:25:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 1/7/03, Roger Pewick wrote: >Except for the first and second call, I see nothing in L17 that says >that after the second call future players are not precluded from >multiple calls at their turn, not that they are granted license to make >multiple calls, either. It seems to me that's precisely what 17C says "The player to dealer's left makes the second call, and thereafter each player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation." Once player three calls in rotation after player two, the next player in turn is player four, not player three again. >I am wondering if we are reading the same FLB. In L25 I read twice >'may substitute.....call [sic]'. To the eye this is definition of >correct procedure and entitles a player to change his call on his own >volition. I don't see a basis that the TD must be called. But I do >see a basis that if it makes a difference what a player wants to do >based on what the director says, this is pause for thought and forces >a ruling into the L25B category. "Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands without penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the applicable Law." It seems to me you are correct up to a point - this defines correct procedure, even though it's in the "irregularities" section. So changing the call may not be an irregularity. But it may. Experienced players can perhaps be expected to know what to do. But what of the inexperienced? I've seen many players whose thought process at this point is "oh, no, I didn't mean to do that! Can I change my call? I dunno. I better call the TD." I do not believe the TD should then rule this a 25B situation. The question whether there was pause for thought may call for TD judgement. I think here that opponents of this player *may* call the TD to get that judgement - even though there is nothing in the laws, as far as I can see, that actually says so. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 8 01:08:52 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 20:08:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity In-Reply-To: <000901c2b61e$671579d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On 1/7/03, Sven Pran wrote: >If a player at his turn to call says something >like "1 Di..... er.. 1 Heart" or pulls a pile of >bid cards from the box and restores the 1NT >card back into the box before bidding 1S >then we have (extreme) cases of a Law 25A >corrections with normally no need for the TD. Do we? "A bid names a number of odd tricks, from one to seven, and a denomination. (Pass, double and redouble are calls but not bids.)" - Law 18A. What denomination is "Di..."? My understanding that an incomplete verbal "bid" is not a bid at all.* "A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made." - ACBL Bidding Box Regulations. In the bidding box case, the call isn't made if the cards aren't held in the right spot or right manner. *ISTR a story about somebody (Marty Bergen, perhaps?) in this situation: The bidding, in an uncontested verbal auction, went something like "1S", "2S", "4". Bergen called the TD. "Come on, Marty, you know what he means, just get on with it." Bergen said "Very well. 5." :-) From john@asimere.com Wed Jan 8 00:43:56 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 00:43:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: <200301071626.LAA01568@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200301071626.LAA01568@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article <200301071626.LAA01568@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> Because the fact that the call is insufficient is strong enough evidence to >> persuade most of us that L25B should apply, ie the correction happens after >> thinking (in this case, realizing that the bid is insufficient and devising >> another one). > >Do others agree with this? It strikes me as exactly backwards: an >insufficient bid is if anything more likely to be a mispull. > >What this really shows, of course, is that a Law that requires judgment >of a player's intent is inherently problematic. > This is true, but IMO is not a problem in practice. I generally ask "is the call on the table the one that you had in mind when you pulled it from the box ... or have you changed your mind?" [select one option] :) >_______________________________________________ >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 Wed Jan 8 00:45:59 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 00:45:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: <4A256CA7.007F6A6F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256CA7.007F6A6F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In article <4A256CA7.007F6A6F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au>, richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > >Tsk. Tsk. > >As TD, I therefore rule that (penalty) Alain >must partner me in a session of bridge when >Alain next visits Canberra. > MadDog alert. I shall be at the gold coast congress in Feb and shall be seeking victims. >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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 8 01:29:16 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 20:29:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: <200301071605.LAA01539@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 1/7/03, Steve Willner wrote: >Do we all agree that there is _no difference_ between a call "not made" >and a call "made but corrected under L25A?" Speaking only for myself, if by this you mean that if a call is corrected under Law 25A that it is in effect a call that was not made at all, then yes, I agree. From svenpran@online.no Wed Jan 8 08:21:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:21:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity References: Message-ID: <001901c2b6ee$e304f5e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Ed Reppert" > On 1/7/03, Sven Pran wrote: > > >If a player at his turn to call says something > >like "1 Di..... er.. 1 Heart" or pulls a pile of > >bid cards from the box and restores the 1NT > >card back into the box before bidding 1S > >then we have (extreme) cases of a Law 25A > >corrections with normally no need for the TD. > > Do we? "A bid names a number of odd tricks, from one to seven, and a > denomination. (Pass, double and redouble are calls but not bids.)" - Law > 18A. What denomination is "Di..."? My understanding that an incomplete > verbal "bid" is not a bid at all.* "A call is considered made when a > bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly > touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the > call has been made." - ACBL Bidding Box Regulations. In the bidding box > case, the call isn't made if the cards aren't held in the right spot or > right manner. My post was a comment to those (unknown to me) regulations quoted where a call is considered made as soon as the bid card is removed from the box (visible to the other players) not awaiting the card to touch the table. I tried to show how both verbally and with cards we have cases of bid making in progress, not bid made and subsequently corrected. I always advocate a little common sense in addition to the letters of the laws when I direct. regards Sven From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Jan 8 08:44:27 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 02:44:27 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity References: <4A256CA8.00038843.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 17C irregularity > > > >When a call is made that one did not intend > >to make I believe that it is a call one did > >not intend to make, and doing so is not an > >irregularity, and, ought not be. > > > >regards > >roger pewick > > Disagree with the "ought not to be". I once held a hand something like QJxxxx-KJ-AK-QTx in third chair. I had intended to open the bidding 1S given the chance. Well, I was given the chance and I Passed. Certainly to do so was anti-systemic and an insult to the card god. Now you and others may think that it was an irregularity and say it is an irregularity, but I believe that it is a horrid thing to think and an insidious thing to say. Hence, the "ought not to be". regards roger pewick > A regularity is without penalty. > > It is possible that a Law 25A unintended call, > or a Law 25A corrected call, may technically > be an irregularity contrary to Law 17C. > > But Law 25A specifically states that such a > technical irregularity is also without penalty. > > As I asked when I attempted to read Stanislaw > Lem's novel "The Probe" during a power failure: > > "Watts The Probe Lem?" > > Best wishes > > Richard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jan 8 15:33:29 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:33:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <200301081533.KAA07458@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Jesper Dybdal > I think that what we have here is a cultural difference of the type > where those who are used to one regulation worry that the other > regulation will give problems in practice, and vice versa. Thanks, Jesper. It sounds as though you are right, but read on. > But a player cannot take a careful look at a bidding card without > showing it to the rest of table. I don't think this is true, at least for the bidding boxes we use here. If the card is held immediately above the box, LHO will generally be able to see what it is, but partner and RHO will have only a rough indication. Certainly they will know whether it is a bid or not, and if a bid approximately how high, but in the usual "off by one card" mechanical error, they won't know which way it was off (not that it matters). The 1C bid card is probably a exception. > Instead, we should focus on the real difference: how far should you be > allowed to move a *deliberately* selected bidding card and still be > allowed to change your mind? David Stevenson pointed out (and I independently remembered his previous post, which I apologize to all for mis-remembering) that it also matters if the possible call is _out of turn_. If the call is not "made," there is no penalty (but there is probably UI). If the call is "made," then the usual penalties apply. I think these two differences are the relevant ones when adopting regulations for when a call is "made." > A minor difference is that when I, in Denmark, see that my RHO has taken > a call out of the box and is waving it in the air while discussing the > previous hand with his (or my) partner, I can bid - where in the ACBL, I > would be bidding out of turn if I did so. I agree that this is minor, but here I think the ACBL rule is clearly better. Tell the bozo to shut up and play. (Politely, of course!) > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >What this really shows, of course, is that a Law that requires judgment > >of a player's intent is inherently problematic. > > > This is true, but IMO is not a problem in practice. I generally ask "is > the call on the table the one that you had in mind when you pulled it > from the box ... or have you changed your mind?" And if the player can't answer? Let me tell you about one change of mind. When I started reaching for the box, I intended to bid 2S. When the 2S card was 2 cm above the box, I intended to bid 2NT. I have no idea what my intent was at the instant the card cleared the box. Of course there was no problem here in the ACBL, and there was no damage because there was no way anyone else at the table could tell that my intent had changed. When I took out the 2NT card, it looked exactly like a typical mechanical error. (And as noted above, most likely partner and RHO couldn't tell which card I had taken out first.) If I confessed to this behavior where "removed from the box" was in effect, would you want to penalize me? Personally, I think the "call out of turn" argument is the strongest one. At what point should a COOT be deemed to be "made?" From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Wed Jan 8 15:33:36 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:33:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity References: Message-ID: <012601c2b72e$2534ef80$0a053dd4@b0e7g1> > The question whether there was pause for thought may call for TD > judgement. I think here that opponents of this player *may* call the TD > to get that judgement - even though there is nothing in the laws, as far > as I can see, that actually says so. > > Nor in Laws like 27, 31, 47, 57 and 64 the judgement of the TD is mentioned, but . . . . Ben From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Wed Jan 8 16:21:41 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 11:21:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <200301081533.KAA07458@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030108111856.039e89f0@mail.fscv.net> Steve What you describe sounds like a "slip of the mind" rather than "a slip of the hand". Yes, you can get away with changing it. No, I don't think the laws of bridge allow it. Your argument, while different, reminds me of the novice argument "but I changed it in the same breath". Walt At 10:33 AM 8/01/2003, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Jesper Dybdal > > I think that what we have here is a cultural difference of the type > > where those who are used to one regulation worry that the other > > regulation will give problems in practice, and vice versa. > >Thanks, Jesper. It sounds as though you are right, but read on. > > > But a player cannot take a careful look at a bidding card without > > showing it to the rest of table. > >I don't think this is true, at least for the bidding boxes we use >here. If the card is held immediately above the box, LHO will >generally be able to see what it is, but partner and RHO will have only >a rough indication. Certainly they will know whether it is a bid or >not, and if a bid approximately how high, but in the usual "off by >one card" mechanical error, they won't know which way it was off (not >that it matters). The 1C bid card is probably a exception. > > > Instead, we should focus on the real difference: how far should you be > > allowed to move a *deliberately* selected bidding card and still be > > allowed to change your mind? > >David Stevenson pointed out (and I independently remembered his >previous post, which I apologize to all for mis-remembering) that it >also matters if the possible call is _out of turn_. If the call is not >"made," there is no penalty (but there is probably UI). If the call is >"made," then the usual penalties apply. > >I think these two differences are the relevant ones when adopting >regulations for when a call is "made." > > > A minor difference is that when I, in Denmark, see that my RHO has taken > > a call out of the box and is waving it in the air while discussing the > > previous hand with his (or my) partner, I can bid - where in the ACBL, I > > would be bidding out of turn if I did so. > >I agree that this is minor, but here I think the ACBL rule is clearly >better. Tell the bozo to shut up and play. (Politely, of course!) > > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > >What this really shows, of course, is that a Law that requires judgment > > >of a player's intent is inherently problematic. > > > > > This is true, but IMO is not a problem in practice. I generally ask "is > > the call on the table the one that you had in mind when you pulled it > > from the box ... or have you changed your mind?" > >And if the player can't answer? Let me tell you about one change of >mind. When I started reaching for the box, I intended to bid 2S. When >the 2S card was 2 cm above the box, I intended to bid 2NT. I have no >idea what my intent was at the instant the card cleared the box. > >Of course there was no problem here in the ACBL, and there was no >damage because there was no way anyone else at the table could tell >that my intent had changed. When I took out the 2NT card, it looked >exactly like a typical mechanical error. (And as noted above, most >likely partner and RHO couldn't tell which card I had taken out first.) > >If I confessed to this behavior where "removed from the box" was in >effect, would you want to penalize me? > >Personally, I think the "call out of turn" argument is the strongest >one. At what point should a COOT be deemed to be "made?" > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jan 8 18:12:34 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:12:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Re: Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin Message-ID: <200301081812.NAA07545@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > The Dick Cummings Swiss Pairs - A Scoring Query > > Phil Gue and Matthew McManus SA & NSW [as forwarded to BLML] > Last year, we used crossimping > over four tables. This proved unsatisfactory, > as a wild result at one table would provide a windfall > to some pairs depending purely on the direction you > happened to be sitting at the time. This is a very strange statement. What is a "windfall?" If someone holding my cards goes -1700, and I manage a small plus or minus, it seems to me that I _deserve_ to win IMPs. And of course my opponents deserve to lose some because they failed to collect the +1700 that some players with their cards managed. No "windfall" here; just normal scoring. For IMP pairs in serious competition, cross-IMPs is the only satisfactory method I know of. (Methods using a datum are acceptable in events that are mainly social in nature if players like to have a datum against which to compare, but in general datum-based methods introduce severe inequities.) Anything other than cross-IMPs loses information by throwing away valid comparisons and is therefore unfair. Yes, there will be large swings or so-called "windfalls," but this is true in any form of quantitative scoring. The only solutions are to play more boards or have a larger field or play matchpoints. (My rough estimate is that the randomness in an IMP pair game of N boards is about the same as in a matchpoint game of N/3 boards.) I suppose another possibility is to truncate the IMP scale or use a custom IMP scale. If that's done, it should apply to _each comparison_, not to the sum of comparisons as was apparently done last year. Of course the limiting case of a "custom IMP scale" is matchpoints! Or you could have a scale where it takes a difference of, say, 50 points to win the matchpoint, or you could use some different form of scoring altogether. I've toyed with the idea of using score _ratios_ instead of _differences_ as the basis of comparison. That might be an interesting approach for this sort of event because the method combines some of the advantages of IMPs and matchpoints. The bottom line is that you need to figure out what you are trying to achieve. Then you can design a suitable scoring system. But if what you are trying to do is have a pairs contest that simulates IMP team play, then you should just do so and recognize that "windfalls" are an inevitable result. From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Jan 8 19:42:03 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 20:42:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8kto1v86q2qepb9evo6u2311mglkmlggo5@nuser.dybdal.dk> There has been some mix-up in the attributions of quotations in this thread: what I actually said was not what Ton thinks I said. Before commenting on specific things others have written, I'd like to take a step back to what this is all about: This whole "irregularity or not" discussion began because I would like it to be legal to not call the TD when my opponent who wants to bid 1D takes some bidding cards out of the box, notices that the 1C card has stuck to 1D, says something like "oops - I'm trying to bid 1D" to the table while putting back the 1C card, and then places 1D on the table. IMO it is desirable if this sequence of events does not (even in principle) require calling the TD. That can be achieved in two ways: (a) by not considering either of the calls (1C and the correction to 1D) irregularities, or (b) by adopting an ACBL-style bidding box regulation so that 1C has not been bid at all. Personally, I'd prefer (a). Back to the details of whether or not there are irregularities involved: On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 13:34:00 +0100, "Kooijman, A." wrote: >> > > >Note that L25A does not require calling >> > > >the TD: performing a L25A correction is >> > > >not an irregularity at all, it is a >> > > >perfectly legal part of the game > >What do you want to say? Every correction demanded by the TD is a = perfectly >legal part of the game (in theory). But that does not mean that the = action >that has to be corrected isn't an irregularity.=20 I wrote the stuff marked ">> > > >" above. It seems that we agree that the correction itself is not an irregularity. It had not even occurred to me that the original call (a mispulled bidding card) could be considered an irregularity in itself even when it is an otherwise legal call. >> > > [snip]> > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> > > >> > > Disagree. Calling twice (before the >> > > next call of partner) is an irregularity >> > > contrary to the rotation requirement of >> > > Law 17C. If attention is drawn to such >> > > an irregularity, then Law 9B requires >> > > the summoning of the TD. I wrote what is being disagreed with (but not quoted) here, and I believe the disagreeing text was written by Richard. Ton wrote: >Too short it seems. Jesper gave as his opinion that making a call you = don't >want to make (inadvertent or not) constitutes an irregularity. I agree = and >tried to say so.=20 I actually gave the opinion that it is not an irregularity, and Ton obviously does not agree with that. Richard also wrote: >My belief is that Law 25A merely >defines that a *particular* Law 17C >irregularity is not penalised. Evidence >for my belief is the phrase "without >penalty" in Law 25A. > >Jesper interprets Law 25A as overruling >Law 17C, but neither Law 25A nor Law 17C >contain a cross-reference specifically >saying so. Yes, I think that the specific words "a player may" in L25A take precedence over L17C. I do not understand what "may" should mean other than that the action is legal and not an irregularity. Of course I agree that there is a world of difference between (a) an irregularity that happens to not be penalized and (b) correct procedure. But in the L25A case, we are talking about an action that the laws specifically allow and which the TD, if you ask him, will tell you that you may take. That is different from an unpenalized irregularity, which is an action that is not allowed, but which just happens to not be penalized. As for the original inadvertent call being an irregularity in itself, it seems strange to me that it should be an irregularity in itself to make a call that you did not wish to make. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Jan 8 19:59:29 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 20:59:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <200301081533.KAA07458@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200301081533.KAA07458@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:33:29 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> Instead, we should focus on the real difference: how far should you be >> allowed to move a *deliberately* selected bidding card and still be >> allowed to change your mind? > >David Stevenson pointed out (and I independently remembered his >previous post, which I apologize to all for mis-remembering) that it >also matters if the possible call is _out of turn_. If the call is not >"made," there is no penalty (but there is probably UI). If the call is >"made," then the usual penalties apply. Good point. >I think these two differences are the relevant ones when adopting >regulations for when a call is "made." Yes. >Let me tell you about one change of >mind. When I started reaching for the box, I intended to bid 2S. When >the 2S card was 2 cm above the box, I intended to bid 2NT. I have no >idea what my intent was at the instant the card cleared the box. When you've told me all that (away from the table), I'll rule that your change of mind probably had something to do with what happened and apply L25B. But you are right that there is judgment involved, and sometimes - though rarely, I think - it can be difficult. >Personally, I think the "call out of turn" argument is the strongest >one. At what point should a COOT be deemed to be "made?" The logical answer seems to be "when partner has received useful information from the action". That point is difficult to specify precisely. I think our regulation is closer to matching that point than the ACBL regulation is, though it certainly does not match it perfectly. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Jan 8 20:53:35 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 09:53:35 +1300 Subject: [blml] Re: Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin In-Reply-To: <200301081812.NAA07545@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000701c2b758$07c08de0$23e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: Thursday, 9 January 2003 7:13 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Cc: sbfdcp@dodo.com.au > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin > > For IMP pairs in serious competition, cross-IMPs is the only > satisfactory method I know of. (Methods using a datum are acceptable > in events that are mainly social in nature if players like to have a > datum against which to compare, but in general datum-based methods > introduce severe inequities.) Anything other than cross-IMPs loses > information by throwing away valid comparisons and is > therefore unfair. > What are or where is a reference to the severe inequities? Wayne From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jan 8 21:37:50 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:37:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Re: Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin Message-ID: <200301082137.QAA07662@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> From: "Wayne Burrows" > What are or where is a reference to the severe inequities? [in Butler and similar scoring methods] They have been discussed at great length in the past on both BLML and RGB. The simplest example is that improving your score on a board can _reduce_ your score in the standings. (I think it was Hamman and Wolff who found this out the hard way; Herman used to have the story on his web site and maybe still does.) There are other problems as well. Try an archive search for "IMP Pairs" or "Butler scoring." From david-martin@talk21.com Wed Jan 8 21:36:13 2003 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 21:36:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin References: <000701c2b758$07c08de0$23e536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <009101c2b75e$fb18a3a0$4a3a7bd5@davicaltd> Steve willner wrote: > > > > For IMP pairs in serious competition, cross-IMPs is the only > > satisfactory method I know of. (Methods using a datum are acceptable > > in events that are mainly social in nature if players like to have a > > datum against which to compare, but in general datum-based methods > > introduce severe inequities.) Anything other than cross-IMPs loses > > information by throwing away valid comparisons and is > > therefore unfair. > > And Wayne Burrows asked: > What are or where is a reference to the severe inequities? ###### IMO Steve is completely correct that cross-IMP is the only fair method for the reason that he states. What are the problems with Butler? It is not *conservative* for a start. Thus, the total of IMPs gained and lost by all of the NS pairs on each individual board is not necessarily zero and this is true even if no extreme results are excluded from the calculation of the datum. Likewise for the EW line. Hence, for each board, there can be a preferential line and, thus, by summing all of the preferences, a preferential line to be in for the whole event. Also, there is no mathematically valid equivalent of arrow-switching for Mitchell movements or arrangements of a Howell movement that will ensure that a fair single winner field is produced. ######### From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Jan 8 23:44:23 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:44:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin References: <000701c2b758$07c08de0$23e536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001a01c2b76f$e5707300$e44327d9@pbncomputer> Wayne wrote: > What are or where is a reference to the severe inequities? Nowhere. They are not "severe" in the sense that they will, with anything other than very low probability, influence the result of a sufficiently long event in any significant measure. Of course, there have been events in which a "random" extraneous factor (such as a time penalty) "determines" the winner, and there have been events (though not very many of them) where if the scoring method had been X instead of Y, pair or team A instead of B would have won. Now, it is desirable to eliminate these occurrences as far as possible, and learned men are not wasting their time when they demonstrate that, for example, cross-Butlering may be a more equitable method than match-pointed triolets. But "severe" is a serious overbid. David Burn London, England From john@asimere.com Thu Jan 9 00:10:51 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 00:10:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin In-Reply-To: <200301081812.NAA07545@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200301081812.NAA07545@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <7G5vNOBL4LH+EwOU@asimere.com> In article <200301081812.NAA07545@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >> The Dick Cummings Swiss Pairs - A Scoring Query >> snup > >For IMP pairs in serious competition, cross-IMPs is the only >satisfactory method I know of. (Methods using a datum are acceptable >in events that are mainly social in nature if players like to have a >datum against which to compare, but in general datum-based methods >introduce severe inequities.) just look in the back of the hammamet book where I computed both x-imps and butler. It makes not the blindest bit of difference. Butler got it so right it was amazing. However x-imps is preferable as it does actually balance. cheers john > Anything other than cross-IMPs loses >information by throwing away valid comparisons and is therefore unfair. > There is a fundamental stupidity in x-imping only some of the results. The purpose of Butler chucking out the end results was to get a better *datum*. There is *absolutely* no justification for doing it at x-imps as the result is the whole event gets scored with no windfalls. I pick up windfalls (and concede them) like no-one else in the business. Why should my high variance style get ignored? cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jan 9 07:10:06 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 07:10:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity References: <8kto1v86q2qepb9evo6u2311mglkmlggo5@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <000e01c2b7ae$3c8e33a0$f284403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws List" Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 17C irregularity IMO it is desirable if this sequence of events does not (even in principle) require calling the TD. That can be achieved in two ways: (a) by not considering either of the calls (1C and the correction to 1D) irregularities, or (b) by adopting an ACBL-style bidding box regulation so that 1C has not been bid at all. > +=+ There is (c). If all players at the table are content that a change is of an inadvertent call and is made without pause for thought - without reconsideration of the intention - there has been an irregularity but the laws do not demand that attention be drawn to it. If attention is not drawn to an irregularity the laws do not require that the Director be called. It would not surprise me to learn that when the facts are obvious to all four players in such a case it does happen at times that the players just get on with the auction without comment. Since the above rests on the silence of the law, a regulation could override it, in my opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jan 9 07:53:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 07:53 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030108111856.039e89f0@mail.fscv.net> Message-ID: > Steve > > What you describe sounds like a "slip of the mind" rather than "a slip > of the hand". Yes, you can get away with changing it. No, I don't think > the laws of bridge allow it. Steve's actions, under ACBL regs, are the equivalent of the spoken "Two.." changes mind from S to NT "no trumps". This is certainly legal. One is perfectly entitled to a change of mind before a call is made. The ACBL permits changes of mind until the bidding card is held near the table, the EBU permits such changes until the card has cleared the bidding box (I think). Tim From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 9 08:20:08 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 09:20:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity References: <8kto1v86q2qepb9evo6u2311mglkmlggo5@nuser.dybdal.dk> <000e01c2b7ae$3c8e33a0$f284403e@endicott> Message-ID: <000901c2b7b7$ec502a10$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Grattan Endicott" ........... > IMO it is desirable if this sequence of events does not > (even in principle) require calling the TD. That can be > achieved in two ways: > (a) by not considering either of the calls (1C and the > correction to 1D) irregularities, or > (b) by adopting an ACBL-style bidding box regulation > so that 1C has not been bid at all. > > > +=+ There is (c). > If all players at the table are content that a > change is of an inadvertent call and is made without > pause for thought - without reconsideration of the > intention - there has been an irregularity but the > laws do not demand that attention be drawn to it. > If attention is not drawn to an irregularity the laws > do not require that the Director be called. > It would not surprise me to learn that when > the facts are obvious to all four players in such a > case it does happen at times that the players > just get on with the auction without comment. And that is according to my experience (and my satisfaction) what normally happens. > Since the above rests on the silence of the > law, a regulation could override it, in my opinion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ But why wake up a sleeping dog? regards Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jan 9 08:21:07 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:21:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: <4A256CA7.007F6A6F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <005e01c2b7b8$434eac10$f284403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lords of the Ring > [snip] > > >I regularly use an echo from dummy > >to tell partner the contract is safe. > +=+ No doubt listing this 'other agreement' on the CC. As to devices when dummy has a singleton, those read appear to contravene Law 73B1. +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jan 9 08:06:18 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:06:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Did I miss a click? References: <200301071623.LAA01564@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <005d01c2b7b8$421fc900$f284403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Did I miss a click? > > Is this the Montreal material? > +=+ No. The CoP expansion was Nov 2001 and relates to appeals matters It is not a WBFLC product. +=+ > > The "Appeals Examples" appear to be a start > on the concept of approved jurisprudence. I > have only looked at Example 1 so far and have > to confess I have my doubts about the conclusion, > at least as regards events where CC's are less > detailed than in WBF play. > +=+ The whole expansion initiates the said concept. Since the object of the CoP and its associated material is to draw practices worldwide closer together it would be surprising if someone somewhere did not find its recommendations unlike their local experience. +=+ > > A few more comments on the site: > There doesn't seem to be information on the > provenance of some of the documents either on > the site or within the documents themselves. > +=+ Anna is authorized to publish WBF material. She has a contract with the WBF. She also works for the EBL. The documents she publishes under these auspices are 'official'. Separately the EBU web-site is also under her management. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Jan 9 08:23:07 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 09:23:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity Message-ID: Roger: > > >When a call is made that one did not intend > >to make I believe that it is a call one did > >not intend to make, and doing so is not an > >irregularity, and, ought not be. Richard: > Disagree with the "ought not to be". It all depends on the meaning of the words we use. And my (and Richard's) meaning of irregularity includes making calls a player didn't want to make, therewith deviating from prescribed procedure when he wants to change such call. If Roger doesn't call this an irregularity so it be. But if the conequence of this choice is that the TD doesn't need to be called he is wrong. And I don't understand why he wants to be so stubborn. Let us assume that LHO has called after the inadvertent call. Now what? Still solving the problems themselves? Or refusing to accept the word 'problem' as well? Or namimg this call from LHO the irregularity? Or saying that the inadvertent call only becomes an irregularity when LHO makes a call? All really brave but not very clever. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Jan 9 08:28:46 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 09:28:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: > On 1/7/03, Steve Willner wrote: > > >Do we all agree that there is _no difference_ between a call > "not made" > >and a call "made but corrected under L25A?" > > Speaking only for myself, if by this you mean that if a call is > corrected under Law 25A that it is in effect a call that was > not made at > all, then yes, I agree. > I allow you to speak for me as well. At least in this case. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Jan 9 08:52:28 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 09:52:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity Message-ID: Jesper: =20 > Yes, I think that the specific words "a player may" in L25A take > precedence over L17C. I do not understand what "may" should=20 > mean other > than that the action is legal and not an irregularity. It was after I read this statement from Roger that I said to quit this thread in disbelief. But now that even Jesper supports this argument I = have to react again.=20 The laws use the word 'may' in many more laws. Why do you think that = using 'may' implies that there is no irregularity involved.=20 It is because of an irregularity that the laws have to describe what to = do. Let us take L21B: misinformation. Shouldn't we call a TD when it = happens? Take L29A. Does the word 'may' there implies that a call out of turn is = not an irregularity anymore?=20 Are we confused by the fact that some irregularities can be solved = without assessing penalties? Or what demon-like interpretation does Roger have concerning the word =EDrregularity'?=20 ton From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 9 09:28:41 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:28:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity References: Message-ID: <004d01c2b7c1$8005a560$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Kooijman, A." Jesper: > Yes, I think that the specific words "a player may" in L25A take > precedence over L17C. I do not understand what "may" should > mean other > than that the action is legal and not an irregularity. It was after I read this statement from Roger that I said to quit this thread in disbelief. But now that even Jesper supports this argument I have to react again. The laws use the word 'may' in many more laws. Why do you think that using 'may' implies that there is no irregularity involved. It is because of an irregularity that the laws have to describe what to do. Let us take L21B: misinformation. Shouldn't we call a TD when it happens? Take L29A. Does the word 'may' there implies that a call out of turn is not an irregularity anymore? Please remember the "Interpretation of the Laws": ..... When these Laws say that a player "may" do something ...... the failure to do it is not wrong. ....... Both your examples are cases where a player "may do something" after some irregularity, such action (if taken) resulting in consequences for the handling of the original irregularity, but that subsequent (permitted) action is not itself an irregularity. According to law 25A a player "may" (on certain conditions) substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call, an action which may be deemed an irregularity (i.e. a deviation from normal procedure) but if so an irregularity which is specifically permitted and thus should not require the Director to be summoned unless there are disagreements whether the conditions specified in Law 25A are fulfilled or not. The way I read Law25A it defines a certain class of call substitutions as not being any irregularity within the meaning of the laws. regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 9 09:57:22 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:57:22 +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$7fdef1c3@LNV> <002701c2aeab$b8e5be20$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E1D4782.9030907@skynet.be> Hello Jaap, Ton, all, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >>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. > Jaap, changing an example in order to make it more clear is a common practice on blml. I know we should not, but it is very hard to make a perfect example to which nothing can be added. What Ton was trying to say is that if someone tries to speed up the game by claiming, he should not lose the benefit of the unexpected extra trick. The fact that he did not visualise the possibility of the queen dropping bare is no indication that he would not notice her when she does. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 9 10:03:02 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 11:03:02 +0100 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: <3E1D48D6.5020606@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > 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? > Jerry, you are misguided on one issue. You assume that this declarer made a plan. That he actively thought the spades were high. I don't believe that. I believe that he never considered the spades after his initial analysis : 4 certain, 5 probable tricks, nothing I can do about it. His plan was not to throw the HK regardless of what happens. His plan was to throw the HK. And then something happens which renders this line irrational. And the claim laws allow him to change his line at that time. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Jan 9 10:07:47 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 04:07:47 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: ; Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:23 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 17C irregularity > > Roger: > > > > > >When a call is made that one did not intend > > >to make I believe that it is a call one did > > >not intend to make, and doing so is not an > > >irregularity, and, ought not be. I have a premise that a player is entitled to one action in a rotation. And, once he has used that action it is a crime to perform another. And I recognize that there is a certain situation where taking a second action appears that the second action was the only action taken. And that if such a player corrects his first action it is sensible to [a] not penalize him and [b] treat the canceled action as a mild form of UI since it might be a slip of the mind [ in a way 'accurately depict holdings']. I hold that the time window that justifies [with a high degree of confidence] that view is very short. And delaying action beyond that window introduces the possibility, no, the likelihood of a change of mind. After all, a player is admonished by law to pay sufficient attention to the game and L21 says that a player has no recourse if he calls based on his own misunderstanding. One of the outcomes of this view is that a single call at a player's turn that is sufficient must not be an irregularity. This is without regard to intention. If an irregularity is to occur it must be at a future time- such as substituting a call. And it is that substitution that is an irregularity. > Richard: > > > Disagree with the "ought not to be". > > > > > It all depends on the meaning of the words we use. And my (and Richard's) > meaning of irregularity includes making calls a player didn't want to make, > therewith deviating from prescribed procedure when he wants to change such > call. If Roger doesn't call this an irregularity so it be. But if the > conequence of this choice is that the TD doesn't need to be called he is > wrong. And I don't understand why he wants to be so stubborn. > > Let us assume that LHO has called after the inadvertent call. Now what? So what. Has the inadvertent call been corrected? No. No irregularity. > Still solving the problems themselves? Or refusing to accept the word > 'problem' as well? Or namimg this call from LHO the irregularity? Or saying > that the inadvertent call only becomes an irregularity when LHO makes a > call? All really brave but not very clever. Just what are your antecedents? Should I attempt to guess? What did the other side do to prevent a correction? Did LHO begin bodily movement during the time the player reached for the bidding box [distracting him] until he let go the bidding cards? Did someone yell FIRE? Did the player during his moving the bidding cards to the table immediately draw attention that he did not have the intended card and then expeditiously do something about it? A player who announces he has made an unintended call and does not do something about it immediately has violated L73B1. Now there is an irregularity. Oh, the player doesn't announce his folly and does nothing? Wherre is the irregularity? America's IRS imputes interest of 8% on an interest free loan and then collects income tax on interest never received. This notion of imputing a crime upon a mistake imputes problems upon players and does nothing to solve player's problems. roger pewick > ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Jan 9 10:09:13 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 11:09:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity Message-ID: Sven: > > Both your examples are cases where a player "may do something" after > some irregularity, such action (if taken) resulting in > consequences for the > handling of the original irregularity, but that subsequent (permitted) > action > is not itself an irregularity. Without careful reading it is not so easy to come to reasonable conclusions. I have never said, not in this thread anyway, that the second call (the subsequent action) is an irregularity. I said very clearly that the inadvertent call, the misinformation, the insufficient bid constitutes an irregularity. And that the use of the word 'may' in a law does not mean that a player may do so without calling the TD first. It is law 9B1A that governs this issue and not the word 'may'. So the question is whether a player has drawn attention to an irregularity when he has made an inadvertent call and wants to change it. I tend to say 'yes he did' and Grattan seems to say 'no, he didn't'. I agree that Grattan's approach is the more pragmatic one, since there is no harm done when a player substitutes an inadvertent call. But I prefer a TD to decide that the call was inadvertent before doing anything. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 9 12:16:49 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 13:16:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: <4A256CA7.007F6A6F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030109131217.0246d240@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:29 8/01/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >[snip] > > >I regularly use an echo from dummy to tell > >partner the contract is safe. But a problem > >arises when dummy holds a singleton in led > >suit. A possible ploy would be to name a > >card higher than dummy's singleton. What > >happens next ? > > > >I found another solution : calling for "a > >high plum". The Laws say I've called for > >the highest card in the suit from dummy, > >which happens to be the only one, but > >partner gets the message. Hey presto ! > > > >Best regards, > > > >Alain. > >I, too, delight in playing high-low in dummy >to tell pard the contract is safe. [My style >is to subtly play a trey followed by a deuce.] > >Alain's instant signal of "high" when dummy's >singleton has been led at trick one is, >unfortunately, an irregularity which is >contrary to Law 46A. By deliberately >infracting Law 46A, Alain has also infracted >Law 72B2. AG : not really. In Belgium, the designations of "high one", "low one", and even "plum" for a small card have become standard and are no more felt as incomplete. And I didn't sate I played it instantly. *This* would have been an infraction (to L74C7). Who would be able, after all, to instantly know that the contract is safe ? (except of course for an expert playing a relay system who once tabled before the lead) From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 9 12:18:40 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 13:18:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: References: <4A256CA7.007F6A6F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4A256CA7.007F6A6F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030109131744.0246d780@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:45 8/01/2003 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <4A256CA7.007F6A6F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au>, >richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > > > > >Tsk. Tsk. > > > >As TD, I therefore rule that (penalty) Alain > >must partner me in a session of bridge when > >Alain next visits Canberra. AG : don't you infringe L12B ? And I'm a known homebody. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 9 12:26:56 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 13:26:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin In-Reply-To: <4A256CA8.0008AE25.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030109132006.0246ba10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:52 8/01/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >The final, and a rather strange scoring system >covering this! It is a 5-table butler, with 6 boards >against each pair, but your score is compared to the >middle two of the remaining four tables. You then >score the imps against those two scores. The sum of >your imps is then your total for the match, with a >maximum win of +50 imps and a maximum loss of -100 >imps over the 6 boards. It does seem strange >that pairs do not compare their score with the same >scores as other pairs. For example, if you are the >second ranked score on the board you compare with >the third and fourth ranked (as does the first ranked), >whilst the third compares with second and fourth, >and fourth with second and third (as does fifth). >The scoring method used for the Dick Cummings >Blue Ribbon Pairs Final was effectively cross-imping >after eliminating the extreme scores. (With 5 tables >in play, this left 2 comparisons on each board.) AG : IMPing against the middle tables and against the average of the middle tables, which might include yours, would be quite similar if the IMP scale was linear, which it isn't quite. The difference is not huge, but it should be known that Butler scale (scoring against an average) gives more importance to very deviant scores (as phantom saves or big penalties) while scoring against a number of other tables (usually used in selections) puts more emphasis on getting moderate, but atypical, swings (like stopping very low on a misfit deal, or moderate penalties in doubled contracts). From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 9 12:33:00 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 13:33:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <200301081533.KAA07458@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030109132816.02471e00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:33 8/01/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >Personally, I think the "call out of turn" argument is the strongest >one. At what point should a COOT be deemed to be "made?" AG : as for any other call : at the time where the card reaches the table, or very near it face upwards. This means that if somebody interrupts your gesture, there has been no COOT - but of course there could be UI. Another case I have had to contend with - and with no rule at all to help me - was that of the player who pulled out the "Stop" card OOT. There was no COOT, to be sure, so I decided that the correct procedure hadn't been followed, but as only possible consequence UI from the fact that the player wanted to make a skip bid. It wasn't very important here : LHO opened 1D, the player now bid stop-2S, which they play as weak, so every UI was now included in the AI rom the bidding. Best regards, Alain. From gester@lineone.net Thu Jan 9 12:17:08 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:17:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity References: Message-ID: <002f01c2b7d9$379fc900$bd182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "'Sven Pran'" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 17C irregularity > > Without careful reading it is not so easy to come to > reasonable conclusions.I have never said, not in this > thread anyway, that the second call (the subsequent > action) is an irregularity. I said very clearly that the > inadvertent call, the misinformation, the insufficient bid > constitutes an irregularity. And that the use of the word > 'may' in a law does not mean that a player may do so > without calling the TD first. It is law 9B1A that governs > this issue and not the word 'may'. So the question is > whether a player has drawn attention to an irregularity > when he has made an inadvertent call and wants to > change it. I tend to say 'yes he did' and Grattan seems > to say 'no, he didn't'. I agree that Grattan's approach is > the more pragmatic one, since there is no harm done > when a player substitutes an inadvertent call. But I > prefer a TD to decide that the call was inadvertent > before doing anything. > > ton > +=+ Yes. That sums it up. I am not in favour of TDs getting 'busy' in such a situation - and I really cannot see them deciding that an action is 'advertent' when all four players are agreed that it is inadvertent. TDs are more usefully employed in arbitration of situations that are challenged. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 9 12:37:18 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 13:37:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity In-Reply-To: <8kto1v86q2qepb9evo6u2311mglkmlggo5@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030109133418.0246b530@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:42 8/01/2003 +0100, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >This whole "irregularity or not" discussion began because I would like >it to be legal to not call the TD when my opponent who wants to bid 1D >takes some bidding cards out of the box, notices that the 1C card has >stuck to 1D, says something like "oops - I'm trying to bid 1D" to the >table while putting back the 1C card, and then places 1D on the table. > >IMO it is desirable if this sequence of events does not (even in >principle) require calling the TD. That can be achieved in two ways: >(a) by not considering either of the calls (1C and the correction to 1D) >irregularities, or >(b) by adopting an ACBL-style bidding box regulation so that 1C has not >been bid at all. > >Personally, I'd prefer (a). AG : could we perhaps ask that a mention of "the replaced call is not deemed an irregularity" be added to L25A ? >As for the original inadvertent call being an irregularity in itself, it >seems strange to me that it should be an irregularity in itself to make >a call that you did not wish to make. AG : this argument is not decisive. When you pull the wrong card, and is happens to be a revoke, you will usually get to correct it, but there will be a penalty -MPC- because of the _irregularity_ . And it is obvious you didn't want to do it. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 9 12:49:22 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 13:49:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: <005e01c2b7b8$434eac10$f284403e@endicott> References: <4A256CA7.007F6A6F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030109133949.02446800@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:21 9/01/2003 +0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"Exceeding wise, fair-spoken, >and persuasive." ['Henry VIII'] >============================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:29 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > > > [snip] > > > > >I regularly use an echo from dummy > > >to tell partner the contract is safe. > > >+=+ No doubt listing this 'other >agreement' on the CC. > As to devices when dummy has >a singleton, those read appear to >contravene Law 73B1. +=+ Come on ! Please try and call the TD to tell him that declarer is illegally communicating information to dummy. Then wait for the laughter. Or perhaps you are trying to tell us that saying "thank you partner" in muffled voice, because you don't think it, or with alacrity, because you do, would be an offence ? From blml@dybdal.dk Thu Jan 9 13:13:44 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 14:13:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 09:52:28 +0100, "Kooijman, A." wrote: >The laws use the word 'may' in many more laws. Why do you think that = using >'may' implies that there is no irregularity involved.=20 >It is because of an irregularity that the laws have to describe what to = do. >Let us take L21B: misinformation. Shouldn't we call a TD when it = happens? Giving misinformation is an irregularity (because there is a law that says you should give correct information and no law allowing you to give incorrect information), and we should call the TD. Changing your call after an opponents' misinformation is not in itself an irregularity - and it is the change that the word "may" is about and allows. >Take L29A. Does the word 'may' there implies that a call out of turn is = not >an irregularity anymore?=20 The COOT is an irregularity, and we should call the TD. Condoning it by calling after it is not an irregularity - and that is what the word "may" is about. In L25A, the word "may" is about the change of call. I suspect that we agree that the actual change is not an irregularity in itself. The differences from L21 are that this legal change follows on something that seems to me to not be an irregularity and that it is the same player that performs both actions. When you give misinformation it is very obvious that it is an irregularity: you are not allowed to do it. The misinformation may be inadvertent, but that makes no difference as to whether or not it is an irregularity: it is an irregularity simply because it is misinformation. But if I accidentally put the 1S card on the table when I really wanted to bid 1H, is that an irregularity? Bidding 1S stupidly in itself can hardly be an irregularity, and it seems strange to me that its being inadvertent should make it an irregularity. What if I do not discover it until it is too late for L25A, so I keep quiet until the end of the board? If I then say "I really wanted to bid 1S, but got the wrong card", have I then called attention to an irregularity and need to call the TD? Or does the 1S bid somehow turn into an irregularity only if I afterwards change it to 1H (a legal L25A change)? Perhaps part of the answer is that it doesn't really make sense at all to talk about an inadvertent action being "allowed" or not. My point of view is that (a) I have a quite strong opinion that the L25A change of call, described with the word "may", is not an irregularity, and (b) I believe, but much less strongly, that making an inadvertent call is not an irregularity. (c) It would be nice to reach some agreement on (b), but fortunately it makes little difference in practice. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Thu Jan 9 13:24:43 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 14:24:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity In-Reply-To: <000e01c2b7ae$3c8e33a0$f284403e@endicott> References: <8kto1v86q2qepb9evo6u2311mglkmlggo5@nuser.dybdal.dk> <000e01c2b7ae$3c8e33a0$f284403e@endicott> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 07:10:06 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=3D+ There is (c). > If all players at the table are content that a >change is of an inadvertent call and is made without >pause for thought - without reconsideration of the >intention - there has been an irregularity but the >laws do not demand that attention be drawn to it. >If attention is not drawn to an irregularity the laws >do not require that the Director be called. > It would not surprise me to learn that when >the facts are obvious to all four players in such a >case it does happen at times that the players >just get on with the auction without comment. I am sure that it happens often in practice. And you are of course right that it is legal, provided nobody calls attention to the irregularity (if it is an irregularity). I did construct my example to include the player saying something that I would consider to be calling attention to the irregularity. It seems a little strange to me that if the player says "oops" (in a situation where all the players know perfectly well anyway that he got the wrong card), then there is an obligation to call the TD. That can be avoided by not considering what happened an irregularity (but I would of course be happier doing that if Ton agreed). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Thu Jan 9 13:36:53 2003 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 08:36:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: <005e01c2b7b8$434eac10$f284403e@endicott> References: <4A256CA7.007F6A6F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005e01c2b7b8$434eac10$f284403e@endicott> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:21:07 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"Exceeding wise, fair-spoken, >and persuasive." ['Henry VIII'] >============================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:29 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > >> [snip] >> >> >I regularly use an echo from dummy >> >to tell partner the contract is safe. >> >+=+ No doubt listing this 'other >agreement' on the CC. > As to devices when dummy has >a singleton, those read appear to >contravene Law 73B1. +=+ > > I've been known to play high-low from dummy when it didn't matter in order to see whether partner is falling asleep or not. Assuming you think this is also disclosable, might I ask whether, if partner *is* dozing off, he is then obliged to complete the process, on the grounds that he can't use my conventional play of the cards in order to wake up? Brian. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Jan 9 14:07:56 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 15:07:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity Message-ID: > I did construct my example to include the player saying > something that I > would consider to be calling attention to the irregularity. > It seems a > little strange to me that if the player says "oops" (in a situation > where all the players know perfectly well anyway that he got the wrong > card), then there is an obligation to call the TD. > > That can be avoided by not considering what happened an irregularity > (but I would of course be happier doing that if Ton agreed). > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. > I would like to make you happy, but don't ask me to consider an inadvertent call as being a regularity. Even the fact that the player making such call says 'oops' supports my view in my view. This closes my contribution on this subject. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 9 11:36:48 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 12:36:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelve clubs; Irrational claims. References: <200212312139.gBVLd2w12732@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <3E1D5ED0.6000309@skynet.be> Hello Ted, you have contributed a great deal of very valuable comments to this thread. Even if we disagree, there is no animosity here with me. Ted Ying wrote: > Ah, Steve. Usually I agree with you, but here we'll have to > differ since I have a different perspective from you. > This is something we need to remember - sometimes we have a different perspective on the actual happenings at the table. There is no need to defend a particular ruling against someone else's if the reason for the difference is a different perception of the actual case. >> >>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. > Ted, what Steve was trying to say is that it should be unimportant how many tricks declarer claimed. If he claimed 10 tricks, but had put one wrong somewhere before, he has actually claimed 11. The rules should not differ based on the actual number of tricks asked for. (except of course as an indication of what was going on in declarer's mind) > >>>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. > I believe that waht Ton was aiming for was a contract in which the DK has to be played straight away (probably because otherwise defenders take all the tricks). Usually when a player claims with Kx - Jx he does not expect the line of small to the jack to be a valid one. I took it for granted that this declarer would play the DK next. Don't you agree that he then also merits his DJ? >>> >>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. > When someone claims with AKQJ8 - it is usually clear what he means: he know the 8 is not high but he expects it to become such. Claiming in this position is (to me) no indication that claimer truely believes this to be 5 tricks regardless. Again, it's a matter of perception. But look at yourself in such a situation - do you claim or not? do you mention that you intend to take 5 tricks or not (I don't). Do you add that it's only 4 tricks if someone has 5 of them? Many wouldn't. Does that mean that you believe the 8 to be the 10. No it does not. Play is over, so you claim. >>> >>Why not? It seems a suitable reward for claiming. >> >> > TY: And why should we reward claiming? Claiming is a part of Because if we make any rule that treats claimers any worse than people that blindly play on, we slow down the game, and make it less interesting for defenders (I hate it when they don't claim against me). > 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 Yes it should. If I am forced to play out all the tricks when I know they are good I may well do so with less interest. I may make mistakes that I should not make. And need not make. > 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. Yes you should. That's where we differ. He might also revoke. In your opinion we should rule every claim as if he would revoke. And don't say that this is less of a mistake than a revoke. We are argueing that it is not. No sane player (we say - and you don't seem to disagree) would jettison the HK after noticing the HA. This claimer should receive the same treatment as the one who claimed, thus barring him from making the stupid mistake of revoking. > 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. > I agree that claimers should be required to show care in claiming. But I don't agree that this claimer made a mistake. His mistake was the one of not noticing that there are two ways to 5 tricks - either the spades come in or the HA drops before the HK can be thrown. That is not a giant mistake. And it certainly dwarfs in comparison to the mistake of throwing the HK thinking that it is worth less than the S8 (once the HA is shown). > > TY: And, I repeat, L70A does state that if in doubt, then you > award against the claimer. Seems obvious to me. > And to me. But then I am in no doubt whatsoever that this declarer would make all six tricks in actual play. (or to be fair - in as much doubt as I am that he wouldn't revoke). >> > 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. > Indeed there is no doubt. But L70E allows a claimer to change his line if the stated one becomes irrational. It is our contention that it is irrational to still throw the HK when the HA appears. > > > 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? > Ted, you are saying this is a bad claim. It's not. It's a perfectly clear one. We have no problem with this claim if the cards are distributed in any other way than what they are. Either the claim is valid for 6 tricks, or the spades are 5-1 and claimer will happily give the last one. This is not a bad claim. So why should we discourage this claim by ruling that, because he claimed, he gets one fewer trick than anyone else? Don't you agree, Ted, that in this situation everyone will make six tricks? Then why not this claimer? > >>>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? > Because you would not be discouraging poor claiming, you would be discouraging claiming - period. And that is not what we want. Again : this was not a poor claim. > > 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. > Again, this was not a poor claim. Being unaware of the squeeze would not prevent Mrs G. from making six tricks. So why should this man - whom I'd prefer to play against over Mrs G. - receive fewer tricks than she would. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 9 14:52:05 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 15:52:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another claim question References: Message-ID: <3E1D8C95.3020206@skynet.be> I'm replying before I've read any of the other comments. Brian Meadows wrote: > > 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". > I would do exactly the same. > 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. ;-) > If he resigned, all the better for your club. > Any of the "claims hawks" on here supporting his view? > Probably so - but they'd be hawks. I wouldn't want to play against them. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 9 15:00:34 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:00:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Future equity References: <4A256C9F.00064CAA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3E1D8E92.7090308@skynet.be> Jesper Dybdal wrote: > On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:58:24 +0000, "John (MadDog) Probst" > wrote: > > >>> >>> >>No it's not, >> > > You won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with that. > > >>and insofar as it's a penalty provision it's about as >>equitable as one can get. >> > > I agree with that. > > >>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 :) >> > > I notice two things in what you write above (apart from Sven's > objection): > * The word "most", and > * The fact that you seem to be thinking only of rulings made after the > board has been completed; they are not the problematic ones. > > When you are called after trick 5 to rule a trick 4 revoke, and you > explain carefully to the players how the penalty will depend on how many > of the remaining 8 tricks the offending side takes, and whether one of > those tricks happen to be won with a heart in offender's hand, does it > really never happen that the players have a problem understanding it > and/or end up being confused so that they play badly as a result? > > In my experience, that certainly happens once in a while. > > In addition, even inexperienced directors can have problems, primarily > because the wording of L64A is bad. > > Revokes are so common that IMO the penalty really should be simple > enough to not confuse anybody (except possibly rank beginners) when they > hear it explained. It would also be nice if it were simple enough for > players to be able to remember and use without a TD present. > I usually explain the revoke rule as "1 penalty trick, unless you won an extra trick by revoking, then 2 penalty tricks". (adding something like "if you make any" at an appropriate point) As for the explanation at trick 5, I usually say : "that will probably cost you one trick, unless you make a spade trick, in which case that trick is also transferred". Changing this would mean that there are far more exceptions to the general rule that a revoke costs one trick. Silly revokes still cost one trick, but revokes that bring something in don't cost anything. I like the revoke law - keep it. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Thu Jan 9 15:10:59 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:10:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030108111856.039e89f0@mail.fscv.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030109100414.027ecec0@mail.fscv.net> >>Steve >> >>What you describe sounds like a "slip of the mind" rather than "a slip >>of the hand". Yes, you can get away with changing it. No, I don't think >>the laws of bridge allow it. At 02:53 AM 9/01/2003, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Steve's actions, under ACBL regs, are the equivalent of the spoken "Two.." >changes mind from S to NT "no trumps". This is certainly legal. One is >perfectly entitled to a change of mind before a call is made. The ACBL >permits changes of mind until the bidding card is held near the table, the >EBU permits such changes until the card has cleared the bidding box (I >think). Steve and Tim: I stand corrected. Thank you both. Apparently I have been holding myself to a higher standard than the laws require. Walt From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 9 15:27:24 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:27:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another claim question In-Reply-To: <3E1D8C95.3020206@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030109162230.024665e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:52 9/01/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >I'm replying before I've read any of the other comments. > >Brian Meadows wrote: > >>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". > > >I would do exactly the same. AG : so would I. What's more, after a claim, it is specifically disallowed to take any non-marked finesse. If South wanted to take the heart finesse, the TD wouldn't him let do it. Same if East wanted it. Since there is no specific danger in the deal (no ruff, of course, no risk of blocking the hand), the claim is perfectly valid. >>East, who happened to be the club's CTD, AG : sentence in the past tense. >> 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. ;-) >If he resigned, all the better for your club. > > >>Any of the "claims hawks" on here supporting his view? > > >Probably so - but they'd be hawks. AG : there are also true ones. (hmm : very difficult to translate puns : "il y a des faucons, des vrais aussi") Best regards, Alain. From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Jan 9 15:15:49 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 09:15:49 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity References: <002f01c2b7d9$379fc900$bd182850@pacific> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 17C irregularity > > Grattan Endicott ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > "To show our simple skill, that is the > true beginning of our end." > ('A Midsummer Night's Dream') > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kooijman, A." > To: "'Sven Pran'" ; "blml" > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:09 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 17C irregularity -s- > > So the question is > > whether a player has drawn attention to an irregularity > > when he has made an inadvertent call and wants to > > change it. I tend to say 'yes he did' and Grattan seems > > to say 'no, he didn't'. I agree that Grattan's approach is > > the more pragmatic one, since there is no harm done > > when a player substitutes an inadvertent call. But I > > prefer a TD to decide that the call was inadvertent > > before doing anything. I contend that a consequence of calling the director forces any subsequent change of call into a L25B ruling as pause for thought has occurred- it no longer being material whether the call was inadvertent or not. regards roger pewick > > ton > > > +=+ Yes. That sums it up. I am not in favour of TDs > getting 'busy' in such a situation - and I really cannot > see them deciding that an action is 'advertent' when all > four players are agreed that it is inadvertent. TDs are > more usefully employed in arbitration of situations that > are challenged. ~ G ~ +=+ From blml@dybdal.dk Thu Jan 9 15:31:09 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:31:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity In-Reply-To: References: <002f01c2b7d9$379fc900$bd182850@pacific> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 09:15:49 -0600, "Roger Pewick" wrote: >I contend that a consequence of calling the director forces any >subsequent change of call into a L25B ruling as pause for thought has >occurred- it no longer being material whether the call was inadvertent >or not. It is my impression that there is widespread agreement that the "pause for thought" mentioned in L25A is something that happens after the player has discovered what he has actually called, but before he does anything to call attention to his mistake. I.e., as long as you * say "oops" or * initiate a TD call or * change the call immediately after discovering your inadvertent call, then there is no "pause for thought" in the L25A sense. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Thu Jan 9 15:33:37 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:33:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity In-Reply-To: References: <002f01c2b7d9$379fc900$bd182850@pacific> Message-ID: I wrote: >I.e., as long as you >* say "oops" or >* initiate a TD call or >* change the call immediately after discovering your inadvertent call, >then there is no "pause for thought" in the L25A sense. but the "immediately after" clause should of course cover all three points; what I meant was of course: I.e., as long as you * say "oops" or * initiate a TD call or * change the call immediately after discovering your inadvertent call, then there is no "pause for thought" in the L25A sense. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Jan 9 15:32:55 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:32:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity Message-ID: > I contend that a consequence of calling the director forces any > subsequent change of call into a L25B ruling as pause for thought has > occurred- it no longer being material whether the call was > inadvertent > or not. > > regards > roger pewick This is a (further) wrong statement as far as general accepted application of bridge laws is concerned. The question is whether the player had made up his mind and did something different. If so there is no pause for thought (change of mind) as meant in L 25A. You also might say that the average conduct of a bridge player is not different from an average blml-er: most of the time he doesn't think at all. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 9 15:39:52 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:39:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly References: Message-ID: <3E1D97C8.6030407@skynet.be> J=FCrgen, it does not help to offer a counter-example and then remove from the=20 example the important bits. J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: >=20 > 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: >=20 > AT > -- > -- > 9 > K8 -- > -- T5 > -- Q > T -- > J > A6 > -- > -- >=20 > 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? >=20 Even if she had claimed this for 2 tricks with "full" knowledge, I=20 would not give the third. I do not consider it irrational to not realize that the C9 is high=20 when the C10 is discarded. I do consider it irrational to not realize that the HK is high when=20 the HA is discarded. So what are you trying to prove? >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 9 15:43:41 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:43:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly References: <001f01c2b0e9$9bbdf020$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E1D98AD.1000807@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > 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. > No Sven, a claim is not a diversion from the normal - it is the normal way to end a hand. Not claiming when you know the hands are high is in fact an infraction ! (L74B4) > 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. > That is true. But forgetting to mention an ace might appear is no indication that one would not know what to do if it did in fact happen! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Thu Jan 9 15:12:57 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:12:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: Message-ID: <01cb01c2b7f7$5b9b3a60$94053dd4@b0e7g1> If you are convinced that use is made of UI, yes I think so. You have been summoned to the table and you know the irregularity. Maybe the NOS are too kind or not concentrated. Maybe their bridgelevel is low and the NOS rely 100% on your craftsmanship. At least you should go back to the table after play ends and refer to the situation. I could consider a splitscore because I do not like illegally achieved scores. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: ; Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 6:22 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) > > And you applied Law81C6, is not it? > > Ben > _____________________________________________ > No, because nobody asked for a ruling after > South's 5C bid nor later. > Should I? > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 9 15:57:46 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:57:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: Message-ID: <3E1D9BFA.4030001@skynet.be> This got me side-tracked and interested: Kooijman, A. wrote: > (something they use 'j'adoube' for when playing chess; seems to be an old > olympic sport). > So I looked up where the term j'adoube comes from. Not from some french verb adouber, apparently: J'adoube - An expression denoting unwillingness to move the piece touched. The derivation comes from an old English phrase, 'Shut up', formerly the conventional response to: 'You've touched that piece, you've got to move it.' Later the introductory phrase was omitted by the aggrieved player, and the piece toucher would automatically say 'Shut up' without the need for prompting. This was taken into middle High Flemish where it appeared as Schodop and later came into old Northern French as J'odeupe or J'adoube. Hartston, William, Soft Pawn, Macmillan Publishing, 1995 (ISBN: 185744145-1) From the English, through the Flemish, into the French ! > 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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jan 9 16:03:24 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:03:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <200301091603.LAA14142@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > When I started reaching for the box, I intended to bid 2S. When > >the 2S card was 2 cm above the box, I intended to bid 2NT. I have no > >idea what my intent was at the instant the card cleared the box. > From: Jesper Dybdal > When you've told me all that (away from the table), I'll rule that your > change of mind probably had something to do with what happened and apply > L25B. I am not saying this ruling is wrong (outside the ACBL), but let me just point out some of its effects: 1. Players who know and follow the rules are at a disadvantage (because they won't try to change a call when they could get away with it). 2. Players who are dishonest have an advantage (because they will deny the possible change of mind). 3. BL's have an advantage (because they will call the TD and sometimes receive a ruling in their favor when no one else would do so). Of course the fault is not Jesper's; the fault lies in the rule that requires judging someone's state of mind. Why can't we have a rule that up to some instant a call is "not made," and can be changed for any reason, and after that instant it is "made" and cannot be changed? Of course this seems harsh on true mechanical mistakes, but many of those are heavily punished as things stand. Why should this particular one be made an exception? Reasonable people can, of course, disagree on what instant is the proper one for a call to be "made," but surely a simple rule based on observable facts has to be better than any rule based on something that is fundamentally unknowable. > >Personally, I think the "call out of turn" argument is the strongest > >one. At what point should a COOT be deemed to be "made?" > > The logical answer seems to be "when partner has received useful > information from the action". Yes, good point. Also, the answer has to be reasonably determinable and one that makes the game playable, i.e., accidents should be rare. > That point is difficult to specify > precisely. I think our regulation is closer to matching that point than > the ACBL regulation is, though it certainly does not match it perfectly. I tend to disagree with this, but perhaps the ACBL's rule is too late. Maybe what would be better is something in between, for example when the bid card is moved away from a position directly above the box or when it is turned so partner can see its face. How would people feel about a rule like this? Would it be too hard to apply? > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > Steve's actions, under ACBL regs, are the equivalent of the spoken "Two.." > changes mind from S to NT "no trumps". This is certainly legal. One is > perfectly entitled to a change of mind before a call is made. Yes, under ACBL rules the change was legal. The question was how the same actions would or should be ruled elsewhere. Of course _in practice_ if a player acted as described, no TD would ever be called. > > At what point should a COOT be deemed to be "made?" > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : as for any other call : at the time where the card reaches the table, > or very near it face upwards. Sorry, my question was unclear. I was asking for opinions about the best rule for possible future adoption, not about the rules as they now stand. Are you saying that the existing rule in Belgium is the same as in the ACBL? Or were you giving the correct ruling in the ACBL now? From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 9 16:12:39 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:12:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin References: <4A256CA8.0008AE25.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3E1D9F77.80305@skynet.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Blmlers who are mathematicians, logicians, or > specialists in bridge movements may be able to > assist the ABF in a scoring conundrum posed in > the November 2002 edition of the Australian > Bridge Directors' Bulletin. > > > Here is what Phil wrote: > > The final, and a rather strange scoring system > covering this! It is a 5-table butler, with 6 boards > against each pair, but your score is compared to the > middle two of the remaining four tables. You then > score the imps against those two scores. The sum of > your imps is then your total for the match, with a > maximum win of +50 imps and a maximum loss of -100 > imps over the 6 boards. It does seem strange > that pairs do not compare their score with the same > scores as other pairs. For example, if you are the > second ranked score on the board you compare with > the third and fourth ranked (as does the first ranked), > whilst the third compares with second and fourth, > and fourth with second and third (as does fifth). Since > raw differences are converted to IMPs, I am sure there > would be some anomalies in particular scores > appearing. I will leave the mathematicians to enjoy > the problem. > There is something very strange with this method, in that indeed the first and fifth tables score against different opponents: first scores against third and fourth; fifth scores against second and third; Which is why I believe there must be a misunderstanding. Isn't it simple cross-imping with the extremes removed ? Then all would compare with second, third and fourth (of course for those three that means only two comparisons and a zero) That seems to me like a valid and useful type of scoring. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 9 16:17:20 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:17:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin References: <200301082137.QAA07662@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3E1DA090.4050101@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > From: "Wayne Burrows" > >>What are or where is a reference to the severe inequities? >> > [in Butler and similar scoring methods] > > They have been discussed at great length in the past on both > BLML and RGB. The simplest example is that improving your > score on a board can _reduce_ your score in the standings. > (I think it was Hamman and Wolff who found this out the hard > way; Herman used to have the story on his web site and maybe > still does.) > Yes, against Leufkens-Westra, in Den Haag. http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/bastille.html I have even seen to it that it got into the Bridge Encyclopaedia, under "Den Haag Butler incident". > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 9 16:30:45 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:30:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly In-Reply-To: <3E1D98AD.1000807@skynet.be> References: <001f01c2b0e9$9bbdf020$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030109172350.02692590@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:43 9/01/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >No Sven, a claim is not a diversion from the normal - it is the normal way >to end a hand. Not claiming when you know the hands are high is in fact an >infraction ! (L74B4) AG : that is -you won't disagree- why discouraging players from claiming would make them face a dilemma between two infractions - something that causes some problems, more notably on blml :-P However, the fact of not claiming shouldn't be considered an infraction. I have, more than a majority of experienced players, a tendency to see cows fly by. Thus, it is more likely for me than for most of my peers that I've overlooked something in the deal. For this reason, I'm more reluctant than other players to claim in non-obvious situations. L74B4 doen't say it's wrong. It says that one shouldn't continue playing when one knows there is no problem ; only, I know it less often than others. But there should never be any law, notice, interpretation or AC decision mentioning failure ot claiming as an infraction. For how could one assess that the player *knew* all about the deal ? Best regards, Alain. From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Jan 9 16:20:47 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:20:47 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Roger Pewick'" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:32 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 17C irregularity > > > I contend that a consequence of calling the director forces any > > subsequent change of call into a L25B ruling as pause for thought has > > occurred- it no longer being material whether the call was > > inadvertent > > or not. > > > > regards > > roger pewick > > > > This is a (further) wrong statement as far as general accepted application > of bridge laws is concerned. The question is whether the player had made up > his mind and did something different. There is more to the question. In addition, was the substitution performed without pause for thought? Saying you want to change is not doing the substitution nor is it attempting to do the substitution. According to L25A to rule a correction in accordance with 25A it specifies that the substitution be performed. Waiting to get a ruling as to if the original call was inadvertent introduces information that has a bearing on if a change will be made. Because to have the information is to have thought about the information. Further, on what basis can an accurate ruling about inadvertency by made unless it is deferred to the end of the hand? Well, you have the assertion of the player don't you. But now you have an extraneous communication. And if the player changes their mind and does not change there is another extraneous communication. What I fail to grasp is how it can be accepted procedure to rule a L25A correction if a player who has not yet substituted a call is first told by a TD about the consequences of changing their call. And further what I do not grasp is why a player who consults a TD about the consequences of changing the current call is allowed to be told that they can change it. Yes, provide a remedy if a player takes more than one action in the rotation, but don't give him the right to take more than one action during the rotation. regards roger pewick > If so there is no pause for thought > (change of mind) as meant in L 25A. You also might say that the average > conduct of a bridge player is not different from an average blml-er: most of > the time he doesn't think at all. > > > ton From Chris@Pisarra.com Thu Jan 9 16:27:24 2003 From: Chris@Pisarra.com (Chris Pisarra) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:27:24 -0800 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? Message-ID: <006001c2b7fb$fe75c300$6501a8c0@attbi.com> Herman wrote: No Sven, a claim is not a diversion from the normal - it is the normal way to end a hand. Not claiming when you know the hands are high is in fact an infraction ! (L74B4) Is it indeed an infraction to not claim? The law reads that it is an infraction to refuse to claim "for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent", but that seems awfully hard to prove. A) Mrs. McGillicuddy never claims because she doesn't want to get confused. B) Mr. Stingy never claims because he wants to get his full money's worth by playing each and every trick. C) And the local bridge lawyer never claims because he contends that if he ever claimed, then on the hands where he did *not* claim the opponents could infer that he had a loser and/or a problem, and he does not wish to give this information away. So are these infractions? There is clearly no intention to disconcert in either A or B, and C is at least a legitimate rationale for irritating behavior. Chris From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Thu Jan 9 16:33:53 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 11:33:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <200301091603.LAA14142@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030109112858.0226b800@mail.fscv.net> >>Steve Willner wrote: >>>When I started reaching for the box, I intended to bid 2S. When >>>the 2S card was 2 cm above the box, I intended to bid 2NT. I have no >>>idea what my intent was at the instant the card cleared the box. > Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> When you've told me all that (away from the table), I'll rule that your >> change of mind probably had something to do with what happened and apply >> L25B. At 11:03 AM 9/01/2003, Steve Willner wrote: >I am not saying this ruling is wrong (outside the ACBL), but let me >just point out some of its effects: >1. Players who know and follow the rules are at a disadvantage (because > they won't try to change a call when they could get away with it). >2. Players who are dishonest have an advantage (because they will deny > the possible change of mind). >3. BL's have an advantage (because they will call the TD and sometimes > receive a ruling in their favor when no one else would do so). > >Of course the fault is not Jesper's; the fault lies in the rule that >requires judging someone's state of mind. Steve I certainly agree with you. It is bad policy for the laws to punish honesty. Walt From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 9 16:48:25 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:48:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Etymology : was : Passing after slow pass In-Reply-To: <3E1D9BFA.4030001@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030109173145.026902d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:57 9/01/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >This got me side-tracked and interested: > >Kooijman, A. wrote: > >>(something they use 'j'adoube' for when playing chess; seems to be an old >>olympic sport). > > >So I looked up where the term j'adoube comes from. >Not from some french verb adouber, apparently: > >J'adoube - An expression denoting unwillingness to move the piece touched. >The derivation comes from an old English phrase, 'Shut up', formerly the >conventional response to: 'You've touched that piece, you've got to move >it.' Later the introductory phrase was omitted by the aggrieved player, >and the piece toucher would automatically say 'Shut up' without the need >for prompting. This was taken into middle High Flemish where it appeared >as Schodop and later came into old Northern French as J'odeupe or J'adoube. >Hartston, William, Soft Pawn, Macmillan Publishing, 1995 (ISBN: 185744145-1) AG : most interesting story, but alas ! counterfeit, as often are intricated etymologies. The locution 'shut up' isn't old enough to have been able to pass into Middle Flemish, which doen't extend later than about 1400. Also, the term 'Middle high Flemish' is strange ; there are Old / Middle / Recent Germans of the Low and High varieties, but words 'Low' and 'High' mean respectively 'of the plains' and 'of the hills' ; High German is classical German ; Low German is the so-called _Plattdeutsch_ . I doubt there would exist such a thing as hill Flemish (as said the great Jacques Brel about Flanders, "the lowlands that are mine"). And never ever has Flemish SCH changed into French J. The origin is indeed Germanic-Flemish, from the old verb _dubban_, to strike. It became the French _adouber_, to knight. The ceremony of _adoubement_ included striking the would-be knight on the shoulder with the flat of the sword. The transition from chivalry to chess -which are after all a game about kings, knights, dames, castles and soldiers- is easy : _je t'adoube_ : I hit you, but not with the intent to hurt you _ j'adoube_ : I touch you, but not with the intent to send you away No need to paradrop four-letter words and bizarre phonetical changes. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 9 16:59:49 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:59:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <200301091603.LAA14142@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030109175120.02691d70@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:03 9/01/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > AG : as for any other call : at the time where the card reaches the table, > > or very near it face upwards. > >Sorry, my question was unclear. I was asking for opinions about the >best rule for possible future adoption, not about the rules as they now >stand. > >Are you saying that the existing rule in Belgium is the same as in the >ACBL? Or were you giving the correct ruling in the ACBL now? AG : I don't know much about ACBL rulings. Principles in Belgium are that if a player realizes his error when the bis is in mid-air, he may change it ; if he realizes when it is about to hit the table, he may ; and if he realizes when it *already lies* on the table, he may too, if it is plausible that he didn't realize before. I had a partner who sometimes pulls one card too much ; in that case, when he sees it (usually when the cards are held in the air), he says "not this one", puts the whole pack on the table, and takes the odd one away. This was seen as perfectly correct. You see, as long as the intention is clear, the bids might even lie on the table for a short moment. And there is also this ruling, my first contribution to blml, where the AC penalized a player who told them "yes, I realized that I hade made the wrong bid ; but I decided not to take it away, as a kind of psyche" . This was considered as absurd by some contributors, but it means that we see as _normal_ the fact of changing the bid quite late if L25A is applicable, so normal that not doing so was incorrect procedure. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jan 9 17:16:18 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:16:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Montreal minutes Message-ID: <200301091716.MAA14376@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> With Anna's help (Thanks!), I have located the WBFLC Montreal minutes. In case anyone else had trouble, here are the instructions. > To find them, go to http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b7/docdefault.asp > > There is a directory there (at the bottom) named WBF Information and > then a sub directory called WBF Reports and Minutes The direct link http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b7/docdefault.asp?page=Laws+Committee+Minutes+Montreal+2002&start=d%3A%5Cinetpub%5Cwwwroot%5Cbridgeinbritain%5Cbib%5Cstatic%5Cfiles%5CWBF+Information%5CWBF+Reports+and+Minutes also works for me. (There are two documents linked, but at first glance I don't see any difference between them.) From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 9 18:35:55 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:35:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? References: <006001c2b7fb$fe75c300$6501a8c0@attbi.com> Message-ID: <3E1DC10B.7020006@skynet.be> Chris Pisarra wrote: > Herman wrote: > > No Sven, a claim is not a diversion from the normal - it is the normal > way to end a hand. Not claiming when you know the hands are high is in > fact an infraction ! (L74B4) > > > Is it indeed an infraction to not claim? The law reads that it is > an infraction to refuse to claim "for the purpose of disconcerting an > opponent", but that seems awfully hard to prove. > > A) Mrs. McGillicuddy never claims because she doesn't want to get > confused. > That is a valid reason. > B) Mr. Stingy never claims because he wants to get his full money's > worth by playing each and every trick. > That is IMO not a valid reason. > C) And the local bridge lawyer never claims because he contends that > if he ever claimed, then on the hands where he did *not* claim the opponents > could infer that he had a loser and/or a problem, and he does not wish to > give this information away. > That is certainly not a valid reason. It is disconcerting to opponents, who will have to think when there is nothing left to think about, and who may start forgetting to think when there is. Considering that this "rule" is under etiquette - I would not accept this as a reason and tell this player off. > So are these infractions? There is clearly no intention to > disconcert in either A or B, and C is at least a legitimate rationale for > irritating behavior. > Which is precisely what the laws don't want. > Chris > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From adam@irvine.com Thu Jan 9 18:53:42 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:53:42 -0800 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Jan 2003 08:27:24 PST." <006001c2b7fb$fe75c300$6501a8c0@attbi.com> Message-ID: <200301091853.KAA32235@mailhub.irvine.com> Chris wrote: > Is it indeed an infraction to not claim? The law reads that it is > an infraction to refuse to claim "for the purpose of disconcerting an > opponent", but that seems awfully hard to prove. [snip] > C) And the local bridge lawyer never claims because he contends that > if he ever claimed, then on the hands where he did *not* claim the opponents > could infer that he had a loser and/or a problem, and he does not wish to > give this information away. > > So are these infractions? There is clearly no intention to > disconcert in either A or B, and C is at least a legitimate rationale for > irritating behavior. I don't think C is really legitimate, although it sounds like it might be if you don't examine it too closely. But really, shouldn't the defenders always *assume* that something they do can make a difference in the result? What would be the point of not making this assumption? If I'm right, then it's irrelevant whether declarer gives away the information that he has a loser or a problem, because the defense should assume that he does anyway. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 9 20:45:51 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 21:45:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? References: <200301091853.KAA32235@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <003901c2b820$1973f810$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Adam Beneschan" > Chris wrote: > > > Is it indeed an infraction to not claim? The law reads that it is > > an infraction to refuse to claim "for the purpose of disconcerting an > > opponent", but that seems awfully hard to prove. > > [snip] > > > C) And the local bridge lawyer never claims because he contends that > > if he ever claimed, then on the hands where he did *not* claim the opponents > > could infer that he had a loser and/or a problem, and he does not wish to > > give this information away. > > > > So are these infractions? There is clearly no intention to > > disconcert in either A or B, and C is at least a legitimate rationale for > > irritating behavior. > > I don't think C is really legitimate, although it sounds like it might > be if you don't examine it too closely. But really, shouldn't the > defenders always *assume* that something they do can make a difference > in the result? What would be the point of not making this assumption? > If I'm right, then it's irrelevant whether declarer gives away the > information that he has a loser or a problem, because the defense > should assume that he does anyway. > > -- Adam I believe you (and Herman) are unaware of Law73E here, the last part of which reads: It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner. Claiming is a "manner" different from playing the remaining tricks out one by one. I cannot see any infraction in C) above, even when considering L74B4. Who is going to rule on his knowledge and purposes? He has a perfectly valid purpose in not wanting to give away information. Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jan 9 21:27:51 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 21:27:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: <4A256CA7.007F6A6F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20030109133949.02446800@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c2b878$a8848a80$833ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > > > >+=+ No doubt listing this 'other > >agreement' on the CC. > > As to devices when dummy has > >a singleton, those read appear to > >contravene Law 73B1. +=+ > > Come on ! Please try and call the TD to > tell him that declarer is illegally communicating > information to dummy. Then wait for the laughter. > +=+ Actually I am pointing out that when a player has a partnership agreement by which he communicates with partner, opponents must be informed of the agreement and are entitled to access the signals. The issue is compliance with the law in relation to disclosure. Before anyone laughs he should read Laws 40B and 40E attentively. +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jan 10 08:00:40 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:00:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claiming imperfectly References: Message-ID: <3E1E7DA8.5040301@skynet.be> Gordon Bower wrote: > >> > Can you perhaps fill in the following little table for us? > > It is irrational to not realize this card is high: > when this card > is discarded: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T J Q K > 3 - - - - - - - - - - - > 4 - - - - - - - - - - > 5 - - - - - - - - - > 6 - - - - - - - - > 7 - - - - - - - > 8 - - - - - - > 9 - - - - - > T - - - - > J - - - > Q - - > K X > A > ******************************************** > Anything further should be made very very very clear by claimer (Queen under King if the Ace has been played just one trick earlier). > Then we can see if a majority of BLML fills it in the same way. :) > > I can understand filling the whole thing with yesses, or the whole thing > with nos ... but doing anything else seems to require us to get inside > the declarer's mind and see if he remembers every card played in the whole > deal. (Forgetting winners are good or that random jacks have been > discarded earliy in the hand is one of those irrational acts that people > do constantly.) > Exactly - so there is only one cross there. Surely you can see that claimer need not have remembered anything for that one? No need to get into his head. > No, I don't have a perfect solution either to handling claims made when > declarer is under a misimpression of how the cards lie. > I do - you rule against him. But the dutch case is an exceptional one. > GRB > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jan 10 08:07:52 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:07:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? References: <200301091853.KAA32235@mailhub.irvine.com> <003901c2b820$1973f810$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E1E7F58.20702@skynet.be> No Sven, that's lawyer-talk. Sven Pran wrote: > > I believe you (and Herman) are unaware of Law73E here, the last part > of which reads: > > It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents > by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner. > > Claiming is a "manner" different from playing the remaining tricks out > one by one. > > I cannot see any infraction in C) above, even when considering L74B4. > Who is going to rule on his knowledge and purposes? He has a > perfectly valid purpose in not wanting to give away information. > No, because he knows that the information he's withholding is of no use to opponents anyway. If he claims, giving them that information, the hand is over. If he doesn't, the hand is still over, only the opponents don't know it. That is not some piece of information that the opponents want for the purpose of playing better. The only purpose is for opponents to continue thinking, and that purpose has been rendered unethical by L74B4. > 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 Fri Jan 10 09:06:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:06:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? References: <200301091853.KAA32235@mailhub.irvine.com> <003901c2b820$1973f810$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E1E7F58.20702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c2b887$a06f4e20$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > No Sven, that's lawyer-talk. Is it? - I don't think so. > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > I believe you (and Herman) are unaware of Law73E here, the last part > > of which reads: > > > > It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents > > by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner. > > > > Claiming is a "manner" different from playing the remaining tricks out > > one by one. > > > > I cannot see any infraction in C) above, even when considering L74B4. > > Who is going to rule on his knowledge and purposes? He has a > > perfectly valid purpose in not wanting to give away information. > > > > > No, because he knows that the information he's withholding is of no > use to opponents anyway. If he claims, giving them that information, > the hand is over. If he doesn't, the hand is still over, only the > opponents don't know it. That is not some piece of information that > the opponents want for the purpose of playing better. The only purpose > is for opponents to continue thinking, and that purpose has been > rendered unethical by L74B4. You haven't grasped the point have you? If *you* don't claim I know that my side quite possibly can still get one or more tricks provided the play goes our way. It is up to my side to try making the most out of it. If a person who is known never to claim doesn't claim you know nothing of such possibilities. You are on your own trying to reason them out. And that is IMHO part of the game. (I personally frequently do claim, but I don't feel compelled to claim at any time if I feel for playing it out. My reason for not claiming is never "disconcerting" opponents. Just yesterday I made an "obvious" claim only to discover when I faced my cards that I had overlooked one detail which cost me an overtrick. Had I not claimed I would have secured that overtrick as well) Sven From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Fri Jan 10 09:25:27 2003 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:25:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? References: <200301091853.KAA32235@mailhub.irvine.com> <003901c2b820$1973f810$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E1E7F58.20702@skynet.be> <000b01c2b887$a06f4e20$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <00d301c2b88a$36961bc0$3fe3f9c1@olivier> > From: "Herman De Wael" > > No Sven, that's lawyer-talk. > > Is it? - I don't think so. > > > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > > I believe you (and Herman) are unaware of Law73E here, the last part > > > of which reads: > > > > > > It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents > > > by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner. > > > > > > Claiming is a "manner" different from playing the remaining tricks out > > > one by one. > > > > > > I cannot see any infraction in C) above, even when considering L74B4. > > > Who is going to rule on his knowledge and purposes? He has a > > > perfectly valid purpose in not wanting to give away information. > > > > > > > > > No, because he knows that the information he's withholding is of no > > use to opponents anyway. If he claims, giving them that information, > > the hand is over. If he doesn't, the hand is still over, only the > > opponents don't know it. That is not some piece of information that > > the opponents want for the purpose of playing better. The only purpose > > is for opponents to continue thinking, and that purpose has been > > rendered unethical by L74B4. > > You haven't grasped the point have you? > > If *you* don't claim I know that my side quite possibly can still get one > or more tricks provided the play goes our way. It is up to my side to try > making the most out of it. > > If a person who is known never to claim doesn't claim you know > nothing of such possibilities. You are on your own trying to reason > them out. And that is IMHO part of the game. > > (I personally frequently do claim, but I don't feel compelled to claim > at any time if I feel for playing it out. My reason for not claiming is > never "disconcerting" opponents. Just yesterday I made an "obvious" > claim only to discover when I faced my cards that I had overlooked > one detail which cost me an overtrick. Had I not claimed I would > have secured that overtrick as well) > > Sven Is that a restricted choice ??? I know a player who always plays the Q with QJ stiff, so when she (oups) plys the J, it's always a singleton, but the Q is 50% both ways, I often claim, si when i don't claim, opponents *should know* there is(are) trick(s) in balance, i have a disavantage % players who never claim! But i still go on claiming, it cost less tricks that playing ... Olivier Beauvillain > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jan 10 09:47:29 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:47:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? References: <200301091853.KAA32235@mailhub.irvine.com> <003901c2b820$1973f810$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E1E7F58.20702@skynet.be> <000b01c2b887$a06f4e20$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E1E96B1.4030704@skynet.be> Hello Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >>No Sven, that's lawyer-talk. >> > > Is it? - I don't think so. > Yes it is. > >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>I believe you (and Herman) are unaware of Law73E here, the last part >>>of which reads: >>> >>>It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents >>>by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner. >>> >>>Claiming is a "manner" different from playing the remaining tricks out >>>one by one. >>> >>>I cannot see any infraction in C) above, even when considering L74B4. >>>Who is going to rule on his knowledge and purposes? He has a >>>perfectly valid purpose in not wanting to give away information. >>> >>> >> >>No, because he knows that the information he's withholding is of no >>use to opponents anyway. If he claims, giving them that information, >>the hand is over. If he doesn't, the hand is still over, only the >>opponents don't know it. That is not some piece of information that >>the opponents want for the purpose of playing better. The only purpose >>is for opponents to continue thinking, and that purpose has been >>rendered unethical by L74B4. >> > > You haven't grasped the point have you? > No, you haven't. > If *you* don't claim I know that my side quite possibly can still get one > or more tricks provided the play goes our way. It is up to my side to try > making the most out of it. > And you are entitled to that information. If I do claim, you have nothing left to think about. > If a person who is known never to claim doesn't claim you know > nothing of such possibilities. You are on your own trying to reason > them out. And that is IMHO part of the game. > Indeed. But that person knows that nothing I can do will change the course of events. So I am thinking basically for nothing. And that is exactly what L74B4 tries to prevent. > (I personally frequently do claim, but I don't feel compelled to claim > at any time if I feel for playing it out. My reason for not claiming is > never "disconcerting" opponents. Just yesterday I made an "obvious" > claim only to discover when I faced my cards that I had overlooked > one detail which cost me an overtrick. Had I not claimed I would > have secured that overtrick as well) > That is a totally different question. I do the same thing, often. I don't believe it is against L74B4 not to claim when there is still some outstanding trick. You never know they hand it to you on a silver platter. Actually L74B4 speaks about playing when all tricks are certain. My point about lawyer-talk was that you are trying to say in some other way that what is explicitely mentioned in L74B4 as "disconcerting" can be covered up by "not letting them into information". That's a cop-out, and you should realize so. > Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 10 13:18:35 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:18:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: <000601c2b878$a8848a80$833ee150@endicott> References: <4A256CA7.007F6A6F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20030109133949.02446800@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030110141102.02a12740@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:27 9/01/2003 +0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"Exceeding wise, fair-spoken, >and persuasive." ['Henry VIII'] >============================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >To: "bridge laws mailing list" >Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:49 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > > > > > > > >+=+ No doubt listing this 'other > > >agreement' on the CC. > > > As to devices when dummy has > > >a singleton, those read appear to > > >contravene Law 73B1. +=+ > > > > Come on ! Please try and call the TD to > > tell him that declarer is illegally communicating > > information to dummy. Then wait for the laughter. > > >+=+ Actually I am pointing out that when a >player has a partnership agreement by which he >communicates with partner, opponents must be >informed of the agreement and are entitled to >access the signals. The issue is compliance >with the law in relation to disclosure. Before >anyone laughs he should read Laws 40B and >40E attentively. AG : since I've never feared looking ridiculous (else I wouldn't contribute so often to blml), I wrote this on my card in the 'other signals' box, along with Smith echoes, whose principle is not very far away : high card = 'nice lead, partner'. Few players study their opps' CC, but this box is one of the most often chacked, and reactions varied from disbelief to various degrees of laughter to 'you have no right to invent absurd conventions' (made by a TD). I thus asked blml whether it should be mentioned, and opinions were split. And, as an occasional teammate pointed out, there is also the problem of the psychic echo when you play against somebody who knows about it. My partner suggsted to call this 'the comic convention', but the name is already used. Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jan 10 13:14:27 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:14:27 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Must one claim? Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110081341.00a77cb0@pop.starpower.net> Mis-sent privately; intended for the list. Apologies to Herman for the double post. >At 03:07 AM 1/10/03, Herman wrote: > >>No Sven, that's lawyer-talk. >> >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >>>I believe you (and Herman) are unaware of Law73E here, the last part >>>of which reads: >>>It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents >>>by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner. >>>Claiming is a "manner" different from playing the remaining tricks out >>>one by one. >>>I cannot see any infraction in C) above, even when considering L74B4. >>>Who is going to rule on his knowledge and purposes? He has a >>>perfectly valid purpose in not wanting to give away information. >> >>No, because he knows that the information he's withholding is of no >>use to opponents anyway. If he claims, giving them that information, >>the hand is over. If he doesn't, the hand is still over, only the >>opponents don't know it. That is not some piece of information that >>the opponents want for the purpose of playing better. The only >>purpose is for opponents to continue thinking, and that purpose has >>been rendered unethical by L74B4. > >I haven't been in this thread for lack of anything new to add, but I >feel compelled to post a "me too" to Herman's views here. If inducing >one's opponents to imagine and attempt to solve non-existent problems >doesn't fall within the scope of "disconcerting", I can't imagine what >does. > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jan 10 13:21:25 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:21:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? In-Reply-To: <00d301c2b88a$36961bc0$3fe3f9c1@olivier> References: <200301091853.KAA32235@mailhub.irvine.com> <003901c2b820$1973f810$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E1E7F58.20702@skynet.be> <000b01c2b887$a06f4e20$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110081301.00a70ca0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:25 AM 1/10/03, Olivier wrote: > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > You haven't grasped the point have you? > > > > If *you* don't claim I know that my side quite possibly can still > get one > > or more tricks provided the play goes our way. It is up to my side > to try > > making the most out of it. > > > > If a person who is known never to claim doesn't claim you know > > nothing of such possibilities. You are on your own trying to reason > > them out. And that is IMHO part of the game. > > > > (I personally frequently do claim, but I don't feel compelled to claim > > at any time if I feel for playing it out. My reason for not claiming is > > never "disconcerting" opponents. Just yesterday I made an "obvious" > > claim only to discover when I faced my cards that I had overlooked > > one detail which cost me an overtrick. Had I not claimed I would > > have secured that overtrick as well) > > >Is that a restricted choice ??? >I know a player who always plays the Q with QJ stiff, >so when she (oups) plys the J, it's always a singleton, but the Q is 50% >both ways, >I often claim, si when i don't claim, opponents *should know* there >is(are) >trick(s) in balance, i have a disavantage % players who never claim! >But i still go on claiming, it cost less tricks that playing ... This is not the only way in which ethical players place themselves at a disadvantage relative to unethical players. That, nevertheless, is what ethical players do. If you know the rest of the tricks are surely yours but mumble, "I wonder how many tricks I'm going to take," nobody would doubt for an instant that you are flagrantly violating the Law. Is there really all that much difference if you silently continue to play rather than claim? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Jan 10 13:35:14 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:35:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead pre-alerts Message-ID: <00bb01c2b8ad$1e082b20$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Hi, Recently there was a appeal in Polish Division Two where someone led the spade deuce from 962. This was the usual card for this particular pair against NT contracts albeit very unusual in Poland - here more or less everyone leads the second highest card form suits without A, K Q or J. In Poland for the vast majority of players the lead of the deuce can come from two holdings only: Hxx2 or x2. The contract was 3NT. Having seen the deuce declarer assumed the 4-4 split in spades and took a line of play that would have been successful if the spades had indeed been 4-4. But they were KQJxx - 962 in reality and declarer went down. His opponents' CC showed that they systemically lead the deuce from xx2 vs. NT - but during this match their CC for some reason wasn't on the table. The AC ruled that it there is an obligation to pre-alert the unusual carding methods and ruled 3NT made. I must say that I like the AC decision but one thing bothers me: where is it exactly written in the laws that who must "pre-alert" your unusual carding methods? Polish alerting regulations say nothing about carding. Perhaps they should but they cater only to bidding. They outline the bids that don't require an alert and then say: +-------------------------------------------------+ 7. All systems different from the Polish Club and all agreements different from the ones listed above require a pre-alert with the exception of the following opening bids 2D - multi 2H/S - 5+-5+ two-suiters with the suit bid 3NT - gambling which require an alert but not a pre-alert. +-------------------------------------------------+ Nothing about carding there. What is your opinion about the whole thing? Was the AC ruling correct? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oficjalny serwis Polskiej Reprezentacji Skoczkow Narciarskich! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f16b1 From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 10 13:48:19 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:48:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110081341.00a77cb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003701c2b8ae$ef29a7a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Eric Landau" > >I haven't been in this thread for lack of anything new to add, but I > >feel compelled to post a "me too" to Herman's views here. If inducing > >one's opponents to imagine and attempt to solve non-existent problems > >doesn't fall within the scope of "disconcerting", I can't imagine what > >does. And if I shall face some penalty for not seeing that of course all my cards are high? ..... Like yesterday - only after facing my cards in the claim I realized that I had miscounted the Diamonds and had to give away the last (fourth) Diamond trick. I stated that because there were still two outstanding trumps I would draw two rounds to clear them and then my hand was high, but now I no longer had any trump left for my last Diamond (which) wasn't high). Should my claim be ruled so as to protect me from this silly play which I would never have done had I played the cards in the "normal" way? In all such cases I rule that the statement is to be followed to the letter unless there is an obvious mistake which would be revealed to the claimer during the progression of a normal play in time to be corrected to a more rational play. In my case, once I had made my claim statement there was nothing that should cause me to draw only one round of trumps and then secure the last trick by ruffing a small diamond before clearing the last outstanding trump (if necessary) . Back to the core of this thread: If I play in NT and have only high cards left irrespective of how the suits break then there is a strong argument for using Law 74B4 except that those players "violating" this law usually are those inexperienced players whom we want encouraged to keep on with bridge. We do not encourage them by throwing the laws at them, particularly not Law 74B4. And I shall hate to see Law 74B4 being used against any player that honestly can say that he doesn't feel comfortable with claiming, he prefers to always play it out. His purpose is not disconcerting opponents, it is his own feelings. Who is there to throw the first stone? Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 10 14:10:34 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:10:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110081301.00a70ca0@pop.starpower.net> References: <00d301c2b88a$36961bc0$3fe3f9c1@olivier> <200301091853.KAA32235@mailhub.irvine.com> <003901c2b820$1973f810$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E1E7F58.20702@skynet.be> <000b01c2b887$a06f4e20$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030110145813.02a12200@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:21 10/01/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >If you know the rest of the tricks are surely yours but mumble, "I wonder >how many tricks I'm going to take," nobody would doubt for an instant that >you are flagrantly violating the Law. Is there really all that much >difference if you silently continue to play rather than claim? AG : good point. One should bear in mind, however, that the proportion of hands where you know how many tricks you will make depends on many parameters (the identity of the declarer, but also the time of the day, the number of coffee cups ingested etc.) and that many declarers aren't able to know whether they know* (hence the number of faulty claims). I've seen so often declarers not realize that dummy's card is 13th that I'm inclined to believe declarer when he says 'I didn't know they were all mine'. That's why it would be very difficult to establish a penalty system for infringing L74B4. This Law exists, however. Perhaps it could be done at top level. There is a well-known case, reported in The Bridge World around 1990, where an American expert (I think it's Hamman) tabled many times in a session, only to find that it helped his opponent avoiding well-earned time penalties that would have shifted the match result. Yes, he was honest. If he had done otherwise, could the TD have decided that he was infringing L74B4 ? Perhaps, but what if Hamman had answered 'sorry, I had a blind spot. I didn't realize they were all mine' ? It would even be credible, even from an expert, at the end of a long day. * To know that you know, when you know, to know that you don't know, when you don't know, there's real knowledge (Buddhic wisdom). Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Jan 10 13:58:12 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 10 Jan 2003 05:58:12 -0800 Subject: [blml] Lead pre-alerts Message-ID: <10010310.21492@webbox.com> Konrad wrote: >Nothing about carding there. >What is your opinion about the whole thing? If the rules don't say you have to alert something, then you don't have to alert it. If the opponents want to know what your leads are, they can ask you. >Was the AC ruling correct? No. It was completely ridiculous. If the regulations should be changed, then change them. But until then, rule under them as they are. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 10 13:59:18 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:59:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead pre-alerts References: <00bb01c2b8ad$1e082b20$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <003f01c2b8b0$79063500$70d8fea9@WINXP> I cannot comment on Polish AC rulings, but I can say that if the CC showing this lead agreements had been available declarer would never have had any case in Norway. And with CC not being available I don't believe the declarer would ever have had any case in Norway unless he asked about opponents' lead and discard agreements before making his play dependent upon an assumed split between defenders. I expect any Norwegian AC to have let the result stand. Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 2:35 PM Subject: [blml] Lead pre-alerts > > Hi, > > Recently there was a appeal in Polish Division Two > where someone led the spade deuce from 962. > This was the usual card for this particular pair > against NT contracts > albeit very unusual in Poland - here more > or less everyone leads the second highest > card form suits without A, K Q or J. > > > In Poland for the vast majority of players > the lead of the deuce can come from > two holdings only: Hxx2 or x2. > > The contract was 3NT. Having seen the deuce > declarer assumed the 4-4 split in spades > and took a line of play that would have > been successful if the spades had indeed > been 4-4. But they were KQJxx - 962 > in reality and declarer went down. > His opponents' CC showed that > they systemically lead the deuce > from xx2 vs. NT - but during this > match their CC for some reason wasn't on the > table. > > The AC ruled that it there is an obligation > to pre-alert the unusual > carding methods and ruled 3NT made. > > I must say that I like the AC decision but > one thing bothers me: where is it exactly > written in the laws that who must "pre-alert" > your unusual carding methods? Polish > alerting regulations say nothing about > carding. Perhaps they should > but they cater only to bidding. They outline > the bids that don't require an alert and > then say: > > +-------------------------------------------------+ > 7. All systems different from the Polish Club > and all agreements different from the > ones listed above require a pre-alert > with the exception of the following > opening bids > > 2D - multi > 2H/S - 5+-5+ two-suiters with the suit bid > 3NT - gambling > > which require an alert but not > a pre-alert. > +-------------------------------------------------+ > > > Nothing about carding there. > What is your opinion about > the whole thing? Was the AC ruling > correct? > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Oficjalny serwis Polskiej Reprezentacji Skoczkow Narciarskich! > >>> http://link.interia.pl/f16b1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 10 14:19:37 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:19:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead pre-alerts In-Reply-To: <00bb01c2b8ad$1e082b20$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030110151119.00a77080@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:35 10/01/2003 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Hi, > > Recently there was a appeal in Polish Division Two >where someone led the spade deuce from 962. >This was the usual card for this particular pair >against NT contracts >albeit very unusual in Poland - here more >or less everyone leads the second highest >card form suits without A, K Q or J. > >In Poland for the vast majority of players >the lead of the deuce can come from >two holdings only: Hxx2 or x2. > >The contract was 3NT. Having seen the deuce >declarer assumed the 4-4 split in spades >and took a line of play that would have >been successful if the spades had indeed >been 4-4. But they were KQJxx - 962 >in reality and declarer went down. >His opponents' CC showed that >they systemically lead the deuce >from xx2 vs. NT - but during this >match their CC for some reason wasn't on the >table. AG :whatever the reason, it's a bad one. >The AC ruled that it there is an obligation >to pre-alert the unusual >carding methods and ruled 3NT made. > >I must say that I like the AC decision but >one thing bothers me: where is it exactly >written in the laws that who must "pre-alert" >your unusual carding methods? Polish >alerting regulations say nothing about >carding. AG : Regulating pre-alerts is the organizing body's job, covered by L40B. If they did it about bidding, and didn't mum about carding, onr should assume they knew what they did ; thus no obligation of pre-alerting. (in Belgium, there is an obligation to pre-alert the lead style, but not many players do it ; however, competent players know they should ask, as styles are far from uniform) However, the absence of a CC is an infraction that most probably had direct influence on the result. There are thus two possible decisions from the AC : 1) correct the score for MI (no CC) ; 2) "did-not-enough-to-protect-himself" (when there is no CC, you'd better ask), most probably leading to a split score. To use pre-alert obligations as an argument when there are none is plainly wrong. >Nothing about carding there. >What is your opinion about >the whole thing? Was the AC ruling >correct? AG : yes, but for the wrong reason. Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Jan 10 14:43:12 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 10 Jan 2003 06:43:12 -0800 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? Message-ID: <10010310.24192@webbox.com> Sven wrote: >Who is there to throw the first stone? Oh, I don't mind doing that. In fact, if you will pass me my trusty school catapult, I will quite happily throw several. Law 74B4 is a mad law. It wasn't a law at all, of course, until some mad people put it in the laws along with all the other proprieties that did not belong there. But it is there, and it makes it incumbent upon players: a) to keep track of the play, so that they will know when all of the rest of the tricks are surely theirs; b) to stop playing when this point is reached. That is why it is a mad law - there are players who will not know until after the fifty-second card is played how many tricks they have got, and some of them will not even know then. So these players are allowed not to claim - but everyone else has to. No law of any game should be contingent upon a player's skill at the game, nor require an umpire to have to make a decision thereon. When Gunnar Hallberg claimed his double squeeze in Maastricht, nobody congratulated him for following Law 74B4. But that is what he was doing - it would have been *an infraction* for him to continue to play cards once he had calculated that his double squeeze would work. If you're going to change the rules so that no one can claim on a squeeze any more, Ton, you had better get rid of Law 74B4. And while you are about it, you can take the rest of the ex-Proprieties and bury them several fathoms deep in the earth. They were never meant to be laws, nor should any of them have that status. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 10 16:25:07 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:25:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? In-Reply-To: <10010310.24192@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030110170427.02a0a290@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 06:43 10/01/2003 -0800, David Burn wrote: >Sven wrote: > > >Who is there to throw the first stone? > >Oh, I don't mind doing that. In fact, if you will pass me my >trusty school catapult, I will quite happily throw several. > >Law 74B4 is a mad law. It wasn't a law at all, of course, until >some mad people put it in the laws along with all the other proprieties >that did not belong there. But it is there, and it makes it incumbent >upon players: a) to keep track of the play, so that they will >know when all of the rest of the tricks are surely theirs; b) >to stop playing when this point is reached. That is why it is >a mad law - there are players who will not know until after the >fifty-second card is played how many tricks they have got, and >some of them will not even know then. So these players are allowed >not to claim - but everyone else has to. No law of any game should >be contingent upon a player's skill at the game, nor require >an umpire to have to make a decision thereon. AG : I accept your last sentence, most notably the verb 'should'. In fact, several laws *are* contingent about the players' level, for better or worse ; some others are, according to some blmlers (like the footnote to L69-70-71) ; some others are applied differently (like the command to disclose completely) ; and some principles that are not explicit in the Laws (like 'should have protected oneself') are also applied differently. I know you don't like this, and in a good deal of the cases I agree with you ; but the reasoning that 'a law is mad because it is not made the way that others should have been made, only the way they are made' seems circular. >When Gunnar Hallberg claimed his double squeeze in Maastricht, >nobody congratulated him for following Law 74B4. But that is >what he was doing - it would have been *an infraction* for him >to continue to play cards once he had calculated that his double >squeeze would work. If you're going to change the rules so that >no one can claim on a squeeze any more, Ton, you had better get >rid of Law 74B4. AG : I guess that is not what he meant. The meaning of L74B4 is to avoid players losing time and energy in *obvious* cases, not in intricate squeeze mechanisms. Pulling somebody else's sentence far wider than where it applies, so that you will ridicule it more easily , is classical tactics, but not honest ones. > And while you are about it, you can take the >rest of the ex-Proprieties and bury them several fathoms deep >in the earth. They were never meant to be laws, nor should any >of them have that status. AG : recently, a Belgian player was sanctioned quite severely for a gross breach of properties, namely L74B5. He deserved it. Pull out L74, and all sorts of uncouth or unsporting acts will escape unpunished. I guess you don't want *this* to happen. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jan 10 16:35:00 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:35:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110081341.00a77cb0@pop.starpower.net> <003701c2b8ae$ef29a7a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E1EF634.40606@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Back to the core of this thread: If I play in NT and have only high cards > left > irrespective of how the suits break then there is a strong argument for > using > Law 74B4 except that those players "violating" this law usually are those > inexperienced players whom we want encouraged to keep on with bridge. > > We do not encourage them by throwing the laws at them, particularly not > Law 74B4. > > And I shall hate to see Law 74B4 being used against any player that honestly > can say that he doesn't feel comfortable with claiming, he prefers to always > play it out. His purpose is not disconcerting opponents, it is his own > feelings. > > Who is there to throw the first stone? > Nothing you say is wrong in itself, Sven, but you are barking up the wrong tree. Of course it is not an offence for a player, of whatever standard, to play on when he is uncertain. But it _is_ an offence for a player to play on, simply because he wants to have his opponents thinking longer. Now this does not frequently happen, luckily, but when it does, we have at least L74B4 to tell this player he should not act in this manner. Which is also a reply to DB. Indeed this is only a manner of courtesy, but if manners of courtesy are not mentioned in the laws, there is no way one can enforce them. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 10 17:58:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:58:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another L74B case? was: Must one claim? References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110081341.00a77cb0@pop.starpower.net> <003701c2b8ae$ef29a7a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E1EF634.40606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002201c2b8d1$eb8ac110$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ............... > But it _is_ an offence for a player to play on, simply because he > wants to have his opponents thinking longer. > Now this does not frequently happen, luckily, but when it does, we > have at least L74B4 to tell this player he should not act in this manner. I consider the claim question exhausted, but there is an analogue case on which I should like to hear Herman's (and other's) opinion: You have dummy on your right hand side holding among his cards just two diamonds, the King and the Jack. You have both the Ace and the Queen. There are several more tricks to play so there is no question of claiming at this stage. A small diamond is played towards Dummy and partner plays a small after which declarer begins to think, obviously trying to figure out whether to play your partner for the Ace or the Queen. On it's face Law 74B4 now makes it illegal for you not to show declarer your two cards saying that it doesn't matter which card he plays from dummy. In fact the only reason you could possibly have for not doing so is just to "disconcert" declarer! Your opinion please? Do I have to state that in my opinion, although you are indeed allowed to claim the trick in progress by doing so you should in no way be subject to a Law74B4 charge if you let declarer sweat it out for himself? (If you need more reasons you can always claim that making it clear to declarer his choice doesn't matter also gives UI to your partner)? regards Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Jan 10 18:28:02 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:28:02 -0800 Subject: [blml] Lead pre-alerts References: <00bb01c2b8ad$1e082b20$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <000a01c2b8d6$34815b00$2230d2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > > Recently there was a appeal in Polish Division Two > where someone led the spade deuce from 962. > This was the usual card for this particular pair > against NT contracts > albeit very unusual in Poland - here more > or less everyone leads the second highest > card form suits without A, K Q or J. > > > In Poland for the vast majority of players > the lead of the deuce can come from > two holdings only: Hxx2 or x2. > (snip) > His opponents' CC showed that > they systemically lead the deuce > from xx2 vs. NT - but during this > match their CC for some reason wasn't on the > table. > > The AC ruled that it there is an obligation > to pre-alert the unusual > carding methods and ruled 3NT made. > Good! CC and other disclosure regulations must be enforced, with redress readily given when an infraction leads to damage In ACBL-land the only pre-disclosable opening lead agreement is lower of two, very unusual here. Other leads and all defensive signals are not pre-Alertable. The assumption is that the CC plainly shows the agreements, but if the CCs are not in plain view opponents are put at a disadvantage. They must ask to see the CC, or inquire about defensive leads/carding, which puts an unnecessary burden on the declarer and often reveals something about declarer's holding. When the ace is led against a suit contract, declarer may want to know, without asking, whether the leader could have the king of the suit. Asking when holding the king is not considered appropriate, so it's better not to ask in any case, a Catch-22 situation. Here's another example showing why CCs simply MUST be on the table in plain view. Against my spade contract, LHO leads the 10 of a suit in which I hold J9 doubleton, AQxxx in dummy. Since RHO must hold the king, I would need to know the opposing opening lead agreements in order to decide which card to play, hoping to steal a trick on the next round of the suit. If they lead 10 from 109, then I play the jack, if 10 from J10, I play the 9. This ploy has a much greater chance of success if I don't have to inquire about the lead. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From j.c.schwarz@t-online.de Fri Jan 10 18:37:16 2003 From: j.c.schwarz@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Schwarz?=) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:37:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] italian (odd/even) carding and discards Message-ID: hi folks, i am looking for a book that is about italian (odd/even) carding and discards. who can help me jörg schwarz From john@asimere.com Fri Jan 10 18:49:35 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:49:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Lead pre-alerts In-Reply-To: <003f01c2b8b0$79063500$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <00bb01c2b8ad$1e082b20$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <003f01c2b8b0$79063500$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <003f01c2b8b0$79063500$70d8fea9@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >I cannot comment on Polish AC rulings, but I can say that >if the CC showing this lead agreements had been available >declarer would never have had any case in Norway. > I have ruled similar cases in England. I have always ruled "result stands" but usually ask the "offenders" to ensure that the agreement is clearly highlighted on their cc in future. (For an EBU 20A, I suggest the front page) In general this approach is accepted by both sides as being realistic. John >And with CC not being available I don't believe the declarer >would ever have had any case in Norway unless he asked >about opponents' lead and discard agreements before making >his play dependent upon an assumed split between defenders. > >I expect any Norwegian AC to have let the result stand. > >Sven -- 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 vwalther@vwalther.de Fri Jan 10 20:45:00 2003 From: vwalther@vwalther.de (Volker R. Walther) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 21:45:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? In-Reply-To: <3E1E7F58.20702@skynet.be> References: <200301091853.KAA32235@mailhub.irvine.com> <003901c2b820$1973f810$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E1E7F58.20702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3E1F30CC.2000305@vwalther.de> Herman De Wael wrote: > No Sven, that's lawyer-talk. > > Sven Pran wrote: > >> >> I believe you (and Herman) are unaware of Law73E here, the last part >> of which reads: >> >> It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents >> by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner. >> >> Claiming is a "manner" different from playing the remaining tricks out >> one by one. >> >> I cannot see any infraction in C) above, even when considering L74B4. >> Who is going to rule on his knowledge and purposes? He has a >> perfectly valid purpose in not wanting to give away information. >> > > > No, because he knows that the information he's withholding is of no use > to opponents anyway. If he claims, giving them that information, the > hand is over. If he doesn't, the hand is still over, only the opponents > don't know it. That is not some piece of information that the opponents > want for the purpose of playing better. The only purpose is for > opponents to continue thinking, and that purpose has been rendered > unethical by L74B4. Hermann I think we are quite near the famous "Three Door Paradoxon" (see http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/misc/threedr.htm ) And there is another point: sometimes it is faster to finish the hand than to explain the claim and explaining the claim will force the opps to do much more thinking than playing does ;-) greetings, Volker -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jan 10 22:25:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:25 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Must one claim? In-Reply-To: <003901c2b820$1973f810$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > I cannot see any infraction in C) above, even when considering L74B4. > Who is going to rule on his knowledge and purposes? He has a > perfectly valid purpose in not wanting to give away information. I would. Not claiming when a) you are confident that you can, and b) you know opponents will understand and accept the claim is *extremely* discourteous. I don't give a damn about your professed motives it's rude and you should know better. I really don't think that L74b is intended as an exhaustive list of bad behaviours - it's a useful list of examples. Please note that I will forgive Mrs McGillicuddy. She won't claim the last two tricks with the AK of trumps (she played them earlier anyway) because she knows her opponents are better than her and might do something clever if she tries to claim. Her confidence fails my a) test. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jan 10 22:34:53 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:34:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? In-Reply-To: <003701c2b8ae$ef29a7a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110081341.00a77cb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110171143.00a66b50@pop.starpower.net> At 08:48 AM 1/10/03, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > >I haven't been in this thread for lack of anything new to add, but I > > >feel compelled to post a "me too" to Herman's views here. If inducing > > >one's opponents to imagine and attempt to solve non-existent problems > > >doesn't fall within the scope of "disconcerting", I can't imagine what > > >does. > >And if I shall face some penalty for not seeing that of course all my >cards >are high? ..... Of course not. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the point under discussion, which is: "...the local bridge lawyer never claims because he contends that if he ever claimed, then on the hands where he did *not* claim the opponents could infer that he had a loser and/or a problem, and he does not wish to give this information away." >Like yesterday - only after facing my cards in the claim I realized that I >had miscounted the Diamonds and had to give away the last (fourth) >Diamond trick. I stated that because there were still two outstanding >trumps I would draw two rounds to clear them and then my hand was >high, but now I no longer had any trump left for my last Diamond (which) >wasn't high). > >Should my claim be ruled so as to protect me from this silly play which I >would never have done had I played the cards in the "normal" way? >In all such cases I rule that the statement is to be followed to the >letter >unless there is an obvious mistake which would be revealed to the claimer >during the progression of a normal play in time to be corrected to a more >rational play. > >In my case, once I had made my claim statement there was nothing that >should cause me to draw only one round of trumps and then secure the >last trick by ruffing a small diamond before clearing the last outstanding >trump (if necessary) . That's all well and good, and quite valid, but still has nothing whatsoever to do with the point under discussion. >Back to the core of this thread: If I play in NT and have only high cards >left >irrespective of how the suits break then there is a strong argument for >using >Law 74B4 except that those players "violating" this law usually are those >inexperienced players whom we want encouraged to keep on with bridge. > >We do not encourage them by throwing the laws at them, particularly not >Law 74B4. There is no need to "throw[] the laws at them", but it is incumbent on us to let them know what the laws are, not penalizing them, but giving them a gentle, and hopefully educational, warning to do their best to follow them in the future. >And I shall hate to see Law 74B4 being used against any player that >honestly >can say that he doesn't feel comfortable with claiming, he prefers to >always >play it out. His purpose is not disconcerting opponents, it is his own >feelings. I wonder what Sven would say about a player, who, with only an AKQJ10 suit remaining in a NT contract, carefully puts each card on the table, taking 10 seconds to place each one, and claims to have done so because "he doesn't feel comfortable" with putting them down any faster, not to disconcert his opponents, but purely to assuage his own feelings. Based on the above, I imagine he would "hate to see L74B4 being used against" such a player. Nevertheless, that is precisely the sort of behavior that L74B4 forbids. Does Sven wish us to ignore or forgive any kind of improper behavior whatsoever when the offender's "purpose... is his own feelings"? 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 Fri Jan 10 22:26:29 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:26:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 17C irregularity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 1/9/03, Roger Pewick wrote: >Because to have the information is to have thought about the >information. Is it? "Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run, these are the only people who count." -- Robert Heinlein :-) From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jan 10 22:52:30 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:52:30 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Must one claim? Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110175109.009fdec0@pop.starpower.net> I am having a bad day; this is the second time I have mis-replied to one poster when I intended to reply to the group. Apologies to Alain. >At 09:10 AM 1/10/03, Alain wrote: > >>At 08:21 10/01/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>If you know the rest of the tricks are surely yours but mumble, "I >>>wonder how many tricks I'm going to take," nobody would doubt for an >>>instant that you are flagrantly violating the Law. Is there really >>>all that much difference if you silently continue to play rather >>>than claim? >> >>AG : good point. One should bear in mind, however, that the >>proportion of hands where you know how many tricks you will make >>depends on many parameters (the identity of the declarer, but also >>the time of the day, the number of coffee cups ingested etc.) and >>that many declarers aren't able to know whether they know* (hence the >>number of faulty claims). I've seen so often declarers not realize >>that dummy's card is 13th that I'm inclined to believe declarer when >>he says 'I didn't know they were all mine'. >>That's why it would be very difficult to establish a penalty system >>for infringing L74B4. This Law exists, however. > >Precisely. L74B4 is not about legal jurisprudence; it is about >ethics. Being an ethical player means not infringing a law even when >there is no possibilty of its being known that you were doing so. > >>Perhaps it could be done at top level. There is a well-known case, >>reported in The Bridge World around 1990, where an American expert (I >>think it's Hamman) tabled many times in a session, only to find that >>it helped his opponent avoiding well-earned time penalties that would >>have shifted the match result. Yes, he was honest. If he had done >>otherwise, could the TD have decided that he was infringing L74B4 ? >>Perhaps, but what if Hamman had answered 'sorry, I had a blind spot. >>I didn't realize they were all mine' ? It would even be credible, >>even from an expert, at the end of a long day. > >Indeed it would, and his opponents would undoubtedly have been >penalized, to Mr. Hamman's advantage. But Mr. Hamman is an >indisputably ethical player. > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 10 22:57:29 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 23:57:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110081341.00a77cb0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030110171143.00a66b50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004001c2b8fb$a7364910$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Eric Landau" ........... > I wonder what Sven would say about a player, who, with only an AKQJ10 > suit remaining in a NT contract, carefully puts each card on the table, > taking 10 seconds to place each one, and claims to have done so because > "he doesn't feel comfortable" with putting them down any faster, not to > disconcert his opponents, but purely to assuage his own > feelings. Based on the above, I imagine he would "hate to see L74B4 > being used against" such a player. Nevertheless, that is precisely the > sort of behavior that L74B4 forbids. Does Sven wish us to ignore or > forgive any kind of improper behavior whatsoever when the offender's > "purpose... is his own feelings"? One of the clubs I visit weekly is for really senior players, I feel like a youngster there with my just 64 years of age. Some of them might very well behave exactly as you describe here (even spending what feels like 10 seconds on each trick although I am pretty sure it is less on a stopwatch). In fact there are several of them who beg opponents not to claim because they do not feel comfortable in such situations. Would I ever use Law74B4 on any of those players? NEVER! What do I do myself (holding 5 "Aces" with only 5 tricks to go)? I place the 5 cards one by one on the table spending 2 seconds on "playing it out" and then let my opponents see for themselves that none of them could take any of those tricks. Much faster procedure than just showing my hand and telling them that the last five tricks are mine. A satisfactory answer to your question? Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jan 10 23:00:12 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:00:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another L74B case? was: Must one claim? In-Reply-To: <002201c2b8d1$eb8ac110$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110081341.00a77cb0@pop.starpower.net> <003701c2b8ae$ef29a7a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E1EF634.40606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110175056.00a74330@pop.starpower.net> At 12:58 PM 1/10/03, Sven wrote: >From: "Herman De Wael" >............... > > But it _is_ an offence for a player to play on, simply because he > > wants to have his opponents thinking longer. > > Now this does not frequently happen, luckily, but when it does, we > > have at least L74B4 to tell this player he should not act in this > manner. > >I consider the claim question exhausted, but there is an analogue >case on which I should like to hear Herman's (and other's) opinion: > >You have dummy on your right hand side holding among his cards >just two diamonds, the King and the Jack. You have both the Ace >and the Queen. There are several more tricks to play so there is >no question of claiming at this stage. > >A small diamond is played towards Dummy and partner plays a >small after which declarer begins to think, obviously trying to >figure out whether to play your partner for the Ace or the Queen. > >On it's face Law 74B4 now makes it illegal for you not to show >declarer your two cards saying that it doesn't matter which card >he plays from dummy. > >In fact the only reason you could possibly have for not doing so is >just to "disconcert" declarer! That is absurd. The usual and patently obvious reason for not showing your AQ is that if declarer plays the J, or K, you do not reveal to him that you hold the A, or Q, respectively. >Your opinion please? > >Do I have to state that in my opinion, although you are indeed >allowed to claim the trick in progress by doing so you should in >no way be subject to a Law74B4 charge if you let declarer >sweat it out for himself? No, nor need I state that had Sven's example been one in which only two tricks remained, I would respectfully disagree with his opinion. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jan 10 23:06:32 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:06:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Must one claim? Message-ID: <200301102306.SAA20602@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > I stated that because there were still two outstanding > trumps I would draw two rounds to clear them and then my hand was > high, but now I no longer had any trump left for my last Diamond (which) > wasn't high). Depending on your exact statement and on whether the trumps were 1-1 or not, not everyone would rule against you. It would depend on whether your statement implied playing two rounds regardless or just drawing two trumps, stopping when they came down on the first round. > In my case, once I had made my claim statement there was nothing that > should cause me to draw only one round of trumps and then secure the > last trick by ruffing a small diamond before clearing the last outstanding > trump (if necessary) . If trumps are really 2-0, I agree you are out of luck. However, I don't see why you wouldn't expect the same result from playing the hand out. > Back to the core of this thread: If I play in NT and have only high cards > left > irrespective of how the suits break then there is a strong argument for > using > Law 74B4 except that those players "violating" this law usually are those > inexperienced players whom we want encouraged to keep on with bridge. Procedural penalties -- which is what L74B4 seems to require -- are seldom given to inexperienced players for any reason. Usually education is better. Some friendly advice from the TD along the lines of "When you have all the rest, please claim," will usually have a good effect. _Especially_ if the TD doesn't allow BL's to dispute every comma of player's claim statements! > And I shall hate to see Law 74B4 being used against any player that honestly > can say that he doesn't feel comfortable with claiming, he prefers to always > play it out. His purpose is not disconcerting opponents, it is his own > feelings. If playing on has a purpose other than disconcerting an opponent, there is no violation. I do think the other side's feelings are important, though, and education is definitely in order. See above about BL's. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > There is a well-known case, reported > in The Bridge World around 1990, where an American expert (I think it's > Hamman) tabled many times in a session, only to find that it helped his > opponent avoiding well-earned time penalties that would have shifted the > match result. Yes, he was honest. If he had done otherwise, could the TD > have decided that he was infringing L74B4 ? No. See above. If the conditions of contest include time penalties, then refusing to claim because you want to gain from the time penalties is no infraction. (There is a parallel with "sportsmanlike dumping.") Of course the time wasted by the failure to claim will -- absent rules to the contrary -- count against the non-claiming side, but if the time penalty rules are stupid enough (as they were in the situation TBW described), failing to claim may be a rational and legal strategy. Of course the point of TBW article was that no one should write such stupid CoC in the first place. And in particular, bridge is not a "timed event," despite what some SO's claim. > From: "David Burn" > When Gunnar Hallberg claimed his double squeeze in Maastricht, > ... it would have been *an infraction* for him > to continue to play cards once he had calculated that his double > squeeze would work. The general point is valid, but the specific example is disputable. As I recall the hand, his LHO had shown one of two long suits. (Both minors??) In theory, LHO could have held the "wrong" suit, in which case the squeeze would not have worked. No doubt Mr. Hallberg knew what the real situation was, but because this knowledge came from table feel and not the bids and plays, I don't think anyone would have faulted him for playing on. Despite the example, the principle is correct. When you know you have the rest, you _must_ claim _unless_ you have a valid reason not to do so. And "disconcerting an opponent" is not a valid reason. > From: "Sven Pran" > You have dummy on your right hand side holding among his cards > just two diamonds, the King and the Jack. You have both the Ace > and the Queen. There are several more tricks to play so there is > no question of claiming at this stage. > > A small diamond is played towards Dummy and partner plays a > small after which declarer begins to think, obviously trying to > figure out whether to play your partner for the Ace or the Queen. > > On it's face Law 74B4 now makes it illegal for you not to show > declarer your two cards saying that it doesn't matter which card > he plays from dummy. > > In fact the only reason you could possibly have for not doing so is > just to "disconcert" declarer! > (If you need more reasons you can always claim that making it > clear to declarer his choice doesn't matter also gives UI to your > partner)? You have yourself supplied a perfectly adequate reason not to show declarer your diamond honors. Of course if this reason cannot apply -- say dummy has all high trumps except for the diamonds -- then indeed it is an infraction to "prolong play," as L74B4 says. From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jan 11 05:38:39 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 00:38:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Score on unplayed late play Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030111001321.01e110b8@mail.comcast.net> It sometimes happens that a board is a late play, and then is not played for some reason and must be scored somehow. How do you define "at fault" in this situation, for purposes of A+/A/A-? There are two possible ways to be responsible: being responsible for getting behind, and being responsible for the inability to play the board. Either can be the responsibility of neither, one, or both pairs. Examples: Pairs X and Y both play a round slowly, forcing a late play (both responsible). Pair Y already has an earlier late play, which was at least partly Pair Y's fault, and the second late play cannot get played. A- for pair Y, but A+ or A for pair X? Same situation, but Pair Z was entirely at fault for Pair Y's earlier late play. A or A- for pair Y? Same situation, but Pair Y was at fault for its first late play but not for its second late play. A+, A, or A- for pair Y? Pairs X and Y have a delay from a complex director ruling, or because they have to wait to get a director, for a ruling on an infraction by Pair Y; the director ruling causes the first board to take the whole round. The game runs late, and there is no time for a late play before the guard needs to lock up the building. Is either pair at fault at all? Pair Y arrives late at the table, and is at fault when it takes a late play against Pair X. Pair X has a last-round sit-out and is allowed by the director to leave early rather than hang around 30 minutes for a late play that is not its responsibility. How do you score this? (A situation like this happened at my club.) From svenpran@online.no Sat Jan 11 09:14:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 10:14:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Score on unplayed late play References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030111001321.01e110b8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <000b01c2b951$eaabeaa0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "David J. Grabiner" ............. > It sometimes happens that a board is a late play, and then is not played > for some reason and must be scored somehow. How do you define "at fault" > in this situation, for purposes of A+/A/A-? As "timed events" in the form of barometer tournaments has been very popular in Norway for many years we have quite some experience on handling slow plays. Note that in barometer events there is no such thing as a late play, if a board hasn't been completed on time it must be cancelled for that table. In events where "late play" is a possibility then at least my ruling is that an "innocent" pair has the right to take A+ rather than accepting to play a board atg an unscheduled time, but if they accept to play the board late then the obtained result stands. If a table is slow, but still manages to complete the board then both pairs at the table receive a warning except when there is an obvious (to the Director) reason why only one of the pairs is at fault. In that case the warning is given only to the responsible pair. If a board has to be cancelled due to late play then a previous warning for slow play counts against you when considering who is to blame, but in order to avoid PP a pair that considers themselves "innocent" must have summoned the Director when they should have noticed being in¨ danger of not completing the play on time. Given no other information the Director will consider both pairs at the table at fault if a board cannot be played. > > There are two possible ways to be responsible: being responsible for > getting behind, and being responsible for the inability to play the > board. Either can be the responsibility of neither, one, or both pairs. > > Examples: > > Pairs X and Y both play a round slowly, forcing a late play (both > responsible). Pair Y already has an earlier late play, which was at least > partly Pair Y's fault, and the second late play cannot get played. A- for > pair Y, but A+ or A for pair X? According to your description I consider both X and Y responsible for the cancelled board so I would in fact give A-/A- > > Same situation, but Pair Z was entirely at fault for Pair Y's earlier late > play. A or A- for pair Y? Same situation A-/A- > > Same situation, but Pair Y was at fault for its first late play but not for > its second late play. A+, A, or A- for pair Y? If Y was not at all responsible for the second slow play then I would award them A+ > > Pairs X and Y have a delay from a complex director ruling, or because they > have to wait to get a director, for a ruling on an infraction by Pair Y; > the director ruling causes the first board to take the whole round. The > game runs late, and there is no time for a late play before the guard needs > to lock up the building. Is either pair at fault at all? No > > Pair Y arrives late at the table, and is at fault when it takes a late play > against Pair X. Pair X has a last-round sit-out and is allowed by the > director to leave early rather than hang around 30 minutes for a late play > that is not its responsibility. How do you score this? (A situation like > this happened at my club.) IMO X is entitled to leave according to their schedule (and take A+) regards Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Jan 11 10:13:29 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 11:13:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030110170427.02a0a290@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001001c2b95a$84d482b0$b23df0c3@LNV> > >Law 74B4 is a mad law. It wasn't a law at all, of course, until > >some mad people put it in the laws along with all the other proprieties > >that did not belong there. I need some people with strong opinions to be able to maintain my approach without becoming the exception in this group. But this seems another one in which we do not agree. I appreciated very much the initiative to rebuild what was sort of declaration of bridge behaviour into a description with much more srtucture in '87. Nothing wrong with that. Only for those who don't want to read what is meant with it. This seems another example of something that only creates problems when dealt with it electronically, not at the bridge table. > > >When Gunnar Hallberg claimed his double squeeze in Maastricht, > >nobody congratulated him for following Law 74B4. But that is > >what he was doing - it would have been *an infraction* for him > >to continue to play cards once he had calculated that his double > >squeeze would work. If you're going to change the rules so that > >no one can claim on a squeeze any more, Ton, you had better get > >rid of Law 74B4. How can you maintain that Gunnar knew that all the tricks were SURELY his when he showed not to be able to make all the tricks? In a bridge game we are not testing the puzzle skills but on top of that other qualities, like nerves, social skills, memory, drawing inferences etc. all being combined in for example the competence to execute a double squeeeze. That is simply a too complicated action to solve claim wise. Gunnar himself prooved that he wasn't offending L 74B. What I do agree with you is that the proprieties need to be looked at, there is a lot of redundancy, some of it need to go to other parts, some of it should be clarified etc. ton From john@asimere.com Sat Jan 11 19:30:05 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:30:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? In-Reply-To: <001001c2b95a$84d482b0$b23df0c3@LNV> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030110170427.02a0a290@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001001c2b95a$84d482b0$b23df0c3@LNV> Message-ID: In article <001001c2b95a$84d482b0$b23df0c3@LNV>, Ton Kooijman writes DALB: >> >Law 74B4 is a mad law. It wasn't a law at all, of course, until >> >some mad people put it in the laws along with all the other proprieties >> >that did not belong there. snip Ton: >What I do agree with you is that the proprieties need to be looked at, there >is a lot of redundancy, some of it need to go to other parts, some of it >should be clarified etc. > >ton It should be a major focus of the LC to look at this IMO. Most problems are caused directly or indirectly by "offences against the proprieties". DALB is quite right. They're not really Laws at all. 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 blml@dybdal.dk Sat Jan 11 19:50:54 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 20:50:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? In-Reply-To: <001001c2b95a$84d482b0$b23df0c3@LNV> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030110170427.02a0a290@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001001c2b95a$84d482b0$b23df0c3@LNV> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 11:13:29 +0100, "Ton Kooijman" wrote: >I appreciated very much the initiative to rebuild >what was sort of declaration of bridge behaviour into a description with >much more srtucture in '87. So did I. I didn't know much about the laws before 1987, but I do remember wondering why in the world there was a chapter called "Proprieties" (I suppose - my 1975 Laws are in Danish only). Since it was in the book, it was presumably a part of the rules of the game, but I never understood (and still do not understand) what the significance of its not having law numbers was supposed to be. I like L74B4, except that the parenthesis may be worded a bit too strongly: it seems to assume that there is no situation where declarer "knows that all the tricks are surely his" and still might play on "without prolonging play unnecessarily". I fairly often know that all the tricks are surely mine, but play on because it will be faster to play one or two tricks and then claim than to make and have the opponents understand the correct statement now. Nevertheless, I think the parenthesis may be good in practice: it does say in few words what L74B4 is all about, and the law does say "for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent", which should make it clear that all the good reasons for playing on are legal. On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:27:24 -0800, "Chris Pisarra" wrote: > A) Mrs. McGillicuddy never claims because she doesn't want to = get >confused. =46ine. Certainly not "for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent", = and probably not prolonging play at all, since her confusion might well end up requiring a TD call. > B) Mr. Stingy never claims because he wants to get his full = money's >worth by playing each and every trick. Violation of L74B4. Isn't this really a bad excuse for "disconcerting an opponent"? > C) And the local bridge lawyer never claims because he contends = that >if he ever claimed, then on the hands where he did *not* claim the = opponents >could infer that he had a loser and/or a problem, and he does not wish = to >give this information away. Violation of L74B4. This is IMO clearly "disconcerting an opponent". The only possible gain that opponents might get from that information is the gain resulting from not wasting time and effort looking for tricks that aren't there. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From steve_wright@writeme.com Sat Jan 11 20:09:23 2003 From: steve_wright@writeme.com (Steve Wright) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 20:09:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Score on unplayed late play In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030111001321.01e110b8@mail.comcast.net> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030111001321.01e110b8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <5tPUbdRznHI+EwVN@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> In message <5.1.1.6.0.20030111001321.01e110b8@mail.comcast.net>, David J. Grabiner writes >It sometimes happens that a board is a late play, and then is not >played for some reason and must be scored somehow. How do you define >"at fault" in this situation, for purposes of A+/A/A-? > >There are two possible ways to be responsible: being responsible for >getting behind, and being responsible for the inability to play the >board. Either can be the responsibility of neither, one, or both pairs. > Our club has the following policy for slow/late play (whether right or wrong) 1. Boards removed by the TD without warning are scored A/A. Usually this is when a table is about to bid it's last board but everybody else has (is about to) score their last board and the end of the round is about to be scored. 2. Persistent slow tables are "named and shamed" when the end of the round is called. 3. If "naming and shaming" doesn't work then they are warned to catch up or they'll be playing one less board the next round. If this threat is enforced then the removed board is scored A-/A+. 4. If a session is running late then the movement can be terminated early, or a partial final round can be played. In addition, the TD can specify the latest time the final board can be started. Any boards removed during the final round are scored A/A. 5. Late arrival on the first round is always scored A-/A+. Nobody has complained about [2][3][4] or [5], but we do get some occasional complaints about [1]. These are brushed off with, "Tough Luck! Your opponents might be at fault for why you started the round late, but you are *all* responsible for finishing it on time." That also helps to deal with those, whose opponents arrive late, but refuse to play a bit quicker in order to catch up. -- Steve Wright From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Jan 12 02:11:16 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 21:11:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Must one claim? Message-ID: <200301120211.VAA02406@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Jesper Dybdal > I fairly often know that all > the tricks are surely mine, but play on because it will be faster to > play one or two tricks and then claim than to make and have the > opponents understand the correct statement now. It might be worth noting that "prolonging play" is not a synonym for "refusing to claim." If playing a trick or two more _shortens_ play, then surely it is no violation. (Perhaps BLML will be unanimous on that last sentence? Maybe a first!) It also occurs to me that there are ways of violating 74B4 other than failing to claim. What about a player who stares at the ceiling, refusing to play a card, when he has no genuine problem? These are just minor notes on language. It appears to me that I am in complete agreement with Jesper on the substantive issue. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Jan 12 02:15:01 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 21:15:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Score on unplayed late play Message-ID: <200301120215.VAA02473@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > According to your description I consider both X and Y responsible for > the cancelled board so I would in fact give A-/A- Can this possibly be right? If both pairs are responsible, then surely each is "partially at fault," and avg/avg is correct? For repeated violations, an additional PP might well be in order, but that is separate from the score given on a specific board. From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Sun Jan 12 11:47:22 2003 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:47:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? References: <200301091853.KAA32235@mailhub.irvine.com> <003901c2b820$1973f810$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E1E7F58.20702@skynet.be> <000b01c2b887$a06f4e20$70d8fea9@WINXP> <00d301c2b88a$36961bc0$3fe3f9c1@olivier> Message-ID: <000c01c2ba30$5f413260$2a4d003e@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Must one claim? > > > > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > > > (s) in balance, i have a disavantage % players who never claim! Hear hear ye DOVES Israel > But i still go on claiming, it cost less tricks that playing ... Hear Hear DOVES!!! > Olivier Beauvillain > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 blml@dybdal.dk Sun Jan 12 22:32:22 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:32:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <200301091603.LAA14142@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200301091603.LAA14142@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:03:24 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >Why can't we have a rule that up to some instant a call is "not made," >and can be changed for any reason, and after that instant it is "made" >and cannot be changed? Of course this seems harsh on true mechanical >mistakes, but many of those are heavily punished as things stand. Why >should this particular one be made an exception? Such a rule would require the limit for the call being "made" to be something like the current ACBL rule. With the DBF rule, it is necessary that inadvertent calls can be changed without penalty, since bidding cards stick to each other much too often for it to be acceptable that a stuck bidding card is an irrevocable call. >Reasonable people can, of course, disagree on what instant is the >proper one for a call to be "made," but surely a simple rule based on >observable facts has to be better than any rule based on something that >is fundamentally unknowable. It seems to me that this will just change the problem from being "Was it inadvertent?" (requiring mind-reading to be applied to the person making the possible call) to being "Did the partner get UI?" (requiring mind-reading to be applied to the partner, including the question of whether or not the partner thought the call was inadvertent). I suspect that it ends up making very little difference to the amount of fundamentally unknowable information that needs to be judged. I prefer our current way of doing it: it tends to have the unknowable information (inadvertent or not) judged immediately by the opponents (when it is obviously inadvertent) or the TD. I find that better than a situation where the partner has to manage his L16A obligation to judge what UI he actually has and how to avoid using it. But then of course I've never actually tried a regulation where the problem was moved to L16A in the way it seems to me that it is with the ACBL regulation. >> The logical answer seems to be "when partner has received useful >> information from the action". =20 > >Yes, good point. Also, the answer has to be reasonably determinable >and one that makes the game playable, i.e., accidents should be rare. > >> That point is difficult to specify >> precisely. I think our regulation is closer to matching that point = than >> the ACBL regulation is, though it certainly does not match it = perfectly. > >I tend to disagree with this, but perhaps the ACBL's rule is too late. >Maybe what would be better is something in between, for example when >the bid card is moved away from a position directly above the box or >when it is turned so partner can see its face. How would people feel >about a rule like this? Would it be too hard to apply? I don't think it would work very well with the type of bidding boxes we most often use. They have the cards placed at a 90 degrees angle to the table, so that partner will often be able to see the card (from an angle, but still with the front turned slightly towards partner) as soon as it is lifted above the table edge. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Jan 12 23:55:18 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:55:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: <4A256CA7.007F6A6F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20030109133949.02446800@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030110141102.02a12740@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00eb01c2ba96$e4efb290$7382403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > And, as an occasional teammate pointed out, > there is also the problem of the psychic echo > when you play against somebody who knows > about it. My partner suggsted to call this 'the > comic convention', but the name is already used. > > Best regards, > +=+ I discussed this subject with DWS at the England v. Wales match this weekend, where he was the Director and I Chairman of Appeals. The psychic possibility is subject to the requirements of any psychic. We both agree the agreement is to be disclosed. David Burn was there also, doing the vuegraph commentary, but he was busier than either of us and we did not make time to talk. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 13 00:04:55 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:04:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Score on unplayed late play In-Reply-To: <000b01c2b951$eaabeaa0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On 1/11/03, Sven Pran wrote: >If a board has to be cancelled due to late play then a previous warning >for slow play counts against you when considering who is to blame, but >in order to avoid PP a pair that considers themselves "innocent" must >have summoned the Director when they should have noticed being in=A8 >danger of not completing the play on time. Scenario: At table 3, due to the extreme slowness of the duffers sitting NS, EW are late completing the round. Despite their best efforts to catch up, at tables 4, 5, and 6, they are still late. So much so that you decide to tell them not to play the last board in that latest round, and designate it a "late play". Does the fact that you warned both pairs at table 3, and EW again at tables 4 and 5, 'count against' EW now at table 6? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 12 23:59:50 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:59:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Score on unplayed late play In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030111001321.01e110b8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: On 1/11/03, David J. Grabiner wrote: >It sometimes happens that a board is a late play, and then is not >played for some reason and must be scored somehow. How do you define >"at fault" in this situation, for purposes of A+/A/A-? There is an option in the ACBLScore program called, if I'm not mistaken, NP (for "not played"). This is what most club TDs around here seem to use. I *think* it give the average of a pair's scores on other boards, for each pair. I'm also pretty sure this is the wrong way to score these situations. :-( From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 13 01:04:54 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 02:04:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Score on unplayed late play References: Message-ID: <008801c2ba9f$c8e5b960$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Score on unplayed late play On 1/11/03, Sven Pran wrote: >If a board has to be cancelled due to late play then a previous warning >for slow play counts against you when considering who is to blame, but >in order to avoid PP a pair that considers themselves "innocent" must >have summoned the Director when they should have noticed being in¨ >danger of not completing the play on time. Scenario: At table 3, due to the extreme slowness of the duffers sitting NS, EW are late completing the round. Despite their best efforts to catch up, at tables 4, 5, and 6, they are still late. So much so that you decide to tell them not to play the last board in that latest round, and designate it a "late play". Does the fact that you warned both pairs at table 3, and EW again at tables 4 and 5, 'count against' EW now at table 6? I take it we are talking standard Mitchell movements? If EW started on time at tables 4 and 5 and still was late on each of these tables that certainly counts against them. But I believe from your text that they carried the delay from table 3 into tables 4, 5 and 6, never able to catch up until finally at table 6 a board was cancelled for this reason? If this is correct then there was absolutely no cause for a warning to EW when they played at tables 4 or 5. This seems to me as sloppy Director's work, he should IMO not let the delay propagate like this because that could eventually influence so many players that he would have to introduce an extra pause to let the entire room catch up. If he couldn't afford such an extra pause he had better "restore" the time schedule already when this EW pair was at table 4, cancelling one board at that table as they were unable to catch up otherwise. And in that case this cancellation was caused by the late play at table 3 where NS was at fault, not by any of the pairs at table 4 (who should both be compensated A+). Did NS at table 3 speed up their play in the following rounds? regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 13 01:08:49 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 02:08:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Score on unplayed late play References: Message-ID: <008e01c2baa0$54ba62b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Score on unplayed late play > On 1/11/03, David J. Grabiner wrote: > > >It sometimes happens that a board is a late play, and then is not > >played for some reason and must be scored somehow. How do you define > >"at fault" in this situation, for purposes of A+/A/A-? > > There is an option in the ACBLScore program called, if I'm not mistaken, > NP (for "not played"). This is what most club TDs around here seem to > use. I *think* it give the average of a pair's scores on other boards, > for each pair. I'm also pretty sure this is the wrong way to score these > situations. :-( If a board is not played contrary to the schedule it is certainly somebody's fault. It couold be the players or it could be the Director. In either case that board should be scored according to Law 12C1. As the cause is some kind of an irregularity the ACBL NP alternative cannot possibly be correct. Sven From toddz@att.net Mon Jan 13 02:24:24 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 21:24:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: <00eb01c2ba96$e4efb290$7382403e@endicott> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Grattan Endicott > > +=+ I discussed this subject.... Did you reach any interesting conclusions? -Todd From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jan 13 02:27:20 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 21:27:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Score on unplayed late play In-Reply-To: <008e01c2baa0$54ba62b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030112212522.01e4b8b8@mail.comcast.net> At 08:08 PM 1/12/2003, Sven Pran wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ed Reppert" >To: "Bridge Laws" >Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:59 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Score on unplayed late play > > > > On 1/11/03, David J. Grabiner wrote: > > > > >It sometimes happens that a board is a late play, and then is not > > >played for some reason and must be scored somehow. How do you define > > >"at fault" in this situation, for purposes of A+/A/A-? > > > > There is an option in the ACBLScore program called, if I'm not mistaken, > > NP (for "not played"). This is what most club TDs around here seem to > > use. I *think* it give the average of a pair's scores on other boards, > > for each pair. I'm also pretty sure this is the wrong way to score these > > situations. :-( > >If a board is not played contrary to the schedule it is certainly somebody's >fault. It couold be the players or it could be the Director. In either case >that board should be scored according to Law 12C1. > >As the cause is some kind of an irregularity the ACBL NP alternative >cannot possibly be correct. The NP does make sense when the board cannot be played and nobody is at fault. For example, there are 23 players at the bridge club, and the director calls a 24th to fill in, who arrives too late to finish some of the first-round boards. These boards should probably be scored as NP, and not as average-plus; average-plus is unfair to the rest of the field. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jan 13 08:01:51 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:01:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: > > And, as an occasional teammate pointed out, > > there is also the problem of the psychic echo > > when you play against somebody who knows > > about it. My partner suggsted to call this 'the > > comic convention', but the name is already used. > > > > Best regards, > > > +=+ I discussed this subject with DWS at the > England v. Wales match this weekend, where > he was the Director and I Chairman of Appeals. > The psychic possibility is subject to the > requirements of any psychic. We both agree > the agreement is to be disclosed. It is good to keep silent once in a while, so I didn't react yet. But reading this agreement being reached I should give my opinion before things get too settled. Which is that declarer should not be allowed to communicate with dummy, other than by asking him to play a named card. Let us first take that hurdle before discussing which demands we have when such communication would be allowed. ton David Burn > was there also, doing the vuegraph commentary, > but he was busier than either of us and we did > not make time to talk. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jan 13 08:12:36 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:12:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: Message-ID: <000601c2badd$c8b418e0$a306e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 2:24 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Grattan Endicott > > > > +=+ I discussed this subject.... > > Did you reach any interesting conclusions? > > -Todd > +=+ Interesting? No. We agree. We did have an interesting discussion about one of the appeals subjects in the Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin. West North East South - 2D P 2NT P 3H P 4H P* all pass *before his final pass West requested a full explanation of the auction. He went on to ask supplementary questions about South's possible alternatives to 2NT. (2D=weak major or strong balanced; 2NT= inquiry; 3H= minimum weak two in Hearts). North played the hand on the basis that West had some valid reason to ask - West has no action but pass in view and scant values. North went down, and does have alternative successful lines of play. West said that it was his last opportunity to ask during the auction and he wanted to know before dummy was faced. Our discussion centred on Law 73F2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jan 13 08:50:20 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:50:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: > > > +=+ I discussed this subject.... > > > > Did you reach any interesting conclusions? > > > > -Todd > > > +=+ Interesting? No. We agree. > > We did have an interesting discussion > about one of the appeals subjects in the > Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin. > West North East South > - 2D P 2NT > P 3H P 4H > P* all pass > > *before his final pass West requested a > full explanation of the auction. He went > on to ask supplementary questions about > South's possible alternatives to 2NT. > (2D=weak major or strong balanced; > 2NT= inquiry; 3H= minimum weak two in > Hearts). > > North played the hand on the basis that > West had some valid reason to ask - West > has no action but pass in view and scant > values. North went down, and does have > alternative successful lines of play. > West said that it was his last opportunity > to ask during the auction and he wanted > to know before dummy was faced. > > Our discussion centred on Law 73F2. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ And did you reach any interesting conclusion? To me this seems to be a Common Wealth problem and I hope to have restricted the (still quite big) area that way. Only when you succeed in adding to the 2005 laws that a player only may ask without having a 4-3-3-3 pattern and 7 points (opponents having reached game) or 2 points (for a slam) it makes sense to bring up law 73F2 on this issue. Up till now L20F covers this case sufficiently. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jan 13 09:33:31 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:33:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: <000601c2badd$c8b418e0$a306e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3E2287EB.4000903@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > We did have an interesting discussion > about one of the appeals subjects in the > Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin. > West North East South > - 2D P 2NT > P 3H P 4H > P* all pass > > *before his final pass West requested a > full explanation of the auction. He went > on to ask supplementary questions about > South's possible alternatives to 2NT. > (2D=weak major or strong balanced; > 2NT= inquiry; 3H= minimum weak two in > Hearts). > > North played the hand on the basis that > West had some valid reason to ask - West > has no action but pass in view and scant > values. North went down, and does have > alternative successful lines of play. > West said that it was his last opportunity > to ask during the auction and he wanted > to know before dummy was faced. > > Our discussion centred on Law 73F2. I imagine that you would have accepted the simple question but not the subsequent questions. That would be my ruling. I think that a player is allowed to ask 'normal' questions ("tell me what is going on?") even when not contemplating bidding, just to not let on that he has nothing to think about. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jan 13 09:48:37 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:48:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: Message-ID: <3E228B75.4090905@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: >> >> We did have an interesting discussion >>about one of the appeals subjects in the >>Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin. >> West North East South >> - 2D P 2NT >> P 3H P 4H >> P* all pass >> >>*before his final pass West requested a >>full explanation of the auction. He went >>on to ask supplementary questions about >>South's possible alternatives to 2NT. ***** >>(2D=weak major or strong balanced; >>2NT= inquiry; 3H= minimum weak two in >>Hearts). >> >>North played the hand on the basis that >>West had some valid reason to ask - West >>has no action but pass in view and scant >>values. North went down, and does have >>alternative successful lines of play. >>West said that it was his last opportunity >>to ask during the auction and he wanted >>to know before dummy was faced. >> >>Our discussion centred on Law 73F2. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > > And did you reach any interesting conclusion? > > To me this seems to be a Common Wealth problem and I hope to have restricted > the (still quite big) area that way. > > Only when you succeed in adding to the 2005 laws that a player only may ask > without having a 4-3-3-3 pattern and 7 points (opponents having reached > game) or 2 points (for a slam) it makes sense to bring up law 73F2 on this > issue. Up till now L20F covers this case sufficiently. > read again, Ton: >>*before his final pass West requested a >>full explanation of the auction. He went >>on to ask supplementary questions about >>South's possible alternatives to 2NT. The normal questions are OK, the supplementary questions are too much. IMO. > > 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 svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 13 09:47:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:47:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Score on unplayed late play References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030112212522.01e4b8b8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <000b01c2bae8$b9eef720$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "David J. Grabiner" > At 08:08 PM 1/12/2003, Sven Pran wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Ed Reppert" > >To: "Bridge Laws" > >Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:59 AM > >Subject: Re: [blml] Score on unplayed late play > > > > > > > On 1/11/03, David J. Grabiner wrote: > > > > > > >It sometimes happens that a board is a late play, and then is not > > > >played for some reason and must be scored somehow. How do you define > > > >"at fault" in this situation, for purposes of A+/A/A-? > > > > > > There is an option in the ACBLScore program called, if I'm not mistaken, > > > NP (for "not played"). This is what most club TDs around here seem to > > > use. I *think* it give the average of a pair's scores on other boards, > > > for each pair. I'm also pretty sure this is the wrong way to score these > > > situations. :-( > > > >If a board is not played contrary to the schedule it is certainly somebody's > >fault. It couold be the players or it could be the Director. In either case > >that board should be scored according to Law 12C1. > > > >As the cause is some kind of an irregularity the ACBL NP alternative > >cannot possibly be correct. > > The NP does make sense when the board cannot be played and nobody is at > fault. For example, there are 23 players at the bridge club, and the > director calls a 24th to fill in, who arrives too late to finish some of > the first-round boards. These boards should probably be scored as NP, and > not as average-plus; average-plus is unfair to the rest of the field. In that case the board was not "scheduled" to be played before the 24th player arrived, thus NP can make sense. The "irregularity" (Law12C1) is when there is a deviation from the schedule. Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jan 13 10:21:04 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:21:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: >> > >> We did have an interesting discussion > >>about one of the appeals subjects in the > >>Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin. > >> West North East South > >> - 2D P 2NT > >> P 3H P 4H > >> P* all pass > >> > >>*before his final pass West requested a > >>full explanation of the auction. He went > >>on to ask supplementary questions about > >>South's possible alternatives to 2NT. > > > ***** > > > >>(2D=weak major or strong balanced; > >>2NT= inquiry; 3H= minimum weak two in > >>Hearts). > >> > >>North played the hand on the basis that > >>West had some valid reason to ask - West > >>has no action but pass in view and scant > >>values. North went down, and does have > >>alternative successful lines of play. > >>West said that it was his last opportunity > >>to ask during the auction and he wanted > >>to know before dummy was faced. > >> > >>Our discussion centred on Law 73F2. > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >> > > > > > > And did you reach any interesting conclusion? > > > > To me this seems to be a Common Wealth problem and I hope > to have restricted > > the (still quite big) area that way. > > > > Only when you succeed in adding to the 2005 laws that a > player only may ask > > without having a 4-3-3-3 pattern and 7 points (opponents > having reached > > game) or 2 points (for a slam) it makes sense to bring up > law 73F2 on this > > issue. Up till now L20F covers this case sufficiently. > > > > > read again, Ton: > > >>*before his final pass West requested a > >>full explanation of the auction. He went > >>on to ask supplementary questions about > >>South's possible alternatives to 2NT. > > The normal questions are OK, the supplementary questions are too much. > > IMO. I did read it all so I my opinion is based upon all information given. Only when regulations say that questions may only be asked when the answer has relevance for the action to be taken by the player who asks, such problems can arise. And it is my conviction that the regulators have caused these problems themselves in that case, because such a regulation is wrong. The only problem that may arise by asking such questions is the possible UI it gives to partner. A player is entitled to a complete understanding about the system of his opponents before starting thinking of anything he might do. Instead of having such regulations it would be better to clearly state that any inferences drawn from questions about opponents system during the auction are for that opponent's own risk. But things do change when playing has started. I leave alone the more content oriented issues here, as the difference between 'normal' and supplementary', or even more interesting, the fact that some players do use 2NT now as a psyche, which makes questions more relevant and so becomes important in areas where such regulations do exist. For this moment I don't need more than L20F. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jan 13 11:28:57 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 12:28:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: Message-ID: <3E22A2F9.9020104@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: > >> > > > I did read it all so I my opinion is based upon all information given. > Only when regulations say that questions may only be asked when the answer > has relevance for the action to be taken by the player who asks, such > problems can arise. And it is my conviction that the regulators have caused > these problems themselves in that case, because such a regulation is wrong. > The only problem that may arise by asking such questions is the possible UI > it gives to partner. A player is entitled to a complete understanding about > the system of his opponents before starting thinking of anything he might > do. Instead of having such regulations it would be better to clearly state > that any inferences drawn from questions about opponents system during the > auction are for that opponent's own risk. But things do change when playing > has started. > > I leave alone the more content oriented issues here, as the difference > between 'normal' and supplementary', or even more interesting, the fact that I don't think you do, Ton. What you seem to be saying above is that questions can be asked, period. And that no inference must be drawn from this. In that opinion (and it is a valid one but I think it would need supporting from more official quarters) there can be no use of L73F, ever. > some players do use 2NT now as a psyche, which makes questions more relevant > and so becomes important in areas where such regulations do exist. For this > moment I don't need more than L20F. > > ton > > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Jan 13 11:42:47 2003 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 06:42:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:01:51 +0100, Ton Kooijman wrote: > >It is good to keep silent once in a while, so I didn't react yet. But >reading this agreement being reached I should give my opinion before things >get too settled. Which is that declarer should not be allowed to communicate >with dummy, other than by asking him to play a named card. Ton, I question your use of 'named', or is it your intention to prohibit players using an incomplete designation (or even saying "anything") when they don't care which of a number of possible cards dummy actually plays? Brian. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jan 13 11:45:36 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 12:45:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: > > I don't think you do, Ton. I do what? > What you seem to be saying above is that questions can be > asked, period. Yes, that is what L20F1 tells us. So we are talking about questions during the auction concerning opponents system. No restrictions in my opinion, unless it is clear that the question is asked to mislead the opponents, there being no bridge technical reason at all for the question. Opening 3H and LHO having AQ7 in hearts probably should not ask whether you need 2 of the 3 top honours to make such a call. ton > And that no inference must be drawn from this. > In that opinion (and it is a valid one but I think it would need > supporting from more official quarters) there can be no use > of L73F, ever. > From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jan 13 12:34:08 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:34:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: Message-ID: <3E22B240.3070000@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >>I don't think you do, Ton. >> > > > I do what? > > I was reacting to your statement that you did not want to address the contentual problem of the main versus the subsequent question. Your point seemed to be (and I realize I was probably wrong at that, and I apologise) that a player had an absolute right to ask questions. Now you have cleared up that you do not consider the right to ask questions to be absolute. That was my original point as well. I also stated that the simple asking about the meaning of the bidding should not be construed as illegal deception. I went on to say that the subsequent questioning (about alternatives to 2NT) was too much. That was my original reply. You used that reply to talk about L20. I deduced from that at first that you had not read completely (about the subsequent question), and when you corrected me on that, that you did not seem to think the subsequent question had any bearing. Now it seems to me as if we're both saying the same thing. Yes, defender, even with zilch, has the right to inquire the simple meaning of an auction that seems to have finished, and indeed to do so before his final pass - so as not to let on that he has in fact zilch. And no, defender does not have the right to question more closely, thus attempting to deceive declarer into thinking he does have something. I realize it is hard for you to understand that sometimes we have the same view on a problem, but let's just ascribe that to me being right some of the time. > > > > >>What you seem to be saying above is that questions can be >>asked, period. >> > > Yes, that is what L20F1 tells us. So we are talking about questions during > the auction concerning opponents system. No restrictions in my opinion, > unless it is clear that the question is asked to mislead the opponents, > there being no bridge technical reason at all for the question. Opening 3H > and LHO having AQ7 in hearts probably should not ask whether you need 2 of > the 3 top honours to make such a call. > Probably not. Although if it is a normal question to ask, I don't see why a player should reveal he has 2 of them by not asking. And no, I don't think this can ever be a normal question. But there are other examples. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jan 13 12:50:33 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:50:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:01:51 +0100, Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > > >It is good to keep silent once in a while, so I didn't react yet. But > >reading this agreement being reached I should give my > opinion before things > >get too settled. Which is that declarer should not be > allowed to communicate > >with dummy, other than by asking him to play a named card. > > > Ton, > > I question your use of 'named', or is it your intention to > prohibit players using an incomplete designation (or even saying > "anything") when they don't care which of a number of possible > cards dummy actually plays? > > Brian. Let us try to concentrate on the main issue here. I didn't have any intention but to follow the description about a played card from dummy as given in L45B. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jan 13 13:01:13 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:01:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: > And no, defender does not have the right to question more closely, > thus attempting to deceive declarer into thinking he does > have something. > > I realize it is hard for you to understand that sometimes we have the > same view on a problem, but let's just ascribe that to me being right > some of the time. I don't deny you the right of being right all of the time even and you certainly are right some of the time. But I am afraid that we differ in opinion here. I don't follow you when you say that defender does not have the right to question more closely, THUS attempting etc. The cases in which such questioning can be seen as deceiving should be rare. A player should not need to ask himself whether asking another question could deceive declarer. Once more: we are talking about L20F1 cases here, questions during the auction. ton From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jan 13 13:48:22 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:48:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Must one claim? In-Reply-To: <004001c2b8fb$a7364910$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110081341.00a77cb0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030110171143.00a66b50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030113083641.00a70950@pop.starpower.net> At 05:57 PM 1/10/03, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > I wonder what Sven would say about a player, who, with only an AKQJ10 > > suit remaining in a NT contract, carefully puts each card on the > table, > > taking 10 seconds to place each one, and claims to have done so > because > > "he doesn't feel comfortable" with putting them down any faster, > not to > > disconcert his opponents, but purely to assuage his own > > feelings. Based on the above, I imagine he would "hate to see L74B4 > > being used against" such a player. Nevertheless, that is precisely > the > > sort of behavior that L74B4 forbids. Does Sven wish us to ignore or > > forgive any kind of improper behavior whatsoever when the offender's > > "purpose... is his own feelings"? > >One of the clubs I visit weekly is for really senior players, I feel >like a >youngster there with my just 64 years of age. > >Some of them might very well behave exactly as you describe here >(even spending what feels like 10 seconds on each trick although I >am pretty sure it is less on a stopwatch). > >In fact there are several of them who beg opponents not to claim >because they do not feel comfortable in such situations. > >Would I ever use Law74B4 on any of those players? NEVER! When I see players doing this at my club, I do not "use L74B4 on" them, nor do I believe I have ever suggested that I would. I do, however, tell them gently and politely of its existence, and suggest that it would be courteous to their opponents to claim in these circumstances in the future. That said, I am sure that Sven knows his "really senior" customers, and if he chooses to say nothing because his common sense tells him that it would be futile and might cause them some measure of discomfort, I do not have a problem with that. On the other hand, should these players choose to take their habits into serious tournament competition, I would expect them to follow L74B4 like everyone else. Even then, I would not expect them to be "punished" for their behavior, merely told that it is inappropriate. >What do I do myself (holding 5 "Aces" with only 5 tricks to go)? >I place the 5 cards one by one on the table spending 2 seconds on >"playing it out" and then let my opponents see for themselves that >none of them could take any of those tricks. > >Much faster procedure than just showing my hand and telling them >that the last five tricks are mine. That's fine. Sven claims, and, in doing so, follows both the letter and the spirit of L74B4, as I would expect him to. I certainly have no problem with his adapting the mechanics of his claims to what he knows his opponents will be most likely to understand. >A satisfactory answer to your question? Yes. 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 Mon Jan 13 15:26:06 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:26:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Misleading(?) questions Message-ID: <200301131526.KAA01010@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> [I have changed the Subject of this thread to a more descriptive one.] > From: Herman De Wael > I imagine that you would have accepted the simple question but not the > subsequent questions. That would be my ruling. I think that a player > is allowed to ask 'normal' questions ("tell me what is going on?") > even when not contemplating bidding, just to not let on that he has > nothing to think about. There are some examples in Kaplan's (now ancient) "Appeals Committee" booklets that address this question. Kaplan's view -- to the extent I recall it correctly -- was that a player is entitled to ask and to receive a full and proper explanation. For that purpose, he may ask supplementary questions if necessary. However, once a full and proper explanation has been given, further questions are out of order. Kaplan's direct concern was UI (L73F1), but I don't see why the same principle would not apply to L73F2. (Of course "informatory questions" are always wrong, but that's not the issue here.) My guess is that Herman and Ton (and Kaplan) would usually give the same ruling if presented with the same detailed set of facts. The apparent disagreement may well be based on different beliefs about what "supplementary questions about South's possible alternatives to 2NT" means in terms of the answers already given. Ton: suppose that before the supplementary questions, North has already given what most players would regard as a complete explanation. West asks his supplementary questions nonetheless. Would you then rule under 73F2? No need to ask Herman. I am sure that if North has given inadequate answers, Herman would not rule against West's further questions. It's interesting that no one so far has taken the view that the questions could be examples of "pro questions," which the WBFLC has declared to be illegal. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Jan 13 15:30:42 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 13 Jan 2003 07:30:42 -0800 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: <13010313.27043@webbox.com> Ton wrote: >A player should not need to ask himself whether asking another question could deceive declarer. Why on earth not? "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark..." (Law 73) and it has been held on a number of occasions by the highest authorities that a question or the answer to a question is a "remark" for the purposes of this law. There is no particular justification for this in terms of the English language, but authorities from the highest to the lowest are not always concerned with what English words mean. So a player has to ask himself whether any question at all, from those considered by Herman to be normal to those considered by Herman to be "too much", could mislead an opponent. If it could, then it may not be asked. This is silly, of course, and is another reason why the Proprieties should be buried swiftly and without ceremony. But we need some guidance, and the WBF should either answer these questions themselves or make sure that NBOs provide answers to them (since I can imagine that opinions may vary from country to country): Is it permitted for a player to ask a question even though his action will not be affected in any way by the answer? [Currently this is a matter of regulation; as Ton correctly points out, the English regulations in this respect are crazy. The answer should be "yes".] Is it permitted for a player to ask a question to which he already knows the answer, in order to avoid giving information to an opponent? [The answer is currently "no"; it should probably be "yes", but this is arguable. One thing is clear, though, and that is that someone should tell us what the answer actually is, and not allow the present mud-slinging environment to persist.] Is it proper for a player always to ask a question about any alerted call? [The answer to this should probably be "yes", but this is arguable.] Is it proper for a player to stipulate that there are certain types of alerted call about which he will always ask questions? [The answer to this should certainly be "yes".] David Burn London, England From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jan 13 15:47:29 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:47:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Misleading(?) questions Message-ID: <200301131547.KAA01032@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> [I have changed the Subject of this one, too.] > From: "David Burn" > So a player has to ask himself whether any question at all, from > those considered by Herman to be normal to those considered by > Herman to be "too much", could mislead an opponent. If it could, > then it may not be asked. ... unless, of course, there is a "demonstrable bridge reason" for asking. Much of the debate is about what constitutes a demonstrable bridge reason. Of course I am in complete agreement with David B. that the authorities need to clarify what is legal and what isn't. To do that, they need to examine what rules can be enforced. There is no point in having high-minded rules on the books if enforcement is impossible. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jan 13 15:47:45 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:47:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misleading(?) questions Message-ID: Steve asks: > Ton: suppose that before the supplementary questions, North > has already > given what most players would regard as a complete explanation. West > asks his supplementary questions nonetheless. Would you then rule > under 73F2? This is not an answer to escape. I always rule under L73F2, as much as I rule under any other rule. But I will rarely apply L73F2 after a defender has asked questions about calls before the first lead has been made. Declarer should not draw conclusions, but for his own risk, from such questions; furthermore I have my doubts about the existence of the conditions as described in L73F2 in such cases. So we need to have a clear case of wanting to mislead declarer to let me apply this law and even then I might consider to assign a split score. No declarer should tell me that he expected LHO to have 17 HCP because he asked 17 questions. ton. > > No need to ask Herman. I am sure that if North has given inadequate > answers, Herman would not rule against West's further questions. > > It's interesting that no one so far has taken the view that the > questions could be examples of "pro questions," which the WBFLC has > declared to be illegal. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Jan 13 15:58:19 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:58:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Misleading(?) questions Message-ID: <7572720.1042473499420.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Steve wrote: [DB] > So a player has to ask himself whether any question at all, from those considered by Herman to be normal to those considered by Herman to be "too much", could mislead an opponent. If it could, then it may not be asked. > ... unless, of course, there is a "demonstrable bridge reason" for asking. No such thing. The law simply says that such a question may not be asked. There is another law which says that if this thing that may not happen does in fact happen, and if there wasn't a reason for it, then the score will be adjusted. But that does not mean that you are allowed to ask questions that could mislead if you have a reason for doing so; you are not allowed to ask them ever. David Burn London, England From gester@lineone.net Mon Jan 13 12:49:03 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 12:49:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: Message-ID: <002401c2bb1d$2accb660$2a242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "'Herman De Wael'" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 10:21 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > > > > > And it is my conviction that the regulators have caused > these problems themselves in that case, because such a > regulation is wrong. > ton > +=+ I take it the view that such a regulation is 'wrong' is ton's personal opinion of its desirability. Otherwise the only question is whether it is lawful or not. It is my view that attention should be given to the question of what it is desirable to allow, as to timing in particular - but also content, in asking explanations. The WBF drops what may be a gentle hint on the subject, currently, in its General Conditions of Contest. ("Request for explanation of an alertable call may be deferred until later in the auction or until the auction has closed in accordance with Law 20.") As far as I recall the EBL leaves the question entirely to the law book. To tighten up the impact of the Law 20 footnote would be a possible aim. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 13 16:29:19 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:29:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another L74B case? was: Must one claim? In-Reply-To: <002201c2b8d1$eb8ac110$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110081341.00a77cb0@pop.starpower.net> <003701c2b8ae$ef29a7a0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E1EF634.40606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030113172140.01d1e580@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:58 10/01/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >There is an analogue case on which I should like to hear Herman's (and >other's) opinion: > >You have dummy on your right hand side holding among his cards >just two diamonds, the King and the Jack. You have both the Ace >and the Queen. There are several more tricks to play so there is >no question of claiming at this stage. > >A small diamond is played towards Dummy and partner plays a >small after which declarer begins to think, obviously trying to >figure out whether to play your partner for the Ace or the Queen. > >On it's face Law 74B4 now makes it illegal for you not to show >declarer your two cards saying that it doesn't matter which card >he plays from dummy. > >In fact the only reason you could possibly have for not doing so is >just to "disconcert" declarer! > >Your opinion please? AG : there will be very few cases where none of the following would be true : a) showing both cards might br UI useful to partner b) it might help declarer localize other honors (using announced ranges) c) it might help declarer choose between lines of play after this trick (eg ruffing out your second honor vs tackling another suit) d) it might help declarer to base one's line of play on the fact that one hasn't played a bad card up to know (important at MPs or BAM), while if thinking one placed the wrong card one might be inclined to "try for something" etc. You can't be declared guilty of not knowing that none of those apply to the present deal. As the number of tricks still to be played goes lower, you will sometimes be able to tell that you can spare declarer the time. At trick 12, you *should* show them. Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jan 13 16:18:38 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:18:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: <13010313.27043@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030113111104.00a71ea0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:30 AM 1/13/03, David wrote: >Ton wrote: > > >A player should not need to ask himself whether asking another >question could deceive declarer. > >Why on earth not? "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent >by means of remark..." (Law 73) and it has been held on a number >of occasions by the highest authorities that a question or the >answer to a question is a "remark" for the purposes of this law. >There is no particular justification for this in terms of the >English language, but authorities from the highest to the lowest >are not always concerned with what English words mean. Perhaps because a player who wants the answer to a question and needs to "ask himself" whether asking it might mislead an opponent cannot, by definition, be "attempt[ing] to mislead" by doing 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 Mon Jan 13 16:27:25 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:27:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Misleading(?) questions In-Reply-To: <200301131547.KAA01032@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030113111953.00a86a80@pop.starpower.net> At 10:47 AM 1/13/03, Steve wrote: >There is no point in having >high-minded rules on the books if enforcement is impossible. I disagree. As I have previously suggested, ethical behavior is doing the right thing even when you believe that doing the wrong thing will not be detected or punished. Jurisprudential law is about what can be enforced; ethics is about what cannot. I see nothing wrong with TFLB letting players know what is expected of them, even when it encompasses precepts that we cannot enforce. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 13 16:47:01 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:47:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misleading(?) questions In-Reply-To: <200301131526.KAA01010@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030113174121.01d270e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:26 13/01/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >There are some examples in Kaplan's (now ancient) "Appeals Committee" >booklets that address this question. Kaplan's view -- to the extent I >recall it correctly -- was that a player is entitled to ask and to >receive a full and proper explanation. For that purpose, he may ask >supplementary questions if necessary. However, once a full and proper >explanation has been given, further questions are out of order. >Kaplan's direct concern was UI (L73F1), but I don't see why the same >principle would not apply to L73F2. > >(Of course "informatory questions" are always wrong, but that's not the >issue here.) > >My guess is that Herman and Ton (and Kaplan) would usually give the >same ruling if presented with the same detailed set of facts. The >apparent disagreement may well be based on different beliefs about what >"supplementary questions about South's possible alternatives to 2NT" >means in terms of the answers already given. > >Ton: suppose that before the supplementary questions, North has already >given what most players would regard as a complete explanation. West >asks his supplementary questions nonetheless. Would you then rule >under 73F2? AG : I see a problem looming here. Some (including YT) would like to rule using L73F2, which only needs that there be no bridge reason for asking questions; However, every question has a bridge reason : I want to know. Other would like to use L72B1, but this needs an infraction to be committed, and questions (unless OOT) won't be deemed an infraction. Which Law might we then use, provided that we want to limit (the exact limit being subject to discussion) the amount of questions being asked by a "non-interested" player ? Perhaps L73D2, whose first words aren't restricted to bids and plays, might be the solution. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 13 16:49:54 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:49:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: <13010313.27043@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030113174752.01d29170@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:30 13/01/2003 -0800, David Burn wrote: >Is it proper for a player to stipulate that there are certain >types of alerted call about which he will always ask questions? >[The answer to this should certainly be "yes".] AG : that's what I do eg for NT ranges vs players using matrix notrumps (several NT ranges ATV and ATS). It seems the best way to avoid any UI (including UI that you aren't interested in the range). It doesn't seem to create any probnlem, especially as the answer is quite simple to provide. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jan 13 16:38:06 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:38:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Misleading(?) questions Message-ID: <200301131638.LAA01059@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > > ... unless, of course, there is a "demonstrable bridge reason" for asking. > > From: dalburn@btopenworld.com > No such thing. The law simply says that such a question may not be > asked. There is another law ... [presumably 73F2] > But that does not mean that you are allowed to ask questions that could > mislead [even] if you have a reason for doing so... Do you mean 73D2? If not, please specify what Law. Unlike you, I am happy that a question be considered a "remark" for purposes of this Law, but 73D2 requires an _attempt_ to mislead, not just the occurrence of an opponent being misled. This seems a much stricter standard than "questions that could mislead." In particular, "attempt" implies to me something about asker's purpose. Kaplan's commentary -- again subject to my possibly mistaken recollection -- said that 73D2 meant something pretty close to what we now have as 73F2. In particular, the required evidence of an "attempt" usually amounts to showing that the question had no legitimate purpose. I am sure we are united in our hopes that the new Laws will clarify which questions are allowed and which, if any, are prohibited. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Jan 13 21:37:09 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 21:37:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] Misleading(?) questions References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030113111953.00a86a80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00d701c2bb4b$edaa56a0$393527d9@pbncomputer> Eric wrote: > I disagree. As I have previously suggested, ethical behavior is doing > the right thing even when you believe that doing the wrong thing will > not be detected or punished. Jurisprudential law is about what can be > enforced; ethics is about what cannot. I see nothing wrong with TFLB > letting players know what is expected of them, even when it encompasses > precepts that we cannot enforce. Well, perhaps not. But there is a fair amount wrong with giving such expectations the force of law. The rules of a game should define what is correct procedure, and set out penalties for failing to follow correct procedure. They should not moralise, and they should not invoke the dictates of conscience, for one of the pleasures that human beings take in the playing of a game is that it enables them, for a while, to forget such vexing questions and to allow their actions to be determined by no more than the arbitrary and artificial rules of the game. David Burn London, England From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Jan 13 22:58:24 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:58:24 -0600 Subject: [blml] Misleading(?) questions References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030113111953.00a86a80@pop.starpower.net> <00d701c2bb4b$edaa56a0$393527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Misleading(?) questions > Eric wrote: > > > I disagree. As I have previously suggested, ethical behavior is doing > > the right thing even when you believe that doing the wrong thing will > > not be detected or punished. Jurisprudential law is about what can be > > enforced; ethics is about what cannot. I see nothing wrong with TFLB > > letting players know what is expected of them, even when it > encompasses > > precepts that we cannot enforce. > > Well, perhaps not. But there is a fair amount wrong with giving such > expectations the force of law. The rules of a game should define what is > correct procedure, and set out penalties for failing to follow correct > procedure. They should not moralise, and they should not invoke the > dictates of conscience, for one of the pleasures that human beings take > in the playing of a game is that it enables them, for a while, to forget > such vexing questions and to allow their actions to be determined by no > more than the arbitrary and artificial rules of the game. > > David Burn > London, England In a perfect game of bridge there would be no questions. Never. But humans being as they are, are not predisposed to playing a perfect game of bridge so it is impractical to not accommodate them. The enduring attraction of the game is how the players resolve the conflict between making available their agreements and the solving of the hand without using UI. As such, the matter of propriety can not be disentangled. regards roger pewick From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Jan 13 23:38:50 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 23:38:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Misleading(?) questions References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030113111953.00a86a80@pop.starpower.net> <00d701c2bb4b$edaa56a0$393527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <013f01c2bb5c$ed512a60$393527d9@pbncomputer> Roger wrote: > The enduring attraction of the game is how the players resolve the conflict > between making available their agreements and the solving of the hand > without using UI. No, it isn't. The enduring attraction of the game for the millions who play it has to do with making bids and playing cards. The vanishingly small minority concerned with a meta-game called not "Duplicate Contract Bridge" but "The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" find, I suppose, some intellectual satisfaction in the conflicts that arise because - and only because - the rules themselves are not mechanical, and thus require "interpretation". But this is a game that we, the minority, have invented for ourselves, and the millions would really rather that we had not. > As such, the matter of propriety can not be disentangled. Of course it can. I could do it by deleting three words and two punctuation marks from the current laws as follows: Current Law 73D1 It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. Delete "desirable, though not"; delete comma after "required". A consequence of this would be that I could delete vast chunks of Law 16, and vast chunks of a lot of other laws besides. "But we would be playing a different game", I hear you bleat. So you would - one where you don't do anything but make bids and play cards. To me, that does not sound like such a terrible idea. David Burn London, England From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jan 13 21:14:55 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 21:14:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: Message-ID: <003901c2bb6c$173e0dc0$a50ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:50 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > I should give my opinion before things get too settled. >> Which is that declarer should not be allowed to communicate > > >with dummy, other than by asking him to play a named card. > > +=+ If we are to say this, which Law do we cite in support of our ruling? Dummy may not "communicate anything about the play to declarer" [Law 43A1(c)], but where is traffic in the opposite direction prohibited? Indeed, if it were, one should expect 43A1(c) to be worded differently. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 14 04:02:52 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 23:02:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Score on unplayed late play Message-ID: On 1/13/03, Sven Pran wrote: >I take it we are talking standard Mitchell movements? Yes. >If EW started on time at tables 4 and 5 and still was late on each of >these tables that certainly counts against them. But I believe from >your text that they carried the delay from table 3 into tables 4, 5 >and 6, never able to catch up until finally at table 6 a board was >cancelled for this reason? You got it. >If this is correct then there was absolutely no cause for a warning to >EW when they played at tables 4 or 5. Didn't stop the Director from giving one. >This seems to me as sloppy Director's work, he should IMO not >let the delay propagate like this because that could eventually >influence so many players that he would have to introduce an extra >pause to let the entire room catch up. > >If he couldn't afford such an extra pause he had better "restore" the >time schedule already when this EW pair was at table 4, cancelling >one board at that table as they were unable to catch up otherwise. > >And in that case this cancellation was caused by the late play at >table 3 where NS was at fault, not by any of the pairs at table 4 >(who should both be compensated A+). Oh, I agree. :-) We have one director in town who is willing to hold people's feet to the fire regarding time to move. She even got a "countdown" alarm clock for Christmas, and is using it at her games. Seems to be working well, so far. The others are, um, more lax. >Did NS at table 3 speed up their play in the following rounds? Nope. From john@asimere.com Tue Jan 14 04:56:10 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 04:56:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: <003901c2bb6c$173e0dc0$a50ae150@endicott> References: <003901c2bb6c$173e0dc0$a50ae150@endicott> Message-ID: In article <003901c2bb6c$173e0dc0$a50ae150@endicott>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"When in doubt, don't call a meeting." > - Mark McCormack. >============================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Kooijman, A." >To: >Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:50 PM >Subject: RE: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > >> > I should give my opinion before things get too settled. >>> Which is that declarer should not be allowed to communicate >> > >with dummy, other than by asking him to play a named card. >> > >+=+ If we are to say this, which Law do we cite in support >of our ruling? Dummy may not "communicate anything about >the play to declarer" [Law 43A1(c)], but where is traffic in the >opposite direction prohibited? Indeed, if it were, one should >expect 43A1(c) to be worded differently. ~ G ~ +=+ > As far as I can tell declarer can do almost anything he likes viz-a-viz communication with dummy. I see no law or regulation which prohibits it, subject only, of course, to full disclosure of any special agreements. This may have to include declarer alerting the opponents (since dummy may not) to the echo, and even stating his own psyching proclivity at that point. I think this is an area where dummy *should* be able to participate (to the extent outlined above). "Coffee please" may be innocuous, or it may contain such a message - again I feel if it does then it is disclosable. cheers John > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From gillp@bigpond.com Tue Jan 14 05:46:50 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:46:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: <007a01c2bb90$59024180$148d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Ton Kooijman wrote: >> >> We did have an interesting discussion >> >>about one of the appeals subjects in the >> >>Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin. >> >> West North East South >> >> - 2D P 2NT >> >> P 3H P 4H >> >> P* all pass >> >> >> >>*before his final pass West requested a >> >>full explanation of the auction. He went " a full explanation" >> >>on to ask supplementary questions about >> >>South's possible alternatives to 2NT. >> >> ***** >> >> >>(2D=weak major or strong balanced; >> >>2NT= inquiry; 3H= minimum weak two in If "2NT = inquiry" was indeed the actual description of 2NT, then it is not surprising that West asked more questions. West may have been trying to ascertain whether 2NT was a weak enquiry (with 3C being a strong enquiry) - such a method is playable, and would encourage a spec double by West based on partner's presumed cards. Or a strong enquiry. My point is that it is very difficult to establish that there was no reason to ask further questions. In this case, assuming that Ton's wording above is accurate, North almost certainly should have said more than the one word answer "enquiry" when a full explanation was requested, with "strong enquiry" being a fairly standard reply. My point is that when the reply "enquiry" seems inadequate, further questions surely should be acceptable. >> >>North played the hand on the basis that >> >>West had some valid reason to ask - West >> >>has no action but pass in view and scant >> >>values. My partner Ron Klinger once got doubled by a player (David Conway) with scant values and short trumps after a similar auction. Consequently we went minus 1000 redoubled in a touch and go contract. The assumption that West had no reason for more questions is thus only a reasonable assumption and not an overwhelmingly accurate assumption. He may on rare occasions have discovered something useful. >> >>North went down, and does have >> >>alternative successful lines of play. >> >>West said that it was his last opportunity >> >>to ask during the auction and he wanted >> >>to know before dummy was faced. so that he could play cards smoothly in normal tempo, and not feel inclined to ask during the play when his motives could similarly be questioned. Faced with a Multi Two, some players who have never played a Multi Two are understandably somewhat uneasy and quite reasonably want to know as much as the opponents about what's going on. They should not be punished IMO. Herman de Wael wrote: >> The normal questions are OK, the supplementary questions >> are too much. >> >> IMO. Just as well you added "IMO". Ton wrote: >Instead of having such regulations it would be better to clearly state >that any inferences drawn from questions about opponents system >during the auction are for that opponent's own risk. But things do >change when playing has started. If "things do change when the auction has started", then West's attempt not to ask questions during the play, by instead asking them during the auction, may actually be laudable. >the fact that some players do use 2NT now as a psyche, >which makes questions more relevant .... Exactly. Two days ago in Sydney a regular partnership had a similar auction to N/S's auction above (identical except for 3NT replacing 3H by South). Before the final pass, East (not on lead) asked for a full explanation of the auction, wondering whether to double with a balanced 15 count. North has psyched 2NT and 4H drifted down two undoubled. East still wonders whether they had ever psyched 2NT before but not divulged that fact, and knows that he will never know the answer. My point is that this is a typical situation where extra questions are often needed to extract information from lazy players who simply say "enquiry" instead of "strong enquiry". That 's what happens in the real world, and E/W should not be punished for it IMO. Should N/S be penalised for an inadequate explanation of "enquiry" which led to a subsequent waste of time by all concerned. No, certainly not, IMO. That would be going too far. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Jan 14 06:05:14 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 06:05:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: <003901c2bb6c$173e0dc0$a50ae150@endicott> Message-ID: <019f01c2bb92$e7b1be40$393527d9@pbncomputer> > As far as I can tell declarer can do almost anything he likes viz-a-viz > communication with dummy. I see no law or regulation which prohibits it, > subject only, of course, to full disclosure of any special agreements. > This may have to include declarer alerting the opponents (since dummy > may not) to the echo, and even stating his own psyching proclivity at > that point. > > I think this is an area where dummy *should* be able to participate (to > the extent outlined above). > > "Coffee please" may be innocuous, or it may contain such a message - > again I feel if it does then it is disclosable. I have been watching this with mounting incredulity. But there comes a point at which the lunatics appear to me to have taken over the asylum. This petering from dummy business is something we did when we were children. Some of us still appear to do it, so presumably some of us still are. Whereas the childlike approach to the game of bridge has much to commend it, there is no particular reason why grownups should sit around discussing the ramifications thereof. And yet here are some pretty serious grownups discussing the consequences of a psychic peter from dummy by declarer, and talking about a peter from dummy in terms of "communication with partner"... it would be funny, if it weren't tragic. Dummy is dummy, declarer's agent; it is obvious from the Laws that once dummy has become dummy, he has ceased to be "partner", or any kind of an agent in his own right with whom it is possible to "communicate" meaningfully or to have "undisclosed" understandings. If Alain and John and other twelve year olds want to exchange secret "messages" with dummy - well, maybe one of these days someone will buy them a pair of long trousers. Clowning around by petering from dummy is probably against the Proprieties, in which case this eminently sensible body of Law should be salvaged from the ocean bed for the purpose of finding the bit which says "It is not a good idea to behave like an idiot". Then, it should be thrown back into the ocean again, harder than before. But to talk about what twelve year olds might do in order to let other twelve year olds know that "the contract is safe" (of course it is in Belgium, for even if you don't know how to make it, all you have to do is claim and call for Herman) is not an exercise for the Bridge Laws Mailing List. Grattan, I am surprised at you. David Burn London, England From toddz@att.net Tue Jan 14 06:36:01 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 01:36:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 11:56 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > "Coffee please" may be innocuous, or it may contain > such a message - again I feel if it does then it is disclosable. This would be a form of communication between partners by means other than calls or plays. There's a certain absurdity about expulsing players for offending L73B2 this way. We're probably safer ignoring the whole ordeal. Grazie, Todd From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jan 14 02:01:41 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 02:01:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Misleading(?) questions References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030113111953.00a86a80@pop.starpower.net> <00d701c2bb4b$edaa56a0$393527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000c01c2bb9d$92b6ac60$163d87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Misleading(?) questions > > Well, perhaps not. But there is a fair amount wrong with > giving such expectations the force of law. The rules of a > game should define what is correct procedure, and set > out penalties for failing to follow correct procedure. They > should not moralise, and they should not invoke the > dictates of conscience, > +=+ So that we should not enact civilian laws if we are in difficulty to enforce them? We should take the view that we do not need a law to deal with a vandal on the rare occasion that we catch one? - that if we believe it a crime to be punished when obstructions are put on railway lines, but rarely if ever catch the perpetrators, we should not give our expectations the force of law? I think it is entirely appropriate to set ethical standards for the game - and lay down sanctions to be applied when there is evidence of a purposeful disregard of them, however rarely that evidence may be forthcoming. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jan 14 07:46:40 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:46:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: <003901c2bb6c$173e0dc0$a50ae150@endicott> <019f01c2bb92$e7b1be40$393527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001c01c2bba1$31d274c0$163d87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 6:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > But to talk about what twelve year olds might do in order to let other > twelve year olds know that "the contract is safe" (of course it is in > Belgium, for even if you don't know how to make it, all you have to do > is claim and call for Herman) is not an exercise for the Bridge Laws > Mailing List. Grattan, I am surprised at you. > +=+ Perhaps the moment has come to recall this began with the player, a little more than twelve years old, who told us he does it - and my rather quirky (but accurate) riposte that it should be disclosed. And like ton I incline to think it would be better that such communication were not a feature of the game, but I do not see that we have the law to forbid it - given that the laws refer to 'player' and 'partner' at the crucial points and, notwithstanding your effort, dummy is yet still a player and the partner of declarer. And the correspondence has not been as boring as some. Meanwhile I have had some success in starting an Australian hare on another track on blml. So let's not be grumpy, David - light entertainment transforms the medium, even when there is more entertainment than light. ~ G ~ +=+ From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jan 14 08:24:17 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:24:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "When in doubt, don't call a meeting." > - Mark McCormack. > ============================== I am not in doubt, and you (Grattan) should be, so let me take the initiative to put this on our agenda for Monte Carlo. Why do you need to find this in the laws? Didn't we say that to be allowed things should be described in the laws explicitly? But if you need support from the laws use the first part of L43A1C instead of the second: should not take part in the play. And if you need we could use L74C4. > > > > I should give my opinion before things get too settled. > >> Which is that declarer should not be allowed to communicate > > > >with dummy, other than by asking him to play a named card. > > > > +=+ If we are to say this, which Law do we cite in support > of our ruling? Dummy may not "communicate anything about > the play to declarer" [Law 43A1(c)], but where is traffic in the > opposite direction prohibited? Indeed, if it were, one should > expect 43A1(c) to be worded differently. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Jan 14 08:48:58 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:48:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: <007a01c2bb90$59024180$148d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <003101c2bbaa$1b6c44f0$dd1fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 5:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > > My point is that when the reply "enquiry" seems > inadequate, further questions surely should be > acceptable. > +=+ However, the natural inference drawn from an enquiry is that the player has some bridge reason to enquire. If the answer will not affect his action it is my view that the question is more desirably asked after the auction has ended, if at all. In this case I hold that opinion not only of the supplementary questions. Not having considered the qualities of the line of play followed, I have not judged how I would rule, but my sympathies would incline to the protester if his actions avoided the ridiculous. West, who enquired, held: 6 5 4 3 6 A 10 9 8 5 Q 8 6 ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jan 14 09:00:56 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:00:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: > At 10:30 AM 1/13/03, David wrote: > > >Ton wrote: > > > > >A player should not need to ask himself whether asking another > >question could deceive declarer. > > > >Why on earth not? "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent > >by means of remark..." (Law 73) and it has been held on a number > >of occasions by the highest authorities that a question or the > >answer to a question is a "remark" for the purposes of this law. > >There is no particular justification for this in terms of the > >English language, but authorities from the highest to the lowest > >are not always concerned with what English words mean. > > Perhaps because a player who wants the answer to a question and needs > to "ask himself" whether asking it might mislead an opponent > cannot, by > definition, be "attempt[ing] to mislead" by doing so. > Eric Landau yes, thank you Eric. I consider the right to ask questions to understand opponents bidding of the highest rank. Isn't it normal for good players to try to compose the complete deal just listening to the calls made? Isn't that true even if you have nothing to bid yourself? Isn't that a bridge technical reason by definition? Only if there is a strong feeling that the player tried to mislead declarer by asking his questions we have L73F2 to support a decision based upon that law. Part of which should be to remove that player from the event. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jan 14 09:17:05 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:17:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: > > And it is my conviction that the regulators have caused > > these problems themselves in that case, because such a > > regulation is wrong. > > ton > > > +=+ I take it the view that such a regulation is 'wrong' is > ton's personal opinion of its desirability. Otherwise the > only question is whether it is lawful or not. Yes, my personal opinion of course. Once in a while I am surprised that we need to emphasize that. This is such case. Because it is also my personal opinion that such regulation is not lawful. Never had the situation that a player was barred from playing good bridge because he wasn't allowed to ask about the meaning of a call under your regulations? Or the situation that declarer made all succeeding finesses over RHO because LHO couldn't have points, since he kept silent about quite strange calls made? Resulting in an appeal towards your rules and regulations committee? I am quite personally exaggerating, I know that, but in essence you have created a law related problem. ton From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Jan 14 09:19:10 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 00:19:10 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] The round from hell Message-ID: It's not often you get two ugly rulings back to back at the same table, but it happened to me tonight in an online game. North and South are Polish club level players, with some moderate experience playing against foreign pairs online. East and West are US near-experts (who rarely play against anything other than SA or 2/1). I will refrain from describing the strong personalities involved. First hand: .----------------------------------------------------. |Dealer: N ===North======== Brd# 20337 | |Vulnerable: None S: 964 IMP | |Contract: 6H Dbl H: AK8 | |Result: Down 1 D: | |Score: -100 C: AKT8532 | |===West========= ===East========= | |S: AJT72 | | S: K83 | |H: J2 | | H: 5 | |D: KT32 | | D: AQJ875 | |C: J9 .----------. C: 764 | | | | ===South======== | | S: Q5 | | H: QT97643 | | D: 964 | | C: Q | .----------------------------------------------------. West North East South 3C 3D 3H 3S 4H 4S 5H 5S Pass Pass 6H Dbl Pass Pass Pass I get called after dummy comes down: "3C wasn't alerted!" North feeds me a line about how he has a perfectly normal 3C bid -- he has 9 tricks if clubs are trump, doesn't he? South seems to know what's going on since he bid so much. Since noone was selling out to 4S, I ruled no damage (5H making or 5S-1 are worse for EW than beathing 6H was) but told North that standard 3C bids show 6 or 7 tricks, not 9, and to alert if he calls this standard. In an unrelated case last week, NS testified they played Polish Club straight out of Jassem's book ... which is hard to beleive if they both really think this is a 3C bid. So, with time threatening to run out for the round, what do you suppose they pick up next? .----------------------------------------------------. |Dealer: E ===North======== Brd# 20338 | |Vulnerable: NS S: 4 | |Contract: 7NT Rdbl H: JT764 | |Result: Made 7 D: 2 | |Score: -2280 C: KQJ432 | |===West========= ===East========= | |S: AK96532 | | S: QJ87 | |H: 85 | | H: A32 | |D: AQ | | D: KJ75 | |C: AT .----------. C: 76 | | | | ===South======== | | S: T | | H: KQ9 | | D: T98643 | | C: 985 | .----------------------------------------------------. BIDDING: West North East South Pass Pass 2C Pass 2D Pass 2S Pass 3S Pass 4C Dbl Pass Pass 4D Pass 4H Dbl Pass Pass 5D Pass 6D Pass 7NT Pass Pass Dbl Rdbl Pass Pass Pass There is a trick 1 claim... and this time it's North who wants a director. "2C wasn't alerted! He doesn't have 11-15 and a club suit!" Now, he may actually ahve a point: if his side had been able to preempt in clubs, they'd cut out EW's exploration room, and at best they would settle for the obvious six spades. And yes, under the site rules "any conventional bid", among other things, is alertable, so technically West did commit an infraction. At the table I wound up letting the second score stand, on the basis that in even just a month or two of online play, North is bound to have discovered that everyone outside Poland uses 2C strong and artifical. If North had been brand new I may well have adjusted. Anyone care to comment? And no, the rest of the game WASNT any more normal than this. I was almost bald from tearing of hair ebfore the session ended. GRB From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jan 14 09:56:09 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:56:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] The round from hell Message-ID: > It's not often you get two ugly rulings back to back at the > same table, > but it happened to me tonight in an online game. North and South are > Polish club level players, with some moderate experience > playing against > foreign pairs online. East and West are US near-experts (who > rarely play > against anything other than SA or 2/1). I will refrain from > describing the > strong personalities involved. > > First hand: > > .----------------------------------------------------. > |Dealer: N ===North======== Brd# 20337 | > |Vulnerable: None S: 964 IMP | > |Contract: 6H Dbl H: AK8 | > |Result: Down 1 D: | > |Score: -100 C: AKT8532 | > |===West========= ===East========= | > |S: AJT72 | | S: K83 | > |H: J2 | | H: 5 | > |D: KT32 | | D: AQJ875 | > |C: J9 .----------. C: 764 | > | | > | ===South======== | > | S: Q5 | > | H: QT97643 | > | D: 964 | > | C: Q | > .----------------------------------------------------. > > West North East South > 3C 3D 3H > 3S 4H 4S 5H > 5S Pass Pass 6H > Dbl Pass Pass Pass > > I get called after dummy comes down: "3C wasn't alerted!" > North feeds me a > line about how he has a perfectly normal 3C bid -- he has 9 tricks if > clubs are trump, doesn't he? South seems to know what's going > on since he > bid so much. > > Since noone was selling out to 4S, I ruled no damage (5H > making or 5S-1 > are worse for EW than beathing 6H was) but told North that standard 3C > bids show 6 or 7 tricks, not 9, and to alert if he calls this > standard. > > In an unrelated case last week, NS testified they played Polish Club > straight out of Jassem's book ... which is hard to beleive if > they both > really think this is a 3C bid. > > So, with time threatening to run out for the round, what do > you suppose > they pick up next? > > .----------------------------------------------------. > |Dealer: E ===North======== Brd# 20338 | > |Vulnerable: NS S: 4 | > |Contract: 7NT Rdbl H: JT764 | > |Result: Made 7 D: 2 | > |Score: -2280 C: KQJ432 | > |===West========= ===East========= | > |S: AK96532 | | S: QJ87 | > |H: 85 | | H: A32 | > |D: AQ | | D: KJ75 | > |C: AT .----------. C: 76 | > | | > | ===South======== | > | S: T | > | H: KQ9 | > | D: T98643 | > | C: 985 | > .----------------------------------------------------. > > BIDDING: > > West North East South > Pass Pass > 2C Pass 2D Pass > 2S Pass 3S Pass > 4C Dbl Pass Pass > 4D Pass 4H Dbl > Pass Pass 5D Pass > 6D Pass 7NT Pass > Pass Dbl Rdbl Pass > Pass Pass > > There is a trick 1 claim... and this time it's North who > wants a director. > "2C wasn't alerted! He doesn't have 11-15 and a club suit!" > Now, he may > actually ahve a point: if his side had been able to preempt in clubs, > they'd cut out EW's exploration room, and at best they would > settle for > the obvious six spades. And yes, under the site rules "any > conventional > bid", among other things, is alertable, so technically West > did commit an > infraction. > > At the table I wound up letting the second score stand, on > the basis that > in even just a month or two of online play, North is bound to have > discovered that everyone outside Poland uses 2C strong and > artifical. If > North had been brand new I may well have adjusted. > > Anyone care to comment? > > And no, the rest of the game WASNT any more normal than this. > I was almost > bald from tearing of hair ebfore the session ended. > > GRB Well done TD, and even more compliments for the lay out of this message. Teach me please. It might have been better to address some warnings or even a minor penalty somewhere during this battle instead of torturing you own head. And I missed the remark from north that he didn't dare to ask about the 2C-bid afraid of giving away his club holding, because what other reason can there be to ask? In English terms: he needs to have clubs to be allowed to ask (sorry, sorry). Or are these questions not available for his partner with this provider (serious question)? ton ton From henk@ripe.net Tue Jan 14 10:01:39 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:01:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] The round from hell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Gordon Bower wrote: > .----------------------------------------------------. > |Dealer: N ===North======== Brd# 20337 | > |Vulnerable: None S: 964 IMP | > |Contract: 6H Dbl H: AK8 | > |Result: Down 1 D: | > |Score: -100 C: AKT8532 | > |===West========= ===East========= | > |S: AJT72 | | S: K83 | > |H: J2 | | H: 5 | > |D: KT32 | | D: AQJ875 | > |C: J9 .----------. C: 764 | > | | > | ===South======== | > | S: Q5 | > | H: QT97643 | > | D: 964 | > | C: Q | > .----------------------------------------------------. > > West North East South > 3C 3D 3H > 3S 4H 4S 5H > 5S Pass Pass 6H > Dbl Pass Pass Pass > > I get called after dummy comes down: "3C wasn't alerted!" North feeds me a > line about how he has a perfectly normal 3C bid -- he has 9 tricks if > clubs are trump, doesn't he? South seems to know what's going on since he > bid so much. > > Since noone was selling out to 4S, I ruled no damage (5H making or 5S-1 > are worse for EW than beathing 6H was) but told North that standard 3C > bids show 6 or 7 tricks, not 9, and to alert if he calls this standard. Agree, > In an unrelated case last week, NS testified they played Polish Club > straight out of Jassem's book ... which is hard to beleive if they both > really think this is a 3C bid. Tell them to read it again. > .----------------------------------------------------. > |Dealer: E ===North======== Brd# 20338 | > |Vulnerable: NS S: 4 | > |Contract: 7NT Rdbl H: JT764 | > |Result: Made 7 D: 2 | > |Score: -2280 C: KQJ432 | > |===West========= ===East========= | > |S: AK96532 | | S: QJ87 | > |H: 85 | | H: A32 | > |D: AQ | | D: KJ75 | > |C: AT .----------. C: 76 | > | | > | ===South======== | > | S: T | > | H: KQ9 | > | D: T98643 | > | C: 985 | > .----------------------------------------------------. > > BIDDING: > > West North East South > Pass Pass > 2C Pass 2D Pass > 2S Pass 3S Pass > 4C Dbl Pass Pass > 4D Pass 4H Dbl > Pass Pass 5D Pass > 6D Pass 7NT Pass > Pass Dbl Rdbl Pass > Pass Pass > > There is a trick 1 claim... and this time it's North who wants a director. > "2C wasn't alerted! He doesn't have 11-15 and a club suit!" Now, he may > actually ahve a point: if his side had been able to preempt in clubs, > they'd cut out EW's exploration room, and at best they would settle for > the obvious six spades. And yes, under the site rules "any conventional > bid", among other things, is alertable, so technically West did commit an > infraction. > > At the table I wound up letting the second score stand, on the basis that > in even just a month or two of online play, North is bound to have > discovered that everyone outside Poland uses 2C strong and artifical. If > North had been brand new I may well have adjusted. The problem is that if he read Jassem's book, north will know that there are 2 variations of Polish Club with different opening bids: one using a precision style 2C opener (together with a 1C opener that contains any 19+ hand), and one with a strong 2C opener similar to a SA one (together with 1C opener that contains a weak hand with long clubs and all 19-22 hcp hands). From the any conventional bid has to be alerted rule, it follows that the latter 2C opener has to be alerted, not the former. OTOH, if 2C showed clubs, then 2D would have been a relay and 2S showed a second suit. 4C and above are all cuebids, and the EW bidding would be consistent with something like; QJxx AKxxxxx x A AQ KJxx Axxxxx x or similar. This makes of 7N is questionable to say the least. So, I'd probably let the result stand with some pp for ew. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Jan 14 10:20:17 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 14 Jan 2003 02:20:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] The round from hell Message-ID: <14010314.8417@webbox.com> Ton wrote: >In English terms: he needs to have clubs to be allowed to ask (sorry, sorry). Oh, don't apologise. The only person who thinks this bloody stupid regulation is any good is Stevenson, and he isn't around any more to tell us why. David Burn London, England From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jan 14 10:41:57 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:41:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: Grattan: > So let's not be grumpy, David - light entertainment > transforms the > medium, even when there is more entertainment than light. Is there anybody else who wants to explain David about the function of light (and)entertainment in blml? ton From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Tue Jan 14 11:11:07 2003 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:11:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misleading(?) questions References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030113111953.00a86a80@pop.starpower.net> <00d701c2bb4b$edaa56a0$393527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <00a701c2bbbd$a3f12c60$af4f003e@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Misleading(?) questions > Eric wrote: > > > I disagree. As I have previously suggested, ethical behavior is doing > > the right thing even when you believe that doing the wrong thing will > > not be detected or punished. Jurisprudential law is about what can be > > enforced; ethics is about what cannot. I see nothing wrong with TFLB > > letting players know what is expected of them, even when it > encompasses > > precepts that we cannot enforce. > > Well, perhaps not. But there is a fair amount wrong with giving such > expectations the force of law. The rules of a game should define what is > correct procedure, and set out penalties for failing to follow correct > procedure. They should not moralise, and they should not invoke the > dictates of conscience, for one of the pleasures that human beings take > in the playing of a game is that it enables them, for a while, to forget > such vexing questions and to allow their actions to be determined by no > more than the arbitrary and artificial rules of the game. > Hear Hear!! Best regards Israel > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 14 11:28:55 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:28:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring In-Reply-To: <019f01c2bb92$e7b1be40$393527d9@pbncomputer> References: <003901c2bb6c$173e0dc0$a50ae150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030114122446.01d2aa30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 06:05 14/01/2003 +0000, David Burn wrote: > > As far as I can tell declarer can do almost anything he likes >viz-a-viz > > communication with dummy. I see no law or regulation which prohibits >it, > > subject only, of course, to full disclosure of any special agreements. > > This may have to include declarer alerting the opponents (since dummy > > may not) to the echo, and even stating his own psyching proclivity at > > that point. > > > > I think this is an area where dummy *should* be able to participate >(to > > the extent outlined above). > > > > "Coffee please" may be innocuous, or it may contain such a message - > > again I feel if it does then it is disclosable. > >I have been watching this with mounting incredulity. But there comes a >point at which the lunatics appear to me to have taken over the asylum. > >This petering from dummy business is something we did when we were >children. Some of us still appear to do it, so presumably some of us >still are. AG : whereas I feel complimented by your sentence, petering from dummy has nothing to do with child's play ; it has to do with one of the finer arts of bridge : reconforting partner. Of course, I don't use it when I'm about to table, only when I see the contract is cold *and* it will take some time to work for some extra trick. > Whereas the childlike approach to the game of bridge has much >to commend it, there is no particular reason why grownups should sit >around discussing the ramifications thereof. And yet here are some >pretty serious grownups discussing the consequences of a psychic peter >from dummy by declarer, and talking about a peter from dummy in terms of >"communication with partner"... it would be funny, if it weren't tragic. AG : if childhood is the ability not to see tragedy everywhere, especially when only games are concerned, then I'm proud of being a child. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Jan 14 12:41:30 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 14 Jan 2003 04:41:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: <14010314.16890@webbox.com> >Is there anybody else who wants to explain David about the function of light (and) entertainment in blml? I should damn well hope not. This is serious business, you know. Once we start letting people play high-low from dummy, it could end up anywhere. The next thing that'll happen, people will be allowed to ask questions when they haven't got anything. And before you know it, people won't score any match points for boards they haven't played. You mark my words, if this sort of thing is allowed to run rampant, some tournament director somewhere might even give a player a trick he wouldn't have made had he played the hand out. Myself, I blame all this smut on television. When society has to resort to the lavatory for its humour, the writing is on the wall... From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jan 14 12:41:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:41 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Misleading(?) questions In-Reply-To: <013f01c2bb5c$ed512a60$393527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: DALB wrote: > > Of course it can. I could do it by deleting three words and two > punctuation marks from the current laws as follows: > > Current Law 73D1 > It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain > steady tempo and unvarying manner. > > Delete "desirable, though not"; delete comma after "required". > > A consequence of this would be that I could delete vast chunks of Law > 16, and vast chunks of a lot of other laws besides. I don't see that the change would make any real difference. So what if players are "required" to maintain tempo - it doesn't mean they will. Should one wish to change the penalties relating to tempo breaks one could do so without changing 73d1. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jan 14 12:41:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:41 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] The round from hell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Under what alerting/disclosure regulations were the hands played? As far as I can tell under WBF regs the natural (and I assume non-forcing) 3C opening is not alertable (but should have been predisclosed if required by the SO). It seems to me that if there is no mandatory pre-disclosure then the requirements to pre-disclose in line with SO requirements is automatically met. The 2C bid is alertable and North had every right to assume it was natural (although not necessarily 11-15 IMO) without such an alert. Tim From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Jan 14 14:23:43 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:23:43 -0600 Subject: [blml] Misleading(?) questions References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 6:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Misleading(?) questions > DALB wrote: > > > > Of course it can. I could do it by deleting three words and two > > punctuation marks from the current laws as follows: > > > > Current Law 73D1 > > It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain > > steady tempo and unvarying manner. > > > > Delete "desirable, though not"; delete comma after "required". > > > > A consequence of this would be that I could delete vast chunks of Law > > 16, and vast chunks of a lot of other laws besides. > I don't see that the change would make any real difference. > So what if > players are "required" to maintain tempo - it doesn't mean they will. I suspect that David said something quite different. Similar to someone saying they are taking the rest of the tricks if trumps are split 2-2, which they aren't, while not saying what will happen in that instance. regards roger pewick > Should one wish to change the penalties relating to tempo breaks one could > do so without changing 73d1. > > Tim From gester@lineone.net Tue Jan 14 16:26:55 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:26:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: Message-ID: <000301c2bbe9$f30bb500$071f2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:24 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > I am not in doubt, and you (Grattan) should be, so > let me take the initiative to put this on our agenda > for Monte Carlo. Why do you need to find this in > the laws? Didn't we say that to be allowed things > should be described in the laws explicitly? > +=+ This was indeed my first thought when the matter. came to my attention. But I concluded the argument did not wash because on reading Law 73A, which in relation to plays we normally think of as applying to defenders, I realised it is worded so as to apply equally to declarer and dummy. Declarer and dummy are partners; they are also players. Here we have a communication from one partner to the other effected by the play of the cards, and thus authorized by Law 73A. Law 43A1(c) prohibits communication from dummy to declarer, but not vice-versa, and by merely receiving information of which he makes no use dummy does not participate in the play. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Jan 15 09:28:52 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:28:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring Message-ID: me: > > > > I am not in doubt, and you (Grattan) should be, so > > let me take the initiative to put this on our agenda > > for Monte Carlo. Why do you need to find this in > > the laws? Didn't we say that to be allowed things > > should be described in the laws explicitly? > > > +=+ This was indeed my first thought when the matter. > came to my attention. But I concluded the argument did > not wash because on reading Law 73A, which in relation > to plays we normally think of as applying to defenders, > I realised it is worded so as to apply equally to declarer > and dummy. Declarer and dummy are partners; they are > also players. Here we have a communication from one > partner to the other effected by the play of the cards, and > thus authorized by Law 73A. ho, ho, L73A tells us that there is no other way to communicate between partners than by making calls and playing cards. It certainly does not say that as long as a player doesn't use other means anything is allowed. We could not have forbidden cryptic signals in that case, don't you agree? So your 'thus' is not mine. Monte Carlo then, and hopefully no random decision there. ton Law 43A1(c) prohibits > communication from dummy to declarer, but not > vice-versa, and by merely receiving information of which > he makes no use dummy does not participate in the play. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Thu Jan 16 10:00:49 2003 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:00:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lords of the Ring References: <003901c2bb6c$173e0dc0$a50ae150@endicott> <019f01c2bb92$e7b1be40$393527d9@pbncomputer> <006201c2bbbb$62258620$af4f003e@mycomputer> <006a01c2bc81$70d36360$aa5f003e@mycomputer> Message-ID: <000a01c2bd46$7703e6e0$164e003e@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Israel Erdnbaum" To: "David Burn" ; ; "Israel Erdnbaum" Cc: "talith" Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 12:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > To: ; "David Burn" > Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:54 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Burn" > > To: "Bridge Laws" > > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:05 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Lords of the Ring > > > > > > > > As far as I can tell declarer can do almost anything he likes > > > viz-a-viz > > > > communication with dummy. I see no law or regulation which prohibits > > > it, > > > > subject only, of course, to full disclosure of any special agreements. > > > > This may have to include declarer alerting the opponents (since dummy > > > > may not) to the echo, and even stating his own psyching proclivity at > > > > that point. > > > > > > > > I think this is an area where dummy *should* be able to participate > > > (to > > > > the extent outlined above). > > > > > > > > "Coffee please" may be innocuous, or it may contain such a message - > > > > again I feel if it does then it is disclosable. > > > > > > I have been watching this with mounting incredulity. But there comes a > > > point at which the lunatics appear to me to have taken over the asylum. > > > > > > This petering from dummy business is something we did when we were > > > children. Some of us still appear to do it, so presumably some of us > > > still are. Whereas the childlike approach to the game of bridge has much > > > to commend it, there is no particular reason why grownups should sit > > > around discussing the ramifications thereof. And yet here are some > > > pretty serious grownups discussing the consequences of a psychic peter > > > from dummy by declarer, and talking about a peter from dummy in terms of > > > "communication with partner"... it would be funny, if it weren't tragic. > > > > > > Dummy is dummy, declarer's agent; it is obvious from the Laws that once > > > dummy has become dummy, he has ceased to be "partner", or any kind of an > > > agent in his own right with whom it is possible to "communicate" > > > meaningfully or to have "undisclosed" understandings. If Alain and John > > > and other twelve year olds want to exchange secret "messages" with > > > dummy - well, maybe one of these days someone will buy them a pair of > > > long trousers. Clowning around by petering from dummy is probably > > > against the Proprieties, in which case this eminently sensible body of > > > Law should be salvaged from the ocean bed for the purpose of finding the > > > bit which says "It is not a good idea to behave like an idiot". Then, it > > > should be thrown back into the ocean again, harder than before. > > > > > > But to talk about what twelve year olds might do in order to let other > > > twelve year olds know that "the contract is safe" (of course it is in > > > Belgium, for even if you don't know how to make it, all you have to do > > > is claim and call for Herman) is not an exercise for the Bridge Laws > > > Mailing List. Grattan, I am surprised at you. > > > > > > David Burn > > > London, England > > > > > > So am I a bit surprised at your going to such lengths to explain the > > obvious. > > All the best > > Israel > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > blml mailing list > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > From David.Barton@boltblue.com Thu Jan 16 17:45:53 2003 From: David.Barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:45:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: Message-ID: <000601c2bd87$231357a0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> In the following 2 card ending:- S H 6 D 6 C S J S H 5 H D D QJ C C S H K D A C West cashed his SJ and Declarer (South) instructed Dummy to play anything. In the absence of any comment from either defender, dummy selected the D6. Declarer discarded the HK so the last trick was taken by dummy's H6. At the end of play defenders claimed they were reluctant to nominate the H6 as the card to be played because Declarer would then be able to infer that he should retain the HK. Do they have a case? David.Barton@cwcom.net From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 16 17:57:04 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:57:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <000601c2bd87$231357a0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> Message-ID: <001201c2bd88$ae074870$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "David Barton" Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation > In the following 2 card ending:- > > S > H 6 > D 6 > C > > S J S > H 5 H > D D QJ > C C > > S > H K > D A > C > > West cashed his SJ and Declarer (South) instructed Dummy to play anything. > In the absence of any comment from either defender, dummy selected the D6. > Declarer discarded the HK so the last trick was taken by dummy's H6. > At the end of play defenders claimed they were reluctant to nominate the H6 > as > the card to be played because Declarer would then be able to infer that he > should > retain the HK. > > Do they have a case? My immediate reaction was "No" Then I looked it up (Law 46B5) and my verdict is still: NO! (Either defender may designate the card to be played, they may not consult each other, and if they do not designate any card then the choice made by Dummy stands). regards Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 16 18:13:25 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:13:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation In-Reply-To: <000601c2bd87$231357a0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030116190700.02462860@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:45 16/01/2003 +0000, David Barton wrote: >In the following 2 card ending:- > > S > H 6 > D 6 > C > >S J S >H 5 H >D D QJ >C C > > S > H K > D A > C > >West cashed his SJ and Declarer (South) instructed Dummy to play anything. >In the absence of any comment from either defender, dummy selected the D6. >Declarer discarded the HK so the last trick was taken by dummy's H6. >At the end of play defenders claimed they were reluctant to nominate the H6 >as >the card to be played because Declarer would then be able to infer that he >should >retain the HK. > >Do they have a case? AG : if they had nominated the H6, declarer would have to discard it, and if there was any probability that he made a "discovery play" by not nominating the card (an infraction, albeit most of the time a benign one) with the purpose of knowing what West's last card was, then L72B1 (the dreaded "could have known") could apply. This would not have be the case if North's two remaining cards were Aces. Then, any other play than disarding an Ace from one suit and a King from another would be irrational. Now, it is much more difficult to apply L72B1 and tell South that we adjust the score, but I imagine some TD would do it if South was judged quite capable of such a trick. Best regards, Alain. From adam@irvine.com Thu Jan 16 18:17:05 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:17:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:45:53 GMT." <000601c2bd87$231357a0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> Message-ID: <200301161817.KAA06576@mailhub.irvine.com> David Barton: > In the following 2 card ending:- > > S > H 6 > D 6 > C > > S J S > H 5 H > D D QJ > C C > > S > H K > D A > C > > West cashed his SJ and Declarer (South) instructed Dummy to play anything. > In the absence of any comment from either defender, dummy selected the D6. > Declarer discarded the HK so the last trick was taken by dummy's H6. > At the end of play defenders claimed they were reluctant to nominate the H6 > as > the card to be played because Declarer would then be able to infer that he > should > retain the HK. > > Do they have a case? Good problem. Here's how I see it: Law 46A says that when calling a card from dummy, "declarer should clearly state both the suit and rank of the desired card". Because this Law immediately follows a heading in big capital letters that says "IRREGULARITIES IN PROCEDURE", I think we can assume that not stating the rank and suit of the card is an irregularity. It seems a bit funny to call it that, since it's probably an irregularity that occurs multiple times on every hand that isn't passed out. In fact, if I were playing this, I would almost certainly have said simply "diamond" instead of "diamond 6", and thus I'd be committing an irregularity. Normally, there's no penalty for this irregularity. However, we also have L84E, which says that if an irregularity has occurred for which there's no penalty, "the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged, notifying the offending side of its right to appeal". So was the non-offending side damaged by the irregularity, or by bad luck? Of course, declarer should have realized the H6 was high, and should have kept that and the DA. In the actual case, where declarer lost the plot, if he had called a random card from dummy instead of saying "anything", he had a 50% chance of getting it right---and if he did, the opponents would have to chalk it up to bad luck. I think the same should apply if his actual instruction, "anything", caused dummy to just pick a card at random---the fact that dummy happened to pick the winning card should be chalked up to bad luck. If, however, dummy was following the play enough that he could have known that pitching the D6 was right, then I'd rule that the irregularity did damage the opponents by allowing dummy to participate in the play illegally (in a situation where the defenders could not take advantage of L46B5). In that case, I'd apply L84E and adjust. (It seems to happen sometimes that dummy knows what's going on better than declarer. I've been in this position as dummy, and so have my partners.) Whether dummy was participating in the play or picking a random red six is a matter for the TD's at-the-table judgment. The wording of L84E suggests that the TD should lean toward adjusting, though. -- Adam From Peter Newman" Message-ID: <038201c2bdcc$364ed7f0$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> Hi All, I have been asked a question from a friend and would be interested in BLML feedback. Our Australian Nationals have 20 board matches. Is it legal to change system during the match if you want to? (if so how often can you do it).... Is this any law against it - or would it depend solely on any local regulations which are in force for the event? [In particular he would like to play: First 10 boards - 2D=weak either major (6 card suit) 2H=5 card H weak 2S=5 cars S weak Then from board 11if the match has gone OK 2D-2S 6 card weak two. If the match hasn't gone well stay with the original structure.] Thx, Peter From Anne Jones" <038201c2bdcc$364ed7f0$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: <000e01c2bdcd$4df1c1f0$7f2e6651@annescomputer> Surely this is a question not of Law but of regulation. What do the conditions of contest say? Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Newman" To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: [blml] Multiple systems > Hi All, > > I have been asked a question from a friend and would be interested in BLML > feedback. > > Our Australian Nationals have 20 board matches. Is it legal to change system > during the match if you want to? (if so how often can you do it).... > Is this any law against it - or would it depend solely on any local > regulations which are in force for the event? > > [In particular he would like to play: > First 10 boards - > 2D=weak either major (6 card suit) > 2H=5 card H weak > 2S=5 cars S weak > Then from board 11if the match has gone OK > 2D-2S 6 card weak two. > If the match hasn't gone well stay with the original structure.] > > Thx, > > Peter > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 30/12/2002 From Peter Newman" <038201c2bdcc$364ed7f0$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> <000e01c2bdcd$4df1c1f0$7f2e6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: <03c101c2bdcf$41039930$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> Hi Anne, Thanks for the quick response. I assumed it was conditions of contest issue - but as I am not a laws export I wanted to make sure. There seems nothing specific (that I have found yet). The event COC refer to the ABF system regulations which are available in full at: http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/sysregs.pdf The only relevant bits seem to be: (1)For all National (Gold Point) events, each pair shall have two systemically identical system cards on the table for the opposing pair before the start of play. This practice is also recommended for major Red Master Point events. and (2)10. CHANGE OF SYSTEMS: No pair may play two different RED or YELLOW systems during the course of an event without the express permission of the Chief Tournament Director, unless specifically provided for in the Supplementary Regulations. Which don't seem to prohibit this action. Maybe (1) does but if you were to say: Play system 1 for our first 10 boards, system 2 for our 2nd 10 boards then it could all be on the prepared systems. Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 1:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple systems > Surely this is a question not of Law but of regulation. What do the > conditions of contest say? > Anne > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Newman" > To: "bridge laws mailing list" > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 2:00 AM > Subject: [blml] Multiple systems > > > > Hi All, > > > > I have been asked a question from a friend and would be interested in BLML > > feedback. > > > > Our Australian Nationals have 20 board matches. Is it legal to change > system > > during the match if you want to? (if so how often can you do it).... > > Is this any law against it - or would it depend solely on any local > > regulations which are in force for the event? > > > > [In particular he would like to play: > > First 10 boards - > > 2D=weak either major (6 card suit) > > 2H=5 card H weak > > 2S=5 cars S weak > > Then from board 11if the match has gone OK > > 2D-2S 6 card weak two. > > If the match hasn't gone well stay with the original structure.] > > > > Thx, > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 30/12/2002 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 17 08:13:33 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:13:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple systems References: <200301161817.KAA06576@mailhub.irvine.com> <038201c2bdcc$364ed7f0$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> <000e01c2bdcd$4df1c1f0$7f2e6651@annescomputer> <03c101c2bdcf$41039930$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: <000d01c2be00$557fc6f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> If I were the Director under those regulations I would rule that it is OK to change system between rounds (observing of course the limitation on red and yellow systems), but that all boards within a single round (i.e. against the same opponents) must be played using the same system. Your organisation may of course have a different understanding. regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Newman" To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 3:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple systems > Hi Anne, > > Thanks for the quick response. > I assumed it was conditions of contest issue - but as I am not a laws export > I wanted to make sure. > There seems nothing specific (that I have found yet). The event COC refer to > the ABF system regulations which are available in full at: > http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/sysregs.pdf > > The only relevant bits seem to be: > (1)For all National (Gold Point) events, each pair shall have two > systemically identical system > cards on the table for the opposing pair before the start of play. This > practice is also recommended > for major Red Master Point events. > and > (2)10. CHANGE OF SYSTEMS: > No pair may play two different RED or YELLOW systems during the course of an > event > without the express permission of the Chief Tournament Director, unless > specifically provided > for in the Supplementary Regulations. > > Which don't seem to prohibit this action. > Maybe (1) does but if you were to say: > Play system 1 for our first 10 boards, system 2 for our 2nd 10 boards then > it could all be on the prepared systems. > > Cheers, > > Peter > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Jones" > To: > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 1:08 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple systems > > > > Surely this is a question not of Law but of regulation. What do the > > conditions of contest say? > > Anne > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Peter Newman" > > To: "bridge laws mailing list" > > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 2:00 AM > > Subject: [blml] Multiple systems > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I have been asked a question from a friend and would be interested in > BLML > > > feedback. > > > > > > Our Australian Nationals have 20 board matches. Is it legal to change > > system > > > during the match if you want to? (if so how often can you do it).... > > > Is this any law against it - or would it depend solely on any local > > > regulations which are in force for the event? > > > > > > [In particular he would like to play: > > > First 10 boards - > > > 2D=weak either major (6 card suit) > > > 2H=5 card H weak > > > 2S=5 cars S weak > > > Then from board 11if the match has gone OK > > > 2D-2S 6 card weak two. > > > If the match hasn't gone well stay with the original structure.] > > > > > > Thx, > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > blml mailing list > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 30/12/2002 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jan 17 13:12:53 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:12:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Multiple systems In-Reply-To: <038201c2bdcc$364ed7f0$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> References: <200301161817.KAA06576@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030117080920.00a85b40@pop.starpower.net> At 09:00 PM 1/16/03, Peter wrote: >Our Australian Nationals have 20 board matches. Is it legal to change >system >during the match if you want to? (if so how often can you do it).... >Is this any law against it - or would it depend solely on any local >regulations which are in force for the event? There is no law against it, so it depends on local regs, but "local" in this context might mean Australia-wide, so you need to check with your national folks. And, of course, make sure there's nothing in the published conditions of contest for the event. 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 Fri Jan 17 15:02:17 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:02:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation In-Reply-To: <000601c2bd87$231357a0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> Message-ID: On 1/16/03, David Barton wrote: >Do they have a case? Heh. Three responses to this question, three different answers. Anyone wanna try for four? :-) From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Fri Jan 17 15:28:07 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:28:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: Message-ID: <000e01c2be3d$0a8eac00$25b54351@noos.fr> All the same, all different. Law numbers is not my speciality but I would rule against declarer. At least that is what I want. The basic problem is he said 'play a card, it doesn't matter' at a moment it did matter very much. Dummy might realise what is going on or not. TD should not be bothered by judging that. It is easier to assume he might. Defenders maybe should have insisted on the wrong card and then call the TD (if declarer 'guessed' right). Then they have a case for sure. Think of playing A10x opp. KJx from the wrong side. Opp's reaction is likely to help your guess. So this should be 'illegal' or well 'correctable'. Bottom line declarer created a problem (probably not realising what he was doing but that shouldn't matter) so he should pay the price. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 4:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > On 1/16/03, David Barton wrote: > > >Do they have a case? > > Heh. Three responses to this question, three different answers. Anyone > wanna try for four? :-) > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john@asimere.com Fri Jan 17 16:27:44 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:27:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Multiple systems In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030117080920.00a85b40@pop.starpower.net> References: <200301161817.KAA06576@mailhub.irvine.com> <038201c2bdcc$364ed7f0$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030117080920.00a85b40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article <5.2.0.9.0.20030117080920.00a85b40@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 09:00 PM 1/16/03, Peter wrote: > >>Our Australian Nationals have 20 board matches. Is it legal to change >>system >>during the match if you want to? (if so how often can you do it).... >>Is this any law against it - or would it depend solely on any local >>regulations which are in force for the event? > >There is no law against it, so it depends on local regs, but "local" in >this context might mean Australia-wide, so you need to check with your >national folks. And, of course, make sure there's nothing in the >published conditions of contest for the event. > > I recall the EBU regulations are you can't change systems during a session. ... but you probably can between rounds of a Swiss. Specifically most regulations for ko's state you can't change system except for long matches (> 32 boards) >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 > -- 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 Fri Jan 17 17:50:23 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:50:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Multiple systems Message-ID: <200301171750.MAA25435@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I recall the EBU regulations are you can't change systems during a > session. ... but you probably can between rounds of a Swiss. In the ACBL, each Swiss round is defined as a session, so system changes are allowed. This definition has the obvious implications for correction period, appeals, etc. > Specifically most regulations for ko's state you can't change system > except for long matches (> 32 boards) I'm surprised by this. I would have expected it to be legal to change systems at any interval where it would be legal to change partnerships, but not otherwise. (Such intervals are likewise defined as sessions in the ACBL.) It's interesting that regulations vary so much around the world. From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 17 18:01:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:01:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple systems References: <200301171750.MAA25435@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004b01c2be52$662ff590$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 6:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple systems > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > I recall the EBU regulations are you can't change systems during a > > session. ... but you probably can between rounds of a Swiss. > > In the ACBL, each Swiss round is defined as a session, so system > changes are allowed. This definition has the obvious implications for > correction period, appeals, etc. > > > Specifically most regulations for ko's state you can't change system > > except for long matches (> 32 boards) > > I'm surprised by this. I would have expected it to be legal to change > systems at any interval where it would be legal to change partnerships, > but not otherwise. (Such intervals are likewise defined as sessions in > the ACBL.) > > It's interesting that regulations vary so much around the world. Are you not always allowed to change partnerships at round intervals when playing teams? I find round intervals a convenient time for permission to change systems (even in pairs). That is the time when you change opponents. regards Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jan 17 18:29:22 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:29:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Multiple systems Message-ID: <200301171829.NAA25492@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Are you not always allowed to change partnerships at round intervals > when playing teams? Nope; only at session intervals. But in a Swiss, our session is only seven or so boards, i.e. what you play against a single opponent. Between opponents (in a Swiss), we are allowed to change partnerships and systems. Of course a "system" may include changes with vulnerability, seat, etc. Playing Precision not vul. but 2/1 vul. is a single system in this context. This topic goes back to an old thread on the definition of session. We really need two different words: one for the interval where score comparisons are possible (one Swiss round, one board in a barometer, etc.) and a different word for the interval during which players do not leave the playing site (perhaps four or five Swiss rounds, 24-26 boards in a pair game, etc.) The best suggestion I recall was to use "stanza" for the former meaning, but perhaps I have forgotten something better. Of course if the new laws split "session" into two words, things such as the correction period, appeals period, time for calling attention to irregularities, etc. have to be reviewed to make sure they go with the correct interval. I think this was in Grattan's notebook at one time. > I find round intervals a convenient time for permission to change > systems (even in pairs). That is the time when you change opponents. Changing systems within a session, even between rounds, is not generally permitted in the ACBL. I'm surprised it is allowed in Norway. It seems unfair to force some opponents to play against a different system than others. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Jan 17 20:30:26 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:30:26 -0800 Subject: [blml] Multiple systems References: <200301171829.NAA25492@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000f01c2be67$73372d20$9201a8c0@san.rr.com> Steve Wilner wrote: > Of course a "system" may include changes with vulnerability, seat, > etc. I believe that should be "period," no "etc." > Changing systems within a session, even between rounds, is not > generally permitted in the ACBL. "never permitted," I would say. Election to L40E: "A director may permit a pair to change a convention but would not allow a pair to change their basic system." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 17 20:48:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 21:48:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple systems References: <200301171829.NAA25492@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <005301c2be69$dca639c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> First of all how we define "round" and "session" in Norway: A round is defined exactly as in the laws: A part of a session without progression of players. A session is one or more rounds as defined by the sponsoring organisation with the addition that when there is a prolonged interval (at least 30 minutes ?) between two rounds a new session is always considered to begin. From: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Are you not always allowed to change partnerships at round intervals > > when playing teams? > > Nope; only at session intervals. But in a Swiss, our session is only > seven or so boards, i.e. what you play against a single opponent. > Between opponents (in a Swiss), we are allowed to change partnerships > and systems. > > Of course a "system" may include changes with vulnerability, seat, > etc. Playing Precision not vul. but 2/1 vul. is a single system in > this context. > > This topic goes back to an old thread on the definition of session. We > really need two different words: one for the interval where score > comparisons are possible (one Swiss round, one board in a barometer, > etc.) and a different word for the interval during which players do not > leave the playing site (perhaps four or five Swiss rounds, 24-26 boards > in a pair game, etc.) The best suggestion I recall was to use "stanza" > for the former meaning, but perhaps I have forgotten something better. I see no problem when using the definitions we use in Norway. My reason for assuming that system changes could reasonbably be allowed at round intervals is that in teams competitions this is the time when we may change our pairs or pair combinations. > > Of course if the new laws split "session" into two words, things such > as the correction period, appeals period, time for calling attention to > irregularities, etc. have to be reviewed to make sure they go with the > correct interval. > > I think this was in Grattan's notebook at one time. > > > I find round intervals a convenient time for permission to change > > systems (even in pairs). That is the time when you change opponents. > > Changing systems within a session, even between rounds, is not > generally permitted in the ACBL. I'm surprised it is allowed in > Norway. It seems unfair to force some opponents to play against a > different system than others. I do not say we allow it in Norway, to my knowledge this has never been questioned. But if I were to make any ruling with no regulation to lean on I would as I indicated allow system changes at the times we allow pair changes, that is at round intervals. I would for instance not feel comfortable in requesting that a different pair on the same team (in a teams competition) uses the same system as the pair they replace. From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Jan 18 08:00:08 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 08:00:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: Message-ID: <000201c2bec8$2db46950$802ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > On 1/16/03, David Barton wrote: > > >Do they have a case? > > Heh. Three responses to this question, three different > answers. Anyone wanna try for four? :-) > +=+ Well now, let me see. If the law is applied and opponents nominate the Heart Six to be played, do we think information drawn from this exercise of an option is authorized to declarer? The information is not derived from the actual play of the card but from the choice made by the opponent, I would suggest, and is not therefore amongst those authorized by the preamble to Law 16. I think that the players have no case for not exercising the option given them by law, and if they choose not to do so that is an end of the matter. I would have them nominate the Heart and then protest the retention of the correct card in the closed hand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Jan 18 09:00:46 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 09:00:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <000201c2bec8$2db46950$802ee150@endicott> Message-ID: <000e01c2bed0$2e5cbda0$92a1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > > > I think that the players have no case > for not exercising the option given them by law, > and if they choose not to do so that is an end of > the matter. I would have them nominate the > Heart and then protest the retention of the > correct card in the closed hand. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ As a rider to which I should add that the remainder of Law 16 does not appear to cover the case, so if the Director is unconvinced by Declarer's explanation of his action he will refer to Law 12A1. (Declarer might make the case that he said "play any" because he knew what he should do whichever is played - and the Director might believe him.) +=+ From axman22@hotmail.com Sat Jan 18 15:32:23 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 09:32:23 -0600 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <000201c2bec8$2db46950$802ee150@endicott> <000e01c2bed0$2e5cbda0$92a1193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 3:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > Grattan Endicott ======================================= > From the second star on the right. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 8:00 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > > I think that the players have no case > > for not exercising the option given them by law, > > and if they choose not to do so that is an end of > > the matter. I would have them nominate the > > Heart and then protest the retention of the > > correct card in the closed hand. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The gist of what I have seen is that an incomplete designation can have a similar effect as an incomplete claim clarification- where the hand is played out. Any protest enlightens the player as by making inferences available where they would not be available had he been thorough. Apparently this is the motivation for stopping play by upon a claim. > +=+ As a rider to which I should add that the > remainder of Law 16 Though I am a bit curious as to why one might seek answers about using an unfair inference gained via an irregularity from a law about UI. Such matters seem to fall within scope of 72B1. I say 'seems' because L46 gives as a remedy the right of the defenders to designate the card and does not give a further hint that propriety may be involved. What I mean is that L46 provides a penalty [defenders may designate] and L12B specifies that an adjusted score [such as by L72B1] may not be given because a penalty paid by the OS was advantageous to the OS. > does not appear to cover > the case, so if the Director is unconvinced by > Declarer's explanation of his action he will refer > to Law 12A1. (Declarer might make the case > that he said "play any" because he knew what he > should do whichever is played - and the Director > might believe him.) +=+ I am very close to changing my view [only dummy’s LHO should have the option- to minimize the effect of propriety] that giving the defender the option is a sufficient remedy. While in a large proportion of occurrences there is no propriety involved and thus giving the defender the option is sufficient, there appears to be sufficient cases that propriety is involved: it rings as unsatisfactory to me that to not designate gives dummy the power to conduct play, and, to create a brouhaha over judging if declarer would get it right. I am toying with the notion that it may be important to explicitly forbid declarer designating ‘play anything’ and back it up with automatic loss of a trick plus the defender may designate. regards roger pewick From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Jan 18 16:58:12 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:58:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation Message-ID: <200301181658.LAA03092@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Well now, let me see. If the law is applied and > opponents nominate the Heart Six to be played, do > we think information drawn from this exercise of an > option is authorized to declarer? > The information is not derived from the actual > play of the card but from the choice made by the > opponent, I would suggest, and is not therefore > amongst those authorized by the preamble to > Law 16. I thought it had long been assumed that operation of Law was authorized information. If a defender leads out of turn, and declarer chooses one of his legal options, why isn't that choice AI for the defenders? This seems to be a similar case. Making such information UI is appealing in theory, but it seems to me that it will make the game very hard to rule in practice because it will be very difficult (for both player and TD) to judge LA's and "suggested over another." (Regular readers will not be surprised by my view. This is nothing more than mixing mechanical and information penalties, which I think is a terrible idea.) We have L72B1 if we think a player might have committed an infraction as a "discovery play." Whether you agree with my view or not, I hope we all agree that the 2005 Laws ought to clear this up one way or another. In particular, the AI/UI issues surrounding major penalty cards are in desparate need of clarification, as has often been mentioned before. From Peter Newman" <038201c2bdcc$364ed7f0$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> <000e01c2bdcd$4df1c1f0$7f2e6651@annescomputer> <03c101c2bdcf$41039930$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> <000d01c2be00$557fc6f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <004501c2bf72$03941ad0$957fac89@au.fjanz.com> Hi Sven and others, Thanks for your comments It isn't clear (see my previous note with the detailed Australian regulations) that Australian regs. actually ban changing systems during a match (as long is they are still green). But assume that they do... Would playing for boards 1-10 system A and 11-20 system B be considered different from playing system A NV and system B Vul? [It isn't clear to me that it is and so if the latter is legal so should the former...] Rgds, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple systems > If I were the Director under those regulations I would rule that it is OK > to change system between rounds (observing of course the limitation > on red and yellow systems), but that all boards within a single round > (i.e. against the same opponents) must be played using the same system. > > Your organisation may of course have a different understanding. > > regards Sven > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Newman" > To: "bridge laws mailing list" > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 3:22 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple systems > > > > Hi Anne, > > > > Thanks for the quick response. > > I assumed it was conditions of contest issue - but as I am not a laws > export > > I wanted to make sure. > > There seems nothing specific (that I have found yet). The event COC refer > to > > the ABF system regulations which are available in full at: > > http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/sysregs.pdf > > > > The only relevant bits seem to be: > > (1)For all National (Gold Point) events, each pair shall have two > > systemically identical system > > cards on the table for the opposing pair before the start of play. This > > practice is also recommended > > for major Red Master Point events. > > and > > (2)10. CHANGE OF SYSTEMS: > > No pair may play two different RED or YELLOW systems during the course of > an > > event > > without the express permission of the Chief Tournament Director, unless > > specifically provided > > for in the Supplementary Regulations. > > > > Which don't seem to prohibit this action. > > Maybe (1) does but if you were to say: > > Play system 1 for our first 10 boards, system 2 for our 2nd 10 boards then > > it could all be on the prepared systems. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Peter > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Anne Jones" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 1:08 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple systems > > > > > > > Surely this is a question not of Law but of regulation. What do the > > > conditions of contest say? > > > Anne > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Peter Newman" > > > To: "bridge laws mailing list" > > > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 2:00 AM > > > Subject: [blml] Multiple systems > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > I have been asked a question from a friend and would be interested in > > BLML > > > > feedback. > > > > > > > > Our Australian Nationals have 20 board matches. Is it legal to change > > > system > > > > during the match if you want to? (if so how often can you do it).... > > > > Is this any law against it - or would it depend solely on any local > > > > regulations which are in force for the event? > > > > > > > > [In particular he would like to play: > > > > First 10 boards - > > > > 2D=weak either major (6 card suit) > > > > 2H=5 card H weak > > > > 2S=5 cars S weak > > > > Then from board 11if the match has gone OK > > > > 2D-2S 6 card weak two. > > > > If the match hasn't gone well stay with the original structure.] > > > > > > > > Thx, > > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > blml mailing list > > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 30/12/2002 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > blml mailing list > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sun Jan 19 04:40:12 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 05:40:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple systems References: <200301161817.KAA06576@mailhub.irvine.com> <038201c2bdcc$364ed7f0$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> <000e01c2bdcd$4df1c1f0$7f2e6651@annescomputer> <03c101c2bdcf$41039930$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> <000d01c2be00$557fc6f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004501c2bf72$03941ad0$957fac89@au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: <002a01c2bf74$dabd5d30$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Peter Newman" > Hi Sven and others, > > Thanks for your comments > > It isn't clear (see my previous note with the detailed Australian > regulations) that Australian regs. actually ban changing systems during a > match (as long is they are still green). > > But assume that they do... > > Would playing for boards 1-10 system A and 11-20 system B be considered > different from playing system A NV and system B Vul? > > [It isn't clear to me that it is and so if the latter is legal so should > the former...] As I wrote before I am not happy with pairs changing their system within the round, i.e. while they are playing against the same opponents. (but for instance 1NT: 15-17 VUL, 12-14 NV is not a different system!) That much said, switching system once during the round is IMO more acceptable than switching all the times, so assuming the boards are played in sequence your first alternative is more acceptable than your second. When (as very often) the boards are played more or less in random sequence I consider neither alternative acceptable. regards Sven ......... > From: "Sven Pran" > > If I were the Director under those regulations I would rule that it is OK > > to change system between rounds (observing of course the limitation > > on red and yellow systems), but that all boards within a single round > > (i.e. against the same opponents) must be played using the same system. > > > > Your organisation may of course have a different understanding. > > > > regards Sven (snip) From Peter Newman" <038201c2bdcc$364ed7f0$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> <000e01c2bdcd$4df1c1f0$7f2e6651@annescomputer> <03c101c2bdcf$41039930$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> <000d01c2be00$557fc6f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004501c2bf72$03941ad0$957fac89@au.fjanz.com> <002a01c2bf74$dabd5d30$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <019601c2bf77$dd06f7b0$957fac89@au.fjanz.com> Hi Sven, Thanks for the answer - let me make it clear it isn't my idea to play such a system - though some friends of mine are interested in doing so.... Let me add that in Australia it is certainly not unusual for people to play (for example) entirely different systems in 1st/2nd (strong club) and 3rd/4th (standard) and there is one pair who plays 3 systems based on vul (strong club red, forcing pass with 1D fert at equal, forcing pass 1S fert at green)... I am just not sure of the difference between changing based on board number as against these other (seemingly more normal) practises. Rgds, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 3:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple systems > From: "Peter Newman" > > Hi Sven and others, > > > > Thanks for your comments > > > > It isn't clear (see my previous note with the detailed Australian > > regulations) that Australian regs. actually ban changing systems during a > > match (as long is they are still green). > > > > But assume that they do... > > > > Would playing for boards 1-10 system A and 11-20 system B be considered > > different from playing system A NV and system B Vul? > > > > [It isn't clear to me that it is and so if the latter is legal so should > > the former...] > > As I wrote before I am not happy with pairs changing their system within > the round, i.e. while they are playing against the same opponents. > (but for instance 1NT: 15-17 VUL, 12-14 NV is not a different system!) > > That much said, switching system once during the round is IMO more > acceptable than switching all the times, so assuming the boards are > played in sequence your first alternative is more acceptable than your > second. When (as very often) the boards are played more or less in > random sequence I consider neither alternative acceptable. > > regards Sven > ......... > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > If I were the Director under those regulations I would rule that it is > OK > > > to change system between rounds (observing of course the limitation > > > on red and yellow systems), but that all boards within a single round > > > (i.e. against the same opponents) must be played using the same system. > > > > > > Your organisation may of course have a different understanding. > > > > > > regards Sven > > (snip) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Jan 19 06:33:59 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 22:33:59 -0800 Subject: [blml] MI in today's sectional Message-ID: <003701c2bf85$1ff1efa0$9201a8c0@san.rr.com> Dealer: North Vulnerability: none S- 9763 H- AK73 D- 103 C- AJ2 S- A1084 S- J2 H- J10 H- 9852 D- Q2 D- AK98754 C- 98654 C- S- KQ5 H- Q64 D- J6 C- KQ1073 West North East South 1C 3D* 4C 4D 5C! P P Dbl All pass * Mistakenly Alerted and explained as a strong jump overcall Down 2, -300. After play East disclosed the MI from West, and South called the TD, Ron Johnston. South argued he would have made a negative double over a weak 3D, which would have led to a better result, and North said nothing. East opined that it was odd that an explantion of "strong" would induce N-S into a bad game contract. Ron ruled result stands. As East I had no complaint about this ruling, but I wonder whether North could have successfully argued that he would have doubled 4D had he known 3D was weak. That goes down one with a trump lead. Even if that argument succeeded, the 5C bid is so wild, gambling, or irrrational that a split score would perhaps be in order, -100 for E-W and result stands for N-S. Now, it is very doubtful that West, a high-ranking member of the NABC AC, and East, an ACBL Director and a pro besides, were really unaware of the correct meaning of 3D, since they knew I was experienced and West was not. Our CC was marked "Strong jump overcalls," which of course refers to single jumps, not double jumps. All in all, I think Ron made the right ruling, but I am biased. Does anyone disagree? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Jan 19 09:20:16 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 10:20:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <000201c2bec8$2db46950$802ee150@endicott> <000e01c2bed0$2e5cbda0$92a1193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3E2A6DD0.8050006@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote: >> > > I am very close to changing my view [only dummy's LHO should have the > option- to minimize the effect of propriety] that giving the defender > the option is a sufficient remedy. While in a large proportion of I agree - but that should not make the solution worse than the problem. > occurrences there is no propriety involved and thus giving the defender > the option is sufficient, there appears to be sufficient cases that > propriety is involved: it rings as unsatisfactory to me that to not > designate gives dummy the power to conduct play, and, to create a > brouhaha over judging if declarer would get it right. I am toying with > the notion that it may be important to explicitly forbid declarer > designating 'play anything' and back it up with automatic loss of a > trick plus the defender may designate. > In all these years on blml, this is the first time that we have a "play anything" situation that creates a (small) problem. And still we seem to be able to find laws that make the problem go away. Automatic trick loss ? A declarer has 5 small unreachable and not high cards and loses one of his master trump tricks because he does not designate which of those he discards ? Maybe if a solution is needed, it is simply this: after play has finished, if it turns out that "play anything" gained a trick, that trick is lost if it were wiht other cards possible being played. > 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 hermandw@skynet.be Sun Jan 19 09:29:02 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 10:29:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple systems References: <200301161817.KAA06576@mailhub.irvine.com> <038201c2bdcc$364ed7f0$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> <000e01c2bdcd$4df1c1f0$7f2e6651@annescomputer> <03c101c2bdcf$41039930$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> <000d01c2be00$557fc6f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004501c2bf72$03941ad0$957fac89@au.fjanz.com> <002a01c2bf74$dabd5d30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <019601c2bf77$dd06f7b0$957fac89@au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: <3E2A6FDE.6090509@skynet.be> Peter Newman wrote: > > I am just not sure of the difference between changing based on board number > as against these other (seemingly more normal) practises. L75A Information conveyed must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal. So vulnerability and dealer position are clearly admitted reasons for changing the system. But the number of glasses on the table is not. Would you consider the board number a "condition" of the deal? I would not. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Jan 19 09:33:52 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 09:33:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <200301181658.LAA03092@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001d01c2bf9e$08a0d050$811de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 4:58 PM > I thought it had long been assumed that operation of Law was > authorized information. If a defender leads out of turn, and > declarer chooses one of his legal options, why isn't that > choice AI for the defenders? > +=+ The fact that the action has been chosen, and what may be learned from the legal play of the cards, are certainly AI. I think it is less certain that the reason that particular option has been selected is AI if - as here - the only source from which that information is available is by deducing it from the fact that the opponent made the particular choice. We are, in my experience, in uncharted waters. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Jan 19 09:48:36 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 09:48:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Multiple systems References: <200301161817.KAA06576@mailhub.irvine.com> <038201c2bdcc$364ed7f0$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> <000e01c2bdcd$4df1c1f0$7f2e6651@annescomputer> <03c101c2bdcf$41039930$cc10ac89@au.fjanz.com> <000d01c2be00$557fc6f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004501c2bf72$03941ad0$957fac89@au.fjanz.com> <002a01c2bf74$dabd5d30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <019601c2bf77$dd06f7b0$957fac89@au.fjanz.com> <3E2A6FDE.6090509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001e01c2bfa0$132e7700$f61ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple systems . But the number > of glasses on the table is not. > > Would you consider the board number a "condition" > of the deal? I would not. > +=+ Nor would I. However, it could be a point of reference in a regulation, and certain conditions in the laws are referenced to board number - see Law 2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sun Jan 19 10:26:29 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 01:26:29 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Multiple systems In-Reply-To: <3E2A6FDE.6090509@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > Peter Newman wrote: > > > > > I am just not sure of the difference between changing based on board number > > as against these other (seemingly more normal) practises. > > > L75A Information conveyed must arise from the calls, plays and > conditions of the current deal. So vulnerability and dealer position > are clearly admitted reasons for changing the system. But the number > of glasses on the table is not. > > Would you consider the board number a "condition" of the deal? I would > not. > Let me add a quick word of clarification here, before anyone starts a new argument :) The vulnerability and dealer determine a board's number up to multiples of sixteen. If you, out of context, ask a director "may I vary my system according to board number?", he may say yes - meaning, yes, you can play differently according to each combination of dealer and vulnerability. (We have debated before whether we allow 16 systems, or only 4.) I think this much we all agree on. (I really should know better than to say that.) "May I play one system in the first 12 boards and another system in the last 12 boards?" is a very different question, but one that is in danger of being asked with the same words ("according to baord number") as above. In a pairs game, I believe that an agreement in advance to change systems at the halfway (3/4 mark, last round, whenever) if your estimated score is above or below a certain threshold is probably not legal. Your standing in the event is information "not of the current deal" in 75A terms. That isn't "according to board number" either, by the way -- a scheduled change of system after n boards regardless of your standing at that point might be easier to justify. Making a decision based upon the early game, I think, is one of the reasons we have a rule against changing a system during a session. Now, people DO change their tactics quite dramatically in the final rounds of a pairs game sometimes (though I think the wisdom of doing so is often overstated.) I don't see how we're going to draw the disctinction between style and system there. GRB From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Jan 19 12:43:32 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 12:43:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <00b501c2bf4a$85870a20$f3053dd4@b0e7g1> Message-ID: <004901c2bfb8$92d18ed0$502ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 11:12 PM Subject: Fw: [blml] Another incomplete designation > > Grattan, > > Please tell me when I am wrong. > > Regards, > > Ben > > > Do they have a case? > > Ben: "YES", because players are not familiar with the Laws. > +=+ Ignorance of the law is not grounds for anything +=+ ----------------------- \\x// ------------------- > > > Ben: > That's not written in my FLB. What not is written in the > FLB is not permitted. > The word DUMMY is not mentioned in Law46B5: just > declarer and defenders. Dummy is not allowed to > participate in the play. > +=+ If the Director is called as soon as declarer gives this incomplete instruction he will probably act upon Law 46B5. That is not what defenders want - they want Director to require him to give a proper instruction. The interesting point you make is that if neither defender exercises his right to select the card to be played does the Director allow play to proceed without further instruction or does he require declarer to comply with Law 46A. I think there is justifiable reason (Law 81C6) for saying this would be his correct procedure. Anticipating your consent, I am copying this good point to blml. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Sun Jan 19 15:03:38 2003 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:03:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <000201c2bec8$2db46950$802ee150@endicott> <000e01c2bed0$2e5cbda0$92a1193e@4nrw70j> <3E2A6DD0.8050006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003901c2bfcc$081f5560$e35f003e@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > Roger Pewick wrote: > > >> > > > > I am very close to changing my view [only dummy's LHO should have the > > option- to minimize the effect of propriety] that giving the defender > > the option is a sufficient remedy. While in a large proportion of > > > I agree - but that should not make the solution worse than the problem. > > > occurrences there is no propriety involved and thus giving the defender > > the option is sufficient, there appears to be sufficient cases that > > propriety is involved: it rings as unsatisfactory to me that to not > > designate gives dummy the power to conduct play, and, to create a > > brouhaha over judging if declarer would get it right. I am toying with > > the notion that it may be important to explicitly forbid declarer > > designating 'play anything' and back it up with automatic loss of a > > trick plus the defender may designate. > > > > > In all these years on blml, this is the first time that we have a > "play anything" situation that creates a (small) problem. And still we > seem to be able to find laws that make the problem go away. > > Automatic trick loss ? A declarer has 5 small unreachable and not high > cards and loses one of his master trump tricks because he does not > designate which of those he discards ? > > Maybe if a solution is needed, it is simply this: after play has > finished, if it turns out that "play anything" gained a trick, that > trick is lost if it were wiht other cards possible being played. > > I( am very happy to agree wholeheartedly Best regards Israel > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nancy@dressing.org Sat Jan 18 05:31:30 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 00:31:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... Message-ID: <002201c2beb2$db0b1d30$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C2BE88.F1F992D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable New Players are fun! At the club today, NLM game, : The declaring pair have combined masterpoint total of 2!. Both have = been playing about 6 months. bidding was: N E S W 1S p 2D - p 2NT p 3 NT all pass . East made his opening lead and N proceeded to place his hand on the = table as the dummy. When I was called to the table, N said "I thought = I was the dummy!" In a situation like this, do we apply Law 48B2 and Law 68. =20 "When declarer faces his cards at any other time than immediately = following a lead out of turn,, he may be deemed to have made a claim or = concession of tricks, and then Law 68 applies."=20 or does the word "may" in this law give the director another option? = (Such as allowing the lead to stand and the partner of the offender = become the declarer and play the hand?) Do we "play" the hand with all the cards (all 4 players) face up and = determine the outcome of the hand???? Thanks,=20 Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C2BE88.F1F992D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
New Players are fun!  At the club = today, NLM=20 game,  :
The declaring pair have combined = masterpoint total=20 of 2!.  Both have been playing about 6 months.
bidding was:
 N     = E   =20 S    W
1S    p  2D -=20  p
2NT p 3 NT all pass
.
East made his opening lead and N = proceeded to=20 place his hand on the table as the dummy.  When I was called to the = table,  N said "I thought I was the dummy!"
In a situation like this, do we apply = Law 48B2 and=20 Law 68.  
 "When declarer faces his cards at = any other=20 time than immediately following a lead out of turn,, he may be = deemed to=20 have made a claim or concession of tricks,  and then Law 68 = applies."=20
or does the word "may" in this law give = the=20 director another option?  (Such as allowing the lead to stand and = the=20 partner of the offender become the declarer and play the = hand?)
Do we "play" the hand with all the = cards (all 4=20 players) face up and determine the outcome of the hand????
Thanks,
Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C2BE88.F1F992D0-- From axman22@hotmail.com Sun Jan 19 16:06:30 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 10:06:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <000201c2bec8$2db46950$802ee150@endicott> <000e01c2bed0$2e5cbda0$92a1193e@4nrw70j> <3E2A6DD0.8050006@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 3:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > Roger Pewick wrote: > > >> > > > > I am very close to changing my view [only dummy's LHO should have the > > option- to minimize the effect of propriety] that giving the defender > > the option is a sufficient remedy. While in a large proportion of > > > I agree - but that should not make the solution worse than the problem. > > > occurrences there is no propriety involved and thus giving the defender > > the option is sufficient, there appears to be sufficient cases that > > propriety is involved: it rings as unsatisfactory to me that to not > > designate gives dummy the power to conduct play, and, to create a > > brouhaha over judging if declarer would get it right. I am toying with > > the notion that it may be important to explicitly forbid declarer > > designating 'play anything' and back it up with automatic loss of a > > trick plus the defender may designate. > > > > > In all these years on blml, this is the first time that we have a > "play anything" situation that creates a (small) problem. And still we > seem to be able to find laws that make the problem go away. The most important facet of what occurred to me was that 'play anything' and such are not designations of a card but commands to dummy to participate in the play. Because of custom and habit such a breach of the rule has been accorded an innocuous status, which imo is not deserved. > Automatic trick loss ? A declarer has 5 small unreachable and not high > cards and loses one of his master trump tricks because he does not > designate which of those he discards ? If declarer never asks dummy to participate in the play he will never lose such a penalty trick. If he does lose such a penalty trick it is likely that he will never again ask dummy to participate in the play. Given the thousands of tricks lost each year by senseless play, it is a small investment to break a habit and custom that is bad. At least it is my opinion that it is a player's problem that is bad enough to solve. > Maybe if a solution is needed, it is simply this: after play has > finished, if it turns out that "play anything" gained a trick, that > trick is lost if it were wiht other cards possible being played. To make an ethics case out of it merely solves nothing and creates another problem. regards roger pewick > > regards > > roger pewick > Herman DE WAEL From Anne Jones" What fun. I have just replied to Nancy's posting and got the following message from the moderator. ========== Your mail to 'blml' with the subject Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Message has a suspicious header Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision. =============== Now all I ask is how Nancy;s posting got though with such a header. I don't see ONE four letter word. How careful do we have to be before we don't trigger some anti spamming / anti porning device :-)))))))) Anne --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 30/12/2002 From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <001601c2bfec$0c3ee230$2f2e6651@annescomputer> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C2BFEC.0C271470 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think the word "may " in L48B allows for this eventuality. We apply L48A and tell declarer to pick the cards up and require the = correct dummy to be spread.Play continues normally (except that = defenders have the certain advantage of having seen some of declarers = cards.) Certainly the defenders have done nothing wrong, why should they face = their cards :-) Anne ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nancy T Dressing=20 To: Bridge Laws=20 Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 5:31 AM Subject: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... New Players are fun! At the club today, NLM game, : The declaring pair have combined masterpoint total of 2!. Both have = been playing about 6 months. bidding was: N E S W 1S p 2D - p 2NT p 3 NT all pass . East made his opening lead and N proceeded to place his hand on the = table as the dummy. When I was called to the table, N said "I thought = I was the dummy!" In a situation like this, do we apply Law 48B2 and Law 68. =20 "When declarer faces his cards at any other time than immediately = following a lead out of turn,, he may be deemed to have made a claim or = concession of tricks, and then Law 68 applies."=20 or does the word "may" in this law give the director another option? = (Such as allowing the lead to stand and the partner of the offender = become the declarer and play the hand?) Do we "play" the hand with all the cards (all 4 players) face up and = determine the outcome of the hand???? Thanks,=20 Nancy --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 30/12/2002 ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C2BFEC.0C271470 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think the word "may " in L48B allows = for this=20 eventuality.
We apply L48A and tell declarer to pick = the cards=20 up and require the correct dummy to be spread.Play continues normally = (except=20 that defenders have the certain advantage of having seen some of = declarers=20 cards.)
Certainly the defenders have done = nothing wrong,=20 why should they face their cards :-)
Anne
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Nancy = T=20 Dressing
Sent: Saturday, January 18, = 2003 5:31=20 AM
Subject: [blml] I thought I was = the=20 dummy.....

New Players are fun!  At the = club today, NLM=20 game,  :
The declaring pair have combined = masterpoint=20 total of 2!.  Both have been playing about 6 months.
bidding was:
 N    =20 E    S    W
1S    p  2D = -=20  p
2NT p 3 NT all pass
.
East made his opening lead and N = proceeded=20 to place his hand on the table as the dummy.  When I was called = to the=20 table,  N said "I thought I was the dummy!"
In a situation like this, do we apply = Law 48B2=20 and Law 68.  
 "When declarer faces his cards = at any other=20 time than immediately following a lead out of turn,, he may be = deemed=20 to have made a claim or concession of tricks,  and then Law 68 = applies."=20
or does the word "may" in this law = give the=20 director another option?  (Such as allowing the lead to stand and = the=20 partner of the offender become the declarer and play the = hand?)
Do we "play" the hand with all the = cards (all 4=20 players) face up and determine the outcome of the = hand????
Thanks,
Nancy
 
 

---
Outgoing mail is certified = Virus=20 Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: = 6.0.435=20 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date:=20 30/12/2002
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C2BFEC.0C271470-- From henk@ripe.net Sun Jan 19 19:52:31 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:52:31 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Polite In-Reply-To: <000a01c2bfed$32e5cab0$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: Anne, > What fun. > I have just replied to Nancy's posting and got the following message from > the moderator. > ========== > Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > > Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > The reason it is being held: > > Message has a suspicious header > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > notification of the moderator's decision. > =============== > Now all I ask is how Nancy;s posting got though with such a header. I > don't see ONE four letter word. How careful do we have to be before we > don't trigger some anti spamming / anti porning device :-)))))))) 1. Whether or not Nancy's posting got through is irrelevant, the mail got rejected because of the headers in your mail. 2. We do have spam filters on BLML, the way this filter works is to calculate a score based on various criteria for every posting. If the score is too high, the moderator is asked to check by hand if the message is spam or not. In your case, there were 2 factors that triggered the filter: 2.a. The message was sent with header line containing an illegal FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name) "annescomputer", and not "annescomputer.baa-lamb.co.uk" as it should be. Check with your sysadmin to fix this. 2.b. The message was repeated in HTML for no good reason. Switch off postings in HTML. 3. If a posting requires moderator approval, it will go through, it will just be delayed a bit. Under normal circumstances, I'll check the messages that require approval queue once or twice a day, so the delay is about 12-24 hours and a bit longer when I'm not near a computer. I don't think that there is anything that urgent on the list that requires faster approval. So: if you get a "waiting for approval message", just be patient, if it is about bridge, it will appear. 4. No, I'm not going to change the spam filters. I CAN set them such that this message would have gone through. Unfortunately, at least half a dozen spam mails would have gone through as well and I'm sure we don't want that. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From ehaa@starpower.net Sun Jan 19 19:51:37 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:51:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... In-Reply-To: <002201c2beb2$db0b1d30$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030119140706.00aa2c50@pop.starpower.net> --=====================_3572727==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:31 AM 1/18/03, Nancy wrote: >New Players are fun! At the club today, NLM game, : >The declaring pair have combined masterpoint total of 2!. Both have >been playing about 6 months. >bidding was: > N E S W >1S p 2D - p >2NT p 3 NT all pass >. >East made his opening lead and N proceeded to place his hand on the >table as the dummy. When I was called to the table, N said "I >thought I was the dummy!" >In a situation like this, do we apply Law 48B2 and Law 68. > "When declarer faces his cards at any other time than immediately > following a lead out of turn,, he may be deemed to have made a claim > or concession of tricks, and then Law 68 applies." >or does the word "may" in this law give the director another >option? (Such as allowing the lead to stand and the partner of the >offender become the declarer and play the hand?) >Do we "play" the hand with all the cards (all 4 players) face up and >determine the outcome of the hand???? The Preface to TFLB says what "may" means when applied to a player, but gives no guidance as to how it is to be interpreted when applied to the director. Normal English usage suggests it means that the director, in such situations, is permitted some latitude for common sense and discretion. I find it generally satisfactory to interpret such directives that use "may" as meaning something like, to borrow from L46, that the law tells us what the director should do "except when the [player's] different intention is incontrovertable". That is clearly the case here; nobody would suggest that North had any possible intention of claiming, and treating this as a claim situation would be so silly that I can't imagine how one might offer a convincing rationale to the players at the table. I would rule that L48A applies, tell North to pick up his hand, South to put the dummy down, and play to proceed normally. I would "penalize" North sufficiently, IMO, by reading the law slowly enough to ensure that E-W had enough time to get a good look at his cards before he picked them up. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_3572727==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 12:31 AM 1/18/03, Nancy wrote:

New Players are fun!  At the club today, NLM game,  :
The declaring pair have combined masterpoint total of 2!.  Both have been playing about 6 months.
bidding was:
 N     E    S    W
1S    p  2D -  p
2NT p 3 NT all pass
.
East made his opening lead and N proceeded to place his hand on the table as the dummy.  When I was called to the table,  N said "I thought I was the dummy!"
In a situation like this, do we apply Law 48B2 and Law 68. 
 "When declarer faces his cards at any other time than immediately following a lead out of turn,, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks,  and then Law 68 applies."
or does the word "may" in this law give the director another option?  (Such as allowing the lead to stand and the partner of the offender become the declarer and play the hand?)
Do we "play" the hand with all the cards (all 4 players) face up and determine the outcome of the hand????

The Preface to TFLB says what "may" means when applied to a player, but gives no guidance as to how it is to be interpreted when applied to the director.  Normal English usage suggests it means that the director, in such situations, is permitted some latitude for common sense and discretion.  I find it generally satisfactory to interpret such directives that use "may" as meaning something like, to borrow from L46, that the law tells us what the director should do "except when the [player's] different intention is incontrovertable".  That is clearly the case here; nobody would suggest that North had any possible intention of claiming, and treating this as a claim situation would be so silly that I can't imagine how one might offer a convincing rationale to the players at the table.

I would rule that L48A applies, tell North to pick up his hand, South to put the dummy down, and play to proceed normally.  I would "penalize" North sufficiently, IMO, by reading the law slowly enough to ensure that E-W had enough time to get a good look at his cards before he picked them up.

Eric Landau                     ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_3572727==.ALT-- From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <003401c2bff5$f700c230$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Looks like I will have to read and shut up. I am set to post in plain text only and shout loud and long to others on other mailing lists that post in HTML. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Anne Jones" Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Polite > Anne, > > > What fun. > > I have just replied to Nancy's posting and got the following message from > > the moderator. > > ========== > > Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > > > > Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... > > > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > > > The reason it is being held: > > > > Message has a suspicious header > > > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > > notification of the moderator's decision. > > =============== > > > Now all I ask is how Nancy;s posting got though with such a header. I > > don't see ONE four letter word. How careful do we have to be before we > > don't trigger some anti spamming / anti porning device :-)))))))) > > 1. Whether or not Nancy's posting got through is irrelevant, the mail > got rejected because of the headers in your mail. > > 2. We do have spam filters on BLML, the way this filter works is to > calculate a score based on various criteria for every posting. If the > score is too high, the moderator is asked to check by hand if the > message is spam or not. In your case, there were 2 factors that > triggered the filter: > > 2.a. The message was sent with header line containing an illegal FQDN > (Fully Qualified Domain Name) "annescomputer", and not > "annescomputer.baa-lamb.co.uk" as it should be. Check with your > sysadmin to fix this. > > 2.b. The message was repeated in HTML for no good reason. Switch off > postings in HTML. > > 3. If a posting requires moderator approval, it will go through, it will > just be delayed a bit. Under normal circumstances, I'll check the > messages that require approval queue once or twice a day, so the delay > is about 12-24 hours and a bit longer when I'm not near a computer. > I don't think that there is anything that urgent on the list that > requires faster approval. > > So: if you get a "waiting for approval message", just be patient, if > it is about bridge, it will appear. > > 4. No, I'm not going to change the spam filters. I CAN set them such > that this message would have gone through. Unfortunately, at least > half a dozen spam mails would have gone through as well and I'm sure > we don't want that. > > Henk > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 30/12/2002 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sat Jan 18 20:48:40 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 06:48:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Canberra bushfires Message-ID: <4A256CB2.00709BD1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Tragically, at least two people have lost their lives in the Canberra bushfires. At least fifty people are being treated for burns in hospital. Houses destroyed so far is circa 60 to 100. Suburbs at risk are on the western edge of Canberra. My home is in one of the suburbs under threat. However, I am in no personal danger, since I am continuing to play in the National Bridge Championships in the safe centre of the city. Best wishes Richard From axman22@hotmail.com Sun Jan 19 21:19:49 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 15:19:49 -0600 Subject: [blml] Canberra bushfires References: <4A256CB2.00709BD1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 14:48 PM Subject: [blml] Canberra bushfires > > > Tragically, at least two people have lost their lives in the > Canberra bushfires. At least fifty people are being treated > for burns in hospital. Houses destroyed so far is circa 60 > to 100. > > Suburbs at risk are on the western edge of Canberra. My home > is in one of the suburbs under threat. However, I am in no > personal danger, since I am continuing to play in the > National Bridge Championships in the safe centre of the city. > > Best wishes > > Richard What kind of a bridge player are you? By my reckoning you are up and about at 7 AM. Your news is sad. Best wishes to all and Godspeed.. roger pewick From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun Jan 19 22:09:51 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:09:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030119140706.00aa2c50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sunday, January 19, 2003, at 07:51 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > I would rule that L48A applies, tell North to pick up his hand, South=20= > to put the dummy down, and play to proceed normally.=A0 I would=20 > "penalize" North sufficiently, IMO, by reading the law slowly enough=20= > to ensure that E-W had enough time to get a good look at his cards=20 > before he picked them up. > Why would you feel it necessary to "penalize" North when the very Law=20 that you're ruling with tells us that "Declarer is not subject to=20 penalty for exposing a card"? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From nancy@dressing.org Sun Jan 19 22:42:27 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:42:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Polite References: <003401c2bff5$f700c230$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: <001f01c2c00c$0b3aab10$6401a8c0@hare> For what it is worth, Anne and all, my message was held up for two days and just about every one I send is held up!!!! I guess it is the nature of the beast!! ;-)) I hope I get an answer to my query! Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 3:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Polite > Looks like I will have to read and shut up. I am set to post in plain text > only and shout loud and long to others on other mailing lists that post in > HTML. > > Anne > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > To: "Anne Jones" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 7:52 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Polite > > > > Anne, > > > > > What fun. > > > I have just replied to Nancy's posting and got the following message > from > > > the moderator. > > > ========== > > > Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > > > > > > Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... > > > > > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > > > > > The reason it is being held: > > > > > > Message has a suspicious header > > > > > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > > > notification of the moderator's decision. > > > =============== > > > > > Now all I ask is how Nancy;s posting got though with such a header. I > > > don't see ONE four letter word. How careful do we have to be before we > > > don't trigger some anti spamming / anti porning device :-)))))))) > > > > 1. Whether or not Nancy's posting got through is irrelevant, the mail > > got rejected because of the headers in your mail. > > > > 2. We do have spam filters on BLML, the way this filter works is to > > calculate a score based on various criteria for every posting. If the > > score is too high, the moderator is asked to check by hand if the > > message is spam or not. In your case, there were 2 factors that > > triggered the filter: > > > > 2.a. The message was sent with header line containing an illegal FQDN > > (Fully Qualified Domain Name) "annescomputer", and not > > "annescomputer.baa-lamb.co.uk" as it should be. Check with your > > sysadmin to fix this. > > > > 2.b. The message was repeated in HTML for no good reason. Switch off > > postings in HTML. > > > > 3. If a posting requires moderator approval, it will go through, it will > > just be delayed a bit. Under normal circumstances, I'll check the > > messages that require approval queue once or twice a day, so the delay > > is about 12-24 hours and a bit longer when I'm not near a computer. > > I don't think that there is anything that urgent on the list that > > requires faster approval. > > > > So: if you get a "waiting for approval message", just be patient, if > > it is about bridge, it will appear. > > > > 4. No, I'm not going to change the spam filters. I CAN set them such > > that this message would have gone through. Unfortunately, at least > > half a dozen spam mails would have gone through as well and I'm sure > > we don't want that. > > > > Henk > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: > http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 30/12/2002 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nancy@dressing.org Sun Jan 19 23:01:09 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:01:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Canberra bushfires References: <4A256CB2.00709BD1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <003e01c2c00e$a7fbb000$6401a8c0@hare> How sad to hear that this is happening to you and the people in Canberra. We have been following it on the news. Loss of life is always tragic. I am concerned about Dany, who was an active member of this list but has not been heard from with his dog list in a long, long time. Things have not been good in his country either. (Does anyone know anything about him??) Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 3:48 PM Subject: [blml] Canberra bushfires > > > Tragically, at least two people have lost their lives in the > Canberra bushfires. At least fifty people are being treated > for burns in hospital. Houses destroyed so far is circa 60 > to 100. > > Suburbs at risk are on the western edge of Canberra. My home > is in one of the suburbs under threat. However, I am in no > personal danger, since I am continuing to play in the > National Bridge Championships in the safe centre of the city. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam@tameware.com Sun Jan 19 23:27:02 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:27:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... In-Reply-To: <002201c2beb2$db0b1d30$6401a8c0@hare> References: <002201c2beb2$db0b1d30$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: At 12:31 AM -0500 1/18/03, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >East made his opening lead and N proceeded to place his hand on the >table as the dummy. When I was called to the table, N said "I >thought I was the dummy!" >In a situation like this, do we apply Law 48B2 and Law 68. > "When declarer faces his cards at any other time than immediately >following a lead out of turn,, he may be deemed to have made a claim >or concession of tricks, and then Law 68 applies." This doesn't seem difficult to me. You may deem him to have made a claim, but you need not. In the circumstance you describe no director I know would consider this a claim, given the option. >or does the word "may" in this law give the director another option? >(Such as allowing the lead to stand and the partner of the offender >become the declarer and play the hand?) It means just what it says. You may deem that he has made a claim or you may not. If he's not made a claim then dummy must be faced and play proceeds as usual. The law specifies nothing else. Declarer picks up his cards, and the defenders may perhaps defend more accurately than they would have had they not seen declarer's hand. >Do we "play" the hand with all the cards (all 4 players) face up and >determine the outcome of the hand???? No. Why look for options that are not specified in the laws? If you were to do so you might as well say that play should now proceed counter-clockwise. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Jan 20 08:17:51 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel De Raeymaeker) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:17:51 -0800 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi all Teams dealer west Vul all North S AKJxx H x D AJxx C QTx West East S QT S xxx H AQxx H KJTxx D QTx D xx C AKJx South C xxx S 9xx H Txx D K98x C 9xx Bidding W N E S 1H 1S 2H P 3D(1) X 3H P P P (1) is altered as a long suit trial. Result 3H +1 N/S at the end of the hand call the TD. They claim they were misinformed. They thought a long suit trial was a suit of at least 4 (normally 5) cards which can be used for discards. This didn't fit West's hand. (1) They misdefended the contract as a result of the MI. North switched a club into the assumed West shortage. (2) In the bidding had they been informed properly South said he would have bid 3S as now north's double showing diamonds (south took the actual double as clubs based on his hand and the information given) makes 3S reasonable opposite a S/D fit and a pd willing to go to 3S's almost on his own.. (3) Regardless of the appeal ruling - N/S now felt that E/W had set a precedence and should not be allowed to alert similar auctions as long suit trials. E/W had no CC to back up their claims. The commitee concensus was - E/W were uncertain as to their agreement. So in terms of suit length and expected hcp strength .. - A help trial is .... ?? - A short suit trial is .... ?? - A long suit trial is .... ?? What would you rule ?? Are N/S correct on point 3 ?? Karel From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 20 05:36:47 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:36:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Disclaimer: I'm no expert at this. :) On 1/20/03, Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: >Hi all > >Teams dealer west Vul all > > North > S AKJxx > H x > D AJxx > C QTx >West East >S QT S xxx >H AQxx H KJTxx >D QTx D xx >C AKJx South C xxx > S 9xx > H Txx > D K98x > C 9xx > >Bidding >W N E S >1H 1S 2H P >3D(1) X 3H P >P P > >(1) is altered as a long suit trial. > >Result 3H +1 > >N/S at the end of the hand call the TD. They claim they were >misinformed. They thought a long suit trial was a suit of at least 4 >(normally 5) cards which can be used for discards. This didn't fit >West's hand. > >(1) They misdefended the contract as a result of the MI. North >switched a club into the assumed West shortage. Were EW playing a four card major system (e.g., Acol)? Assuming North switched after cashing S AK, his count of west's hand is 2S, 4+H, (assumed) 4+D, and thus 3 or fewer clubs. (a) I wouldn't assume a club "shortage" on that basis, and (b) nothing says West can't have A singleton or AK doubleton of clubs, or for that matter AKJ, in this circumstance. In fact, the making of a trial bid in one suit (diamonds in this case) usually means the opener is not worried about the other side suits. Yes, that could mean he has a club singleton, but it could also mean he has the holdings I just mentioned. >(2) In the bidding had they been informed properly South said he would >have bid 3S as now north's double showing diamonds (south took the >actual double as clubs based on his hand and the information given) >makes 3S reasonable opposite a S/D fit and a pd willing to go to 3S's >almost on his own.. South's assumption as to the meaning of North's double seems rather odd, as it seems likely they had not discussed this possibility. Did they have such an agreement? >(3) Regardless of the appeal ruling - N/S now felt that E/W had set a >precedence and should not be allowed to alert similar auctions as long >suit trials. Um. Couple things here. Lemme get the pedantry out of the way, first. I would hope you mean, for "alert as", "alert and [later] explain as", since the explanation is not supposed to be made until it's requested, at least under the ACBL regs with which I'm familiar. Okay, now that's done - I don't know Irish alert regs, so I'll go by the ones I do know - the ACBLs. Explaining a convention by naming it is prima facie misinformation. You have to explain what the call *means*. More on that in a bit, but if Irish regs are similar to the ACBL's, then EW cannot explain this call as "long suit trial" in any case, precedent or not. >E/W had no CC to back up their claims. The commitee concensus was - >E/W were uncertain as to their agreement. Based on what? >So in terms of suit length and expected hcp strength .. - A help trial >is .... ?? - A short suit trial is .... ?? - A long suit trial is >.... ?? Personally, I like Ron Klinger's definitions of long and short suit trials: a long suit trial is made in a suit with 2 or 3 losers, and at least 3 cards, and a short suit trial is made in a suit with a singleton or void. I've not seen a definition of "help suit game try" that precise, but in my 5th edition "Encyclopedia of Bridge" that entry refers me to "weak suit game try" which says, basically "a bid in opener's weakest suit, as a game try". As to overall strength, continuing with Klinger's approach, since a raise to 2 normally has 8-9 losers, opener with a minimum (7 loser) hand would pass. With 5 losers or fewer, he'd bid game, and with 6 losers (which equates roughly to about 16-18 points) he'd make a trial bid. >What would you rule ?? Are N/S correct on point 3 ?? I would rule there was misinformation (under ACBL regs, anyway). I'm not so sure that it was the misinformation that damaged NS, though. If it was, then the score should be adjusted. Looks like to NS 3S+1. If not, not. As for point 3, as I said above, when a conventional call is explained, at least around here, the name is not sufficient. In this case, the correct explanation would be whatever words EW used to define their agreement as to the meaning of "long suit trial bid". It might be the Klinger definition I gave above, it might be something else. But whatever it is, *that's* what's disclosable. Irish regs may differ, of course. I'm sure the more experienced posters here will shoot holes in the above if it deserves them. :-) From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jan 20 07:33:37 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 07:33:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids References: Message-ID: <000701c2c056$75d1cf40$0c57e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Trial Bids > Explaining a convention by naming it is prima facie > misinformation. You have to explain what the call *means*. > +=+ Most regimes that I know about would say that only to name a convention is an incomplete reply to enquiry. If a misunderstanding were to arise this much would count against the explainer. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jan 20 07:59:59 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 07:59:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids References: Message-ID: <002101c2c05a$16057040$fd35e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Trial Bids > > > I would rule there was misinformation (under ACBL regs, anyway). I'm not > so sure that it was the misinformation that damaged NS, though. If it > was, then the score should be adjusted. Looks like to NS 3S+1. If not, > not. As for point 3, as I said above, when a conventional call is > explained, at least around here, the name is not sufficient. In this > case, the correct explanation would be whatever words EW used to define > their agreement as to the meaning of "long suit trial bid". It might be > the Klinger definition I gave above, it might be something else. But > whatever it is, *that's* what's disclosable. Irish regs may differ, of > course. > > I'm sure the more experienced posters here will shoot holes in the above > if it deserves them. :-) > +=+ Where the WBF Guide to Completion of the Convention Card holds good, to say 'long suit trial bid' or 'long suit game try' would mean this: "A try for game after a suit has been raised. The new suit bid focuses on a suit of at least three cards. The (long suit game try) is most likely to be this sort of four card holding: Kxxx Qxxx AJxx." The description also refers to a 'Help suit trial bid' with similar characteristics but requiring more assistance in the suit. [When I learnt my bridge I was led to expect of a 'long suit game try' most often a weakish (even very weak) three card holding.] ~ G ~ +=+ From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Mon Jan 20 08:04:37 2003 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:04:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <000201c2bec8$2db46950$802ee150@endicott> <000e01c2bed0$2e5cbda0$92a1193e@4nrw70j> <3E2A6DD0.8050006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c2c05a$94f3f200$25b54351@noos.fr> Roger, Your reaction makes a lot of sense. Of course this has nothing to do with ethics or whatever. This is simply a case where a common infraction which normally goes unnoticed (it is quite normal to say 'any card' when dummy has become irrelevant) but which creates a problem given some weird circumstances. There is no intent, the guy probably doesn't know what he is doing. This kind of problem can arise with all infractions which carry an 'automatic' penalty. The penalty might not compensate enough (when a revoke wins multiple tricks) or adress the wrong problem (in this case). The current rules approach this problem rather fragmented. For some problems there is an explicit rule (like 64C), for other comparable problems there is not. So this leaves us with 72B. I know you can overdo with 72B (its wording is very dangerous for misuse by overzealous TD's and AC's) but in this case defendable. Declarer said 'any' when this made no sense (H6 is a card). But even if H6 is H2 I don't want a declarer, who has to 'guess' witch red ace to discard, let defenders pick the small red card in dummy. If necessary I will use 74 (another very dangerous law). There is another issue. When I read the rules (not my speciality) I wonder how the hand has finished. According to 46B5 the defenders 'may' chose dummys card. But it doesn't say what should happen if defenders do nothing. The moment that dummy picks a card it seems to me that 45F applies. But you might say that by not calling the TD defenders have forfeited their rights. True of course but given the sensitivity of the situation I can understand the less then perfect reaction of defenders and I still want to protect them (or rather I don't want declarer to get away with this joke). Which leads again to 72B/74. Jaap van der Neut ---- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 3:20 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > > > > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > I am very close to changing my view [only dummy's LHO should have > the > > > option- to minimize the effect of propriety] that giving the > defender > > > the option is a sufficient remedy. While in a large proportion of > > > > > > I agree - but that should not make the solution worse than the > problem. > > > > > occurrences there is no propriety involved and thus giving the > defender > > > the option is sufficient, there appears to be sufficient cases that > > > propriety is involved: it rings as unsatisfactory to me that to not > > > designate gives dummy the power to conduct play, and, to create a > > > brouhaha over judging if declarer would get it right. I am toying > with > > > the notion that it may be important to explicitly forbid declarer > > > designating 'play anything' and back it up with automatic loss of a > > > trick plus the defender may designate. > > > > > > > > > In all these years on blml, this is the first time that we have a > > "play anything" situation that creates a (small) problem. And still we > > seem to be able to find laws that make the problem go away. > > The most important facet of what occurred to me was that 'play anything' > and such are not designations of a card but commands to dummy to > participate in the play. Because of custom and habit such a breach of > the rule has been accorded an innocuous status, which imo is not > deserved. > > > Automatic trick loss ? A declarer has 5 small unreachable and not high > > cards and loses one of his master trump tricks because he does not > > designate which of those he discards ? > > If declarer never asks dummy to participate in the play he will never > lose such a penalty trick. If he does lose such a penalty trick it is > likely that he will never again ask dummy to participate in the play. > Given the thousands of tricks lost each year by senseless play, it is a > small investment to break a habit and custom that is bad. At least it > is my opinion that it is a player's problem that is bad enough to solve. > > > Maybe if a solution is needed, it is simply this: after play has > > finished, if it turns out that "play anything" gained a trick, that > > trick is lost if it were wiht other cards possible being played. > > To make an ethics case out of it merely solves nothing and creates > another problem. > > regards > roger pewick > > > > regards > > > roger pewick > > > Herman DE WAEL > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jan 20 08:24:39 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:24:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids References: Message-ID: <000d01c2c05d$8f7869c0$1457e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Trial Bids > Disclaimer: I'm no expert at this. :) > ------------------------ \\zxz// ---------------------------. > > Um. Couple things here. Lemme get the pedantry > out of the way, first. I would hope you mean, for > "alert as", "alert and [later] explain as", since the > explanation is not supposed to be made until it's > requested, at least under the ACBL regs with > which I'm familiar. Okay, now that's done - I don't > know Irish alert regs, so I'll go by the ones I do > know - the ACBLs. Explaining a convention by > naming it is prima facie misinformation. You have > to explain what the call *means*. More on that > in a bit, but if Irish regs are similar to the ACBL's, > then EW cannot explain this call as "long suit > trial" in any case, precedent or not. > +=+ If they had been influenced by the English regulations a trial bid of three or more cards would be 'natural', and not alertable. ~ G ~ +=+ From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Mon Jan 20 08:35:04 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:35:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids References: Message-ID: <002f01c2c05e$d6406b40$25b54351@noos.fr> Ed, Shoot holes? Why? It makes perfect sense what you say. This is more a language issue because there is no material difference between a long suit trial and a help suit trial. In real life there are only two kind of trials: short and non-short. It is well known that with an established fit people can and will fool around with their trial bids (both for game and slam). But that said, I do have a (small) problem with EW. Why the hell 3D gets alerted if it is natural. All non-short trials are natural in my view but I know that opinions differ and I am sure you can find TD's who think 3D is alertable whatever the meaning (and in their local club short-suit might be common, who knows). Then you explain it as long-suit, given the 3D bid I am all but sure that it should be explained as help-suit. So I would probably tell EW to be a little more helpfull in the future. But they might well be completly honest, I would not be suprised if they just don't know the concept of help-suit. Of course, when I get the impression they are good players that have a record for clumsy explanations I might change my mind. Now NS. My impression is they are rather unexperienced. In that context I consider this a good lesson in their bridge education. When a trial gets explained as long or help (you should always ask a clarification if it is important for you), quite often the actual holding is three small or so (and sometimes a good long suit). So there is no real infraction. You simply cannot assume that declarer bids his second suit in this situation, quite often he decides to bid his third suit instead. That's bridge. In the end the goal of a trial bid is to find the best contract, not to help opponents. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Trial Bids > Disclaimer: I'm no expert at this. :) > > On 1/20/03, Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: > > >Hi all > > > >Teams dealer west Vul all > > > > North > > S AKJxx > > H x > > D AJxx > > C QTx > >West East > >S QT S xxx > >H AQxx H KJTxx > >D QTx D xx > >C AKJx South C xxx > > S 9xx > > H Txx > > D K98x > > C 9xx > > > >Bidding > >W N E S > >1H 1S 2H P > >3D(1) X 3H P > >P P > > > >(1) is altered as a long suit trial. > > > >Result 3H +1 > > > >N/S at the end of the hand call the TD. They claim they were > >misinformed. They thought a long suit trial was a suit of at least 4 > >(normally 5) cards which can be used for discards. This didn't fit > >West's hand. > > > >(1) They misdefended the contract as a result of the MI. North > >switched a club into the assumed West shortage. > > Were EW playing a four card major system (e.g., Acol)? Assuming North > switched after cashing S AK, his count of west's hand is 2S, 4+H, > (assumed) 4+D, and thus 3 or fewer clubs. (a) I wouldn't assume a club > "shortage" on that basis, and (b) nothing says West can't have A > singleton or AK doubleton of clubs, or for that matter AKJ, in this > circumstance. In fact, the making of a trial bid in one suit (diamonds > in this case) usually means the opener is not worried about the other > side suits. Yes, that could mean he has a club singleton, but it could > also mean he has the holdings I just mentioned. > > >(2) In the bidding had they been informed properly South said he would > >have bid 3S as now north's double showing diamonds (south took the > >actual double as clubs based on his hand and the information given) > >makes 3S reasonable opposite a S/D fit and a pd willing to go to 3S's > >almost on his own.. > > South's assumption as to the meaning of North's double seems rather odd, > as it seems likely they had not discussed this possibility. Did they > have such an agreement? > > >(3) Regardless of the appeal ruling - N/S now felt that E/W had set a > >precedence and should not be allowed to alert similar auctions as long > >suit trials. > > Um. Couple things here. Lemme get the pedantry out of the way, first. I > would hope you mean, for "alert as", "alert and [later] explain as", > since the explanation is not supposed to be made until it's requested, > at least under the ACBL regs with which I'm familiar. Okay, now that's > done - I don't know Irish alert regs, so I'll go by the ones I do know - > the ACBLs. Explaining a convention by naming it is prima facie > misinformation. You have to explain what the call *means*. More on that > in a bit, but if Irish regs are similar to the ACBL's, then EW cannot > explain this call as "long suit trial" in any case, precedent or not. > > >E/W had no CC to back up their claims. The commitee concensus was - > >E/W were uncertain as to their agreement. > > Based on what? > > >So in terms of suit length and expected hcp strength .. - A help trial > >is .... ?? - A short suit trial is .... ?? - A long suit trial is > >.... ?? > > Personally, I like Ron Klinger's definitions of long and short suit > trials: a long suit trial is made in a suit with 2 or 3 losers, and at > least 3 cards, and a short suit trial is made in a suit with a singleton > or void. I've not seen a definition of "help suit game try" that > precise, but in my 5th edition "Encyclopedia of Bridge" that entry > refers me to "weak suit game try" which says, basically "a bid in > opener's weakest suit, as a game try". As to overall strength, > continuing with Klinger's approach, since a raise to 2 normally has 8-9 > losers, opener with a minimum (7 loser) hand would pass. With 5 losers > or fewer, he'd bid game, and with 6 losers (which equates roughly to > about 16-18 points) he'd make a trial bid. > > >What would you rule ?? Are N/S correct on point 3 ?? > > I would rule there was misinformation (under ACBL regs, anyway). I'm not > so sure that it was the misinformation that damaged NS, though. If it > was, then the score should be adjusted. Looks like to NS 3S+1. If not, > not. As for point 3, as I said above, when a conventional call is > explained, at least around here, the name is not sufficient. In this > case, the correct explanation would be whatever words EW used to define > their agreement as to the meaning of "long suit trial bid". It might be > the Klinger definition I gave above, it might be something else. But > whatever it is, *that's* what's disclosable. Irish regs may differ, of > course. > > I'm sure the more experienced posters here will shoot holes in the above > if it deserves them. :-) > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Mon Jan 20 12:26:49 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:26:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046297@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:cyaxares@lineone.net] Sent: 20 January 2003 08:25 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [blml] Trial Bids +=+ If they had been influenced by the English regulations a trial bid of three or more cards would be 'natural', and not alertable. ~ G ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Grattan is referring to Orange Book 5.4.4(h): "a long suit trial bid showing at least three cards in the suit bid." Unfortunately there is disagreement as to whether this means all trial bids showing at least three cards in the suit, or just "long suit" trial bids (necessarily showing at least three cards). Some people distinguish trial bids in suits with (a) length (probably 4+) and a source of tricks, (b) length (3+) and a source of losers. Some people call (a) and (b) "long suit" trial bids. Some people call (a) or (b) "long suit" trial bids, because nobody (they know) plays the other sort of trial bid. Some people call (a) "long suit" trial bids and (b) "help suit" trial bids. Some people think (b) should be alerted despite OB 5.4.4(b). In the original problem, bidding D:QJx rather than C:AKxx, looks like (b) rather than (a). Given the different understanding of "long suit trial bid", an appropriate explanation might be "trial bid, length in the suit, with losers in the suit". Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 20 12:58:26 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:58:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Polite In-Reply-To: <000a01c2bfed$32e5cab0$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030120135644.01d36390@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:01 19/01/2003 +0000, Anne Jones wrote: >What fun. >I have just replied to Nancy's posting and got the following message from >the moderator. >========== >Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > > Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... > >Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > >The reason it is being held: > > Message has a suspicious header > >Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive >notification of the moderator's decision. >=============== >Now all I ask is how Nancy;s posting got though with such a header. I don't >see ONE four letter word. How careful do we have to be before we don't >trigger some anti spamming / anti porning device :-)))))))) AG : I guess that according to some people - including perhaps those who conceived said flter - thinking is obscene. From nancy@dressing.org Sun Jan 19 22:54:04 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:54:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030119140706.00aa2c50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003501c2c00d$aa8e3730$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C2BFE3.C15AF400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If I have read the Law correctly, Declarer did not expose a card 48A, = Declarer faced his cards Law 48B. I like the use of "may " and my = decision was to allow the lead to stand and let declarer's partner play = the hand (even though my ruling was probably incorrect!). Everyone was = happy and a lesson was learned by all, including the director! =20 Nancy ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Eric Landau=20 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List=20 Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... At 12:31 AM 1/18/03, Nancy wrote: New Players are fun! At the club today, NLM game, : The declaring pair have combined masterpoint total of 2!. Both have = been playing about 6 months. bidding was: N E S W 1S p 2D - p 2NT p 3 NT all pass . East made his opening lead and N proceeded to place his hand on the = table as the dummy. When I was called to the table, N said "I thought = I was the dummy!" In a situation like this, do we apply Law 48B2 and Law 68. =20 "When declarer faces his cards at any other time than immediately = following a lead out of turn,, he may be deemed to have made a claim or = concession of tricks, and then Law 68 applies."=20 or does the word "may" in this law give the director another option? = (Such as allowing the lead to stand and the partner of the offender = become the declarer and play the hand?) Do we "play" the hand with all the cards (all 4 players) face up and = determine the outcome of the hand???? The Preface to TFLB says what "may" means when applied to a player, = but gives no guidance as to how it is to be interpreted when applied to = the director. Normal English usage suggests it means that the director, = in such situations, is permitted some latitude for common sense and = discretion. I find it generally satisfactory to interpret such = directives that use "may" as meaning something like, to borrow from L46, = that the law tells us what the director should do "except when the = [player's] different intention is incontrovertable". That is clearly = the case here; nobody would suggest that North had any possible = intention of claiming, and treating this as a claim situation would be = so silly that I can't imagine how one might offer a convincing rationale = to the players at the table. I would rule that L48A applies, tell North to pick up his hand, South = to put the dummy down, and play to proceed normally. I would "penalize" = North sufficiently, IMO, by reading the law slowly enough to ensure that = E-W had enough time to get a good look at his cards before he picked = them up. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C2BFE3.C15AF400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If I have read the Law correctly, Declarer did = not expose=20 a card 48A, Declarer faced his cards Law 48B.  I like the use of = "may " and=20 my decision was to allow the lead to stand and let declarer's partner = play the=20 hand (even though my ruling was probably incorrect!).  Everyone was = happy=20 and a lesson was learned by all, including the director!  =
Nancy
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Eric = Landau=20
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 = 2:51=20 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] I thought I = was the=20 dummy.....

At 12:31 AM 1/18/03, Nancy wrote:

New=20 Players are fun!  At the club today, NLM game,  = :
The declaring pair have combined masterpoint = total of=20 2!.  Both have been playing about 6 months.
bidding was:
 N     E   =20 S    W
1S   =20 p  2D -  p
2NT p 3 = NT all=20 pass
.
East made his opening lead and N proceeded to place his = hand on the=20 table as the dummy.  When I was called to the table,  N = said "I=20 thought I was the dummy!"
In a = situation=20 like this, do we apply Law 48B2 and Law 68. 
 "When declarer faces his cards at any = other time=20 than immediately following a lead out of turn,, he may be = deemed to=20 have made a claim or concession of tricks,  and then Law 68 = applies."=20
or does the word "may" in = this law give=20 the director another option?  (Such as allowing the lead to = stand and=20 the partner of the offender become the declarer and play the=20 hand?)
Do we "play" the hand = with all the=20 cards (all 4 players) face up and determine the outcome of the=20 hand????

The Preface to TFLB says what "may" = means when=20 applied to a player, but gives no guidance as to how it is to be = interpreted=20 when applied to the director.  Normal English usage suggests it = means=20 that the director, in such situations, is permitted some latitude for = common=20 sense and discretion.  I find it generally satisfactory to = interpret such=20 directives that use "may" as meaning something like, to borrow from = L46, that=20 the law tells us what the director should do "except when the = [player's]=20 different intention is incontrovertable".  That is clearly the = case here;=20 nobody would suggest that North had any possible intention of = claiming, and=20 treating this as a claim situation would be so silly that I can't = imagine how=20 one might offer a convincing rationale to the players at the = table.

I=20 would rule that L48A applies, tell North to pick up his hand, South to = put the=20 dummy down, and play to proceed normally.  I would "penalize" = North=20 sufficiently, IMO, by reading the law slowly enough to ensure that E-W = had=20 enough time to get a good look at his cards before he picked them=20 up.

Eric=20 = Landau           &= nbsp;        =20 ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale=20 = Drive           &n= bsp;    =20 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     = Fax=20 (301) 589-4618

------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C2BFE3.C15AF400-- From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 20 13:12:20 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:12:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030120140554.01d28e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:17 20/01/2003 -0800, Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: >Hi all > >Teams dealer west Vul all > > North > S AKJxx > H x > D AJxx > C QTx >West East >S QT S xxx >H AQxx H KJTxx >D QTx D xx >C AKJx South C xxx > S 9xx > H Txx > D K98x > C 9xx > >Bidding >W N E S >1H 1S 2H P >3D(1) X 3H P >P P > >(1) is altered as a long suit trial. > >Result 3H +1 > >N/S at the end of the hand call the TD. They claim they were misinformed. >They thought a long suit trial was a suit of at least 4 (normally 5) cards >which can be used for discards. This didn't fit West's hand. > >(1) They misdefended the contract as a result of the MI. North switched a >club into the assumed West shortage. > >(2) In the bidding had they been informed properly South said he would have >bid 3S as now north's double showing diamonds (south took the actual double >as clubs based on his hand and the information given) makes 3S reasonable >opposite a S/D fit and a pd willing to go to 3S's almost on his own.. > >(3) Regardless of the appeal ruling - N/S now felt that E/W had set a >precedence and should not be allowed to alert similar auctions as long suit >trials. > >E/W had no CC to back up their claims. The commitee concensus was - E/W >were uncertain as to their agreement. > > >So in terms of suit length and expected hcp strength .. >- A help trial is .... ?? ... any trial bid whose purpose is to get partner to answer positively if he holds strength in the suit. >- A short suit trial is .... ?? ... no more than a singleton unless specified otherwise in the explanation >- A long suit trial is .... ?? ... any trial bid which tells partner about your longest suit apart of the raised suit. As such, West's 3D was probably a help-suit trial bid. He could, however, have made it up while playing long-suit trials, but absent the backing of the CC, I'd decide against him. What would you rule ?? AG : MI, in the absence of any evidence of the contrary. Are N/S correct on point 3 ?? AG : it is harsh, but I imagine the organizing body might decide so. The first thing the TD should demand is that EW fill in their CC with the right type of trial bid and stick to it. A second case would surely create a precedent. Best regards, Alain. From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Jan 20 15:02:03 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:02:03 GMT Subject: [blml] Trial Bids Message-ID: <3e2c0f6b.3929.0@esatclear.ie> Boy I'm glad I posted this - infact every time I post something my apparent "sound" knowledge gets wacked for 6. To answer a few queries by Ed and others ... [snip ] south took the actual double as clubs based on his hand and the information given) makes 3S reasonable opposite a S/D fit and a pd willing to go to 3S's almost on his own.. +++ N/S had no agreement on this sequence but South felt that a peno double by north in light of 4+ diamonds with West, 4 diamonds in his hand highly unlikely. He felt pd was indicating club values (no other way to show them at this stage) and a willingness to play in 3S's opposite a known poor pd. This was made quite clear to be souths opinon and not agreed. >>So in terms of suit length and expected hcp strength .. >>- A help trial is .... ?? >... any trial bid whose purpose is to get partner to answer positively if he holds strength in the suit. +++ A good definition and one which fits the West hand IMO. >>- A short suit trial is .... ?? > >... no more than a singleton unless specified otherwise in the explanation +++ didn't know that - I personally thought doubletons fell into this category - but all the replies agree to void or singleton ... something learned >>- A long suit trial is .... ?? > >... any trial bid which tells partner about your longest suit apart of the raised suit. +++ ahhh now that is a nice definition. So generally 4+ but could be 3 and never 2. I was of the opinion (like N/S) that it was 4+ and basically natural - once again I must revise my views. >As such, West's 3D was probably a help-suit trial bid. He could, however, have made it up while playing long-suit trials, but absent the backing of the CC, I'd decide against him. > >What would you rule ?? > >AG : MI, in the absence of any evidence of the contrary. > >Are N/S correct on point 3 ?? > >AG : it is harsh, but I imagine the organizing body might decide so. The first thing the TD should demand is that EW fill in their CC with the right type of trial bid and stick to it. A second case would surely create a precedent. +++ phew at least i dont have to change my view here. So this incident is a warning shot and noted. Another similar bid sets a precedence and E/W must now redefine their "trial bid explanations". Fair enough Oh and just for the record my previous post about the 7D bid ... I admit defeat :>> I couldn't find a single soul in my peers who wouldn't bid 7D ... more eye opening for me !! -- http://www.iol.ie From gester@lineone.net Mon Jan 20 15:27:10 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:27:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046297@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <002e01c2c098$8d71c280$80242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 12:26 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Trial Bids > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:cyaxares@lineone.net] > > +=+ If they had been influenced by the > English regulations a trial bid of three or > more cards would be 'natural', and not > alertable. ~ G ~ +=+ > _______________________________________________ > > > Grattan is referring to Orange Book 5.4.4(h): > "a long suit trial bid showing at least three cards > in the suit bid." > +=+ Robin, Your comment is incomplete. There is 5.4.1.(c) which requires an alert of "any short suit trial bid or any trial bid in a suit that may contain fewer than three cards". 5.3.1 (a) is also relevant. ~ G ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jan 20 15:36:11 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:36:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Canberra bushfires Message-ID: <200301201536.KAA05218@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Nancy T Dressing" > I am > concerned about Dany, who was an active member of this list but has not been > heard from with his dog list in a long, long time. Things have not been > good in his country either. (Does anyone know anything about him??) I heard from him on 2002 March 15. As of then he was fine but too busy for bridge. (He did not say what he was busy with.) I think we all wish for a time when the worst crisis in the world is how to apply L21. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 20 17:27:55 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:27:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids In-Reply-To: <002f01c2c05e$d6406b40$25b54351@noos.fr> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030120182343.01d2d140@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:35 20/01/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Now NS. My impression is they are rather unexperienced. In that context I >consider this a good lesson in their bridge education. When a trial gets >explained as long or help (you should always ask a clarification if it is >important for you), quite often the actual holding is three small or so (and >sometimes a good long suit). So there is no real infraction. AG : there is at least the infraction of entioning an agreement by its name, not by describing it. Okay, it won't be penalized very often. But when it creates confusion, you're responsible for it. >You simply >cannot assume that declarer bids his second suit in this situation, quite >often he decides to bid his third suit instead. That's bridge. In the end >the goal of a trial bid is to find the best contract, not to help opponents. AG : that's the goal of any declaration. However, there is a law that states that "your complete set of agreements must be at disposal of your opponents", including trial bids if you do use them. And this is an area that is most sensible to non-declared (implicit, conscious or not) agreements, which will make me doubly suspicious without any mention on the CC. Best regards, Alain. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jan 20 17:11:59 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:11:59 -0800 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids References: Message-ID: <000b01c2c0a7$0c3d2380$9201a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > >I've not seen a definition of "help suit game try" that > precise, but in my 5th edition "Encyclopedia of Bridge" that entry > refers me to "weak suit game try" which says, basically "a bid in > opener's weakest suit, as a game try". As to overall strength, > continuing with Klinger's approach, since a raise to 2 normally has 8-9 > losers, opener with a minimum (7 loser) hand would pass. With 5 losers > or fewer, he'd bid game, and with 6 losers (which equates roughly to > about 16-18 points) he'd make a trial bid. > Properly speaking, "help-suit game try" should indicate a broken suit of at least three cards, one that needs some filler help (e.g., KJxx). while a "weak-suit game try" is based on something like xxx. Since even the Encyclopedia is treating the two terms as synonymous now, they should not be used at all. A help-suit game try (my definition) is a natural bid, not Alertable. A weak-suit game try (my definition), while deemed "natural" by the ACBL, is Alertable IMO, and should be explained as "normally a very weak suit." Hereabouts some players have been Alerting a game try in a very weak suit with the explanation "Help-suit game try." Inexperienced players have no idea that they should *always* lead that suit. I go so far as to lead the jack from AJ9 or KJ9, hoping for Qxx in dummy and 10xx on my right. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 20 17:43:09 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:43:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] extraneous facts Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030120182758.00a6aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, We will all agree that the opponents are entitled to the knowledge of your system. I'm wondering whether they are entitled to knowledge of your reasons for bidding or playing in a particular way. Here is what happened in a Belgian T4 match. S W N E E/W vulnerable 1S 2C p 3NT The equipment used was a bit cumbersome, and the board was placed askew on the tray. West, whose competitive style is very dependent on vulnerability (as specified on his CC), thought the vulnerability was at green, and choose to overcall on half a suit and a prayer. East had seen the right vulnerability, and jumped to 3NT in all confidence. They escaped undoubled because South is a notorious weak opener (*he* was at green, remember), and North didn't suspect what was going on. Still 300 to N/S. East could not resist the temptation to comment on West's temerity. The exchange was approximately this : E - I still can't understand your vulnerable overcalls W - I'm not the only culprit : add an Ace to my hand and 3NT is stil hopeless E - well, even an Ace more makes it a dubious "red" overcall [which is right] W - OK Apparently, West accepted part of the blame for bidding badly. But he knew very well what happened, once East made his first remark. He thus in some way lied about his motives. It transpired later that he did it on purpose, because he thought that "it will be better for us if the opponents think I'm crazy than if they realize I'm a flying-cow-gazer". He also pretends that the ensuing deals prove him right. Would you accuse West of bad gamesmanship ? And what if E/W's antics reappear in a similar situation in the future ? (E/W are not a very old partnership) Best regards, Alain. From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jan 20 17:42:36 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:42:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] The round from hell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030120123258.01efde70@mail.comcast.net> At 04:19 AM 1/14/2003, Gordon Bower wrote: >It's not often you get two ugly rulings back to back at the same table, >but it happened to me tonight in an online game. North and South are >Polish club level players, with some moderate experience playing against >foreign pairs online. East and West are US near-experts (who rarely play >against anything other than SA or 2/1). I will refrain from describing the >strong personalities involved. > .----------------------------------------------------. > |Dealer: E ===North======== Brd# 20338 | > |Vulnerable: NS S: 4 | > |Contract: 7NT Rdbl H: JT764 | > |Result: Made 7 D: 2 | > |Score: -2280 C: KQJ432 | > |===West========= ===East========= | > |S: AK96532 | | S: QJ87 | > |H: 85 | | H: A32 | > |D: AQ | | D: KJ75 | > |C: AT .----------. C: 76 | > | | > | ===South======== | > | S: T | > | H: KQ9 | > | D: T98643 | > | C: 985 | > .----------------------------------------------------. > >BIDDING: > >West North East South > Pass Pass >2C Pass 2D Pass >2S Pass 3S Pass >4C Dbl Pass Pass >4D Pass 4H Dbl >Pass Pass 5D Pass >6D Pass 7NT Pass >Pass Dbl Rdbl Pass >Pass Pass > >There is a trick 1 claim... and this time it's North who wants a director. >"2C wasn't alerted! He doesn't have 11-15 and a club suit!" Now, he may >actually ahve a point: if his side had been able to preempt in clubs, >they'd cut out EW's exploration room, and at best they would settle for >the obvious six spades. And yes, under the site rules "any conventional >bid", among other things, is alertable, so technically West did commit an >infraction. > >At the table I wound up letting the second score stand, on the basis that >in even just a month or two of online play, North is bound to have >discovered that everyone outside Poland uses 2C strong and artifical. If >North had been brand new I may well have adjusted. I think this is the correct ruling. Experienced players are expected to protect themselves in situations with which they should be familiar; in particular, they should know the basics of the opponents' system. I don't know whether there is a specific rule to this effect. North could even be taking a double shot here, if he should have known that he should ask about 2C. If he wants to bid 4C over 2C, he can find out, bid it, and risk going for 800. From elandau@starpower.net Mon Jan 20 18:55:30 2003 From: elandau@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:55:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120134929.00a95930@pop.starpower.net> I have long been in the habit, when I am dummy and declarer tells me to "play anything", of always choosing the lowest-ranked card in the dummy, breaking ties by suit order. By doing this automatically I assure myself that my choice can not be influenced by anything I might have noticed about the earlier play, even subconsciously. Might that be worth considering as a replacement for L46B5? It would certainly avoid the problem we are currently discussing. Eric Landau elandau@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jan 20 19:32:04 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:32:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120134929.00a95930@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004801c2c0ba$a09ba480$9201a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > I have long been in the habit, when I am dummy and declarer tells me to > "play anything", of always choosing the lowest-ranked card in the > dummy, breaking ties by suit order. By doing this automatically I > assure myself that my choice can not be influenced by anything I might > have noticed about the earlier play, even subconsciously. > > Might that be worth considering as a replacement for L46B5? It would > certainly avoid the problem we are currently discussing. > I insist that partner name a card, as L41D and L45B (which clarifies L42A3) require. Note that L46B5 says that either defender may designate the card to be played when declarer says "play anything," but it does not say that dummy may make that selection. "What is not permitted is not allowed." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jan 20 19:35:39 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:35:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120141554.00aa6d20@pop.starpower.net> At 03:17 AM 1/20/03, Karel wrote: >Teams dealer west Vul all > > North > S AKJxx > H x > D AJxx > C QTx >West East >S QT S xxx >H AQxx H KJTxx >D QTx D xx >C AKJx South C xxx > S 9xx > H Txx > D K98x > C 9xx > >Bidding >W N E S >1H 1S 2H P >3D(1) X 3H P >P P > >(1) is altered as a long suit trial. > >Result 3H +1 > >N/S at the end of the hand call the TD. They claim they were misinformed. >They thought a long suit trial was a suit of at least 4 (normally 5) cards >which can be used for discards. This didn't fit West's hand. They were wrong, and have no case, unless they inquired and were told by E-W that they play "long suit trials" as showing at least four cards. >(1) They misdefended the contract as a result of the MI. North switched a >club into the assumed West shortage. > >(2) In the bidding had they been informed properly South said he would >have >bid 3S as now north's double showing diamonds (south took the actual >double >as clubs based on his hand and the information given) makes 3S reasonable >opposite a S/D fit and a pd willing to go to 3S's almost on his own.. > >(3) Regardless of the appeal ruling - N/S now felt that E/W had set a >precedence and should not be allowed to alert similar auctions as long >suit >trials. Perhaps East should have been warned to explain his side-suit game tries a bit more thoroughly than just "long suit trial" in the future, but at least where I play that would be considered overly picky. N-S are not justified in assuming that everybody's long suit trials look just like theirs, and if they wanted to know exactly how many diamonds West showed, they could have asked. But even if they had done so, and West had replied "four, normally five", he is still entitled to bid on a three-card suit if his judgment tells him it's the best bid, and the TD/AC would need only to establish that he was not in the habit of doing so often enough for East to expect that he might have been doing so this time in order to dismiss N-S contention out of hand. >E/W had no CC to back up their claims. The commitee concensus was - E/W >were uncertain as to their agreement. What claims? N-S claimed that 3D was a "long suit trial", and it was. It was *N-S* who claimed that a long suit trial should show 4-5 cards. There's a difference between "uncertain as to their agreement" and "don't have the same understanding about their agreement as their opponents do". >So in terms of suit length and expected hcp strength .. Game tries are not precisely defined in terms of suit length or expected HCP strength. >- A help trial is .... ?? A suit with fast losers; partner accepts if he can cover them with high cards or shortness. >- A short suit trial is .... ?? A short suit (singleton or void); partner accepts with no wasted values opposite the shortness. >- A long suit trial is .... ?? A suit with secondary strength; partner accepts with fitting cards, and declines with shortness (expecting wasted values opposite). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From adam@irvine.com Mon Jan 20 20:02:27 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:02:27 -0800 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:35:39 EST." <5.2.0.9.0.20030120141554.00aa6d20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200301202002.MAA12715@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > At 03:17 AM 1/20/03, Karel wrote: > > >Teams dealer west Vul all > > > > North > > S AKJxx > > H x > > D AJxx > > C QTx > >West East > >S QT S xxx > >H AQxx H KJTxx > >D QTx D xx > >C AKJx South C xxx > > S 9xx > > H Txx > > D K98x > > C 9xx > > > >Bidding > >W N E S > >1H 1S 2H P > >3D(1) X 3H P > >P P > > > >(1) is altered as a long suit trial. > > > >Result 3H +1 > > > >N/S at the end of the hand call the TD. They claim they were misinformed. > >They thought a long suit trial was a suit of at least 4 (normally 5) cards > >which can be used for discards. This didn't fit West's hand. > > They were wrong, and have no case, unless they inquired and were told > by E-W that they play "long suit trials" as showing at least four cards. I'm not sure I agree. Historically, before more sophisticated methods became popular, a second suit bid after a raise showed that suit. To do it on a three-card suit would be quite unusual, if my understanding is correct. So I think it's understandable that N-S might have misinterpreted E-W's explanation. It may be true that the term "long suit trial" is now normally used to mean a 3+ card suit, and it may be true that a WBF publication or the Orange Book defines it as such (for whatever purpose they define the term), but I don't think that's relevant. The key point, to me, is that when a player is asked for an explanation of a call made by his side, it's that player's responsibility to offer an explanation that the other side will understand. The burden is on the explainer to use terminology that can't reasonably be misinterpreted---not on the asker to keep up with all the new jargon that keeps getting added to the bridge lexicon. The ACBL specifically says that answering a question with the "name" of a convention is wrong. Perhaps "long suit trial" is in a gray area between a convention "name" and an explanation. But to me it seems more like a convention "name" than an accurate description of the call, since it's really a jargon term. -- Adam > > >(1) They misdefended the contract as a result of the MI. North switched a > >club into the assumed West shortage. > > > >(2) In the bidding had they been informed properly South said he would > >have > >bid 3S as now north's double showing diamonds (south took the actual > >double > >as clubs based on his hand and the information given) makes 3S reasonable > >opposite a S/D fit and a pd willing to go to 3S's almost on his own.. > > > >(3) Regardless of the appeal ruling - N/S now felt that E/W had set a > >precedence and should not be allowed to alert similar auctions as long > >suit > >trials. > > Perhaps East should have been warned to explain his side-suit game > tries a bit more thoroughly than just "long suit trial" in the future, > but at least where I play that would be considered overly picky. N-S > are not justified in assuming that everybody's long suit trials look > just like theirs, and if they wanted to know exactly how many diamonds > West showed, they could have asked. > > But even if they had done so, and West had replied "four, normally > five", he is still entitled to bid on a three-card suit if his judgment > tells him it's the best bid, and the TD/AC would need only to establish > that he was not in the habit of doing so often enough for East to > expect that he might have been doing so this time in order to dismiss > N-S contention out of hand. > > >E/W had no CC to back up their claims. The commitee concensus was - E/W > >were uncertain as to their agreement. > > What claims? N-S claimed that 3D was a "long suit trial", and it > was. It was *N-S* who claimed that a long suit trial should show 4-5 > cards. There's a difference between "uncertain as to their agreement" > and "don't have the same understanding about their agreement as their > opponents do". > > >So in terms of suit length and expected hcp strength .. > > Game tries are not precisely defined in terms of suit length or > expected HCP strength. > > >- A help trial is .... ?? > > A suit with fast losers; partner accepts if he can cover them with high > cards or shortness. > > >- A short suit trial is .... ?? > > A short suit (singleton or void); partner accepts with no wasted values > opposite the shortness. > > >- A long suit trial is .... ?? > > A suit with secondary strength; partner accepts with fitting cards, and > declines with shortness (expecting wasted values opposite). > > > 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 jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Mon Jan 20 20:47:05 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:47:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids References: <000b01c2c0a7$0c3d2380$9201a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004201c2c0c5$2026cfe0$25b54351@noos.fr> Marvin: > Hereabouts some players have been Alerting a game try in a very weak suit > with the explanation "Help-suit game try." Inexperienced players have no > idea that they should *always* lead that suit. I go so far as to lead the > jack from AJ9 or KJ9, hoping for Qxx in dummy and 10xx on my right. > The moment you say that opps should 'always' lead a help-suit trial you are completely right and wrong at the same time. You are right in theory but 'wrong' in real life. People don't like to tell opps what to lead so for this reason alone people tend to vary their trial bids. So once again, the difference between help-suit, weak-suit and long-suit is rubish in real life. Any non-short trial is looking for some values in that suit (by the way most trials get accepted or refused regardless of the holding in the bid suit) and it is anybody's guess if the declarer to be is bidding a suit he wants or doesn't want to be lead. Get real boys. The only real problem in this type of situation is that some players are not really honest. Like always explaining long-suit when playing with a partner who 'always' bids his weakest suit. Of course long-suit will be on the CC etc. but what you really need to know is their habits. Jaap van der Neut > Marv > Marvin L. French ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Trial Bids > > From: "Ed Reppert" > > > >I've not seen a definition of "help suit game try" that > > precise, but in my 5th edition "Encyclopedia of Bridge" that entry > > refers me to "weak suit game try" which says, basically "a bid in > > opener's weakest suit, as a game try". As to overall strength, > > continuing with Klinger's approach, since a raise to 2 normally has 8-9 > > losers, opener with a minimum (7 loser) hand would pass. With 5 losers > > or fewer, he'd bid game, and with 6 losers (which equates roughly to > > about 16-18 points) he'd make a trial bid. > > > Properly speaking, "help-suit game try" should indicate a broken suit of at > least three cards, one that needs some filler help (e.g., KJxx). while a > "weak-suit game try" is based on something like xxx. > > Since even the Encyclopedia is treating the two terms as synonymous now, > they should not be used at all. A help-suit game try (my definition) is a > natural bid, not Alertable. A weak-suit game try (my definition), while > deemed "natural" by the ACBL, is Alertable IMO, and should be explained as > "normally a very weak suit." > > Hereabouts some players have been Alerting a game try in a very weak suit > with the explanation "Help-suit game try." Inexperienced players have no > idea that they should *always* lead that suit. I go so far as to lead the > jack from AJ9 or KJ9, hoping for Qxx in dummy and 10xx on my right. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jan 20 22:29:10 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:29:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120134929.00a95930@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <006801c2c0d3$771b8580$9225e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 6:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > I have long been in the habit, when I am dummy and declarer tells > me to "play anything", of always choosing the lowest-ranked card > in the dummy, breaking ties by suit order. By doing this > automatically I assure myself that my choice can not be > influenced by anything I might have noticed about the earlier > play, even subconsciously. > > Might that be worth considering as a replacement for L46B5? > It would certainly avoid the problem we are currently > discussing. > +=+ Well, if we were to adopt some such rule, would it not be safer to go for the highest by rank, and by suit order if a tie? Actually, I suggest you adopt the change yourself, tilting the selection to opponents' possible advantage rather than your own? (If TDs allow you to do this). ~ G ~ +=+ From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Tue Jan 21 07:10:59 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:10:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120134929.00a95930@pop.starpower.net> <006801c2c0d3$771b8580$9225e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000d01c2c11c$40e093e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Eric: 'any card ---> lowest with some tie break' Grattan: 'any card ---> highest with some tie break' According to me you are introducing complications for solving a non-problem (I am sure I can come up with an example where the middle card works best). IMHO it is much simpler to treat 'any card' as a (serious) infraction if it actually matters what dummy plays. Just apply 72B/74 or maybe a new better article which basically should say that whatever (possible) gain from this type of infraction should be 'compensated'. Jaap van der neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "How prone to doubt, how cautious > are the wise." {Alexander Pope} > ============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 6:55 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > > > > I have long been in the habit, when I am dummy and declarer tells > > me to "play anything", of always choosing the lowest-ranked card > > in the dummy, breaking ties by suit order. By doing this > > automatically I assure myself that my choice can not be > > influenced by anything I might have noticed about the earlier > > play, even subconsciously. > > > > Might that be worth considering as a replacement for L46B5? > > It would certainly avoid the problem we are currently > > discussing. > > > +=+ Well, if we were to adopt some such rule, would > it not be safer to go for the highest by rank, and by > suit order if a tie? Actually, I suggest you adopt the > change yourself, tilting the selection to opponents' > possible advantage rather than your own? (If TDs > allow you to do this). > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Jan 21 07:33:50 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 07:33:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120134929.00a95930@pop.starpower.net> <006801c2c0d3$771b8580$9225e150@endicott> <000d01c2c11c$40e093e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001f01c2c120$4b36ec00$3e36e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > Eric: > 'any card ---> lowest with some tie break' > > Grattan: > 'any card ---> highest with some tie break' > > According to me you are introducing complications > for solving a non-problem (I am sure I can come up > with an example where the middle card works best). > IMHO it is much simpler to treat 'any card' as a > (serious) infraction if it actually matters what dummy > plays. Just apply 72B/74 or maybe a new better > article which basically should say that whatever > (possible) gain from this type of infraction should >be 'compensated'. > > Jaap van der neut > +=+ I did not say, of course, that I had been *persuaded* by the suggestion. +=+ From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Tue Jan 21 07:39:10 2003 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:39:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030120182343.01d2d140@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002a01c2c120$7381dd00$25b54351@noos.fr> Alain, You simply don't get it. I am much more suspicious if it is on the CC and this kind of things happen (often). Wonderful, the CC says long suit (or help suit or whatever). Now this is a situation where it is almost zero risk to fool around a little. Everybody knows that, everybody does it. What you need to know is the habits of the bidder (does he stick to his system often, sometimes, almost never; Zia is more creative than Hamman for example). That is much more important info than whatever is the official agreement which will be on the CC. Of course when you can establish EW have a system mix-up (they play systematically different trials) than it is another discussion. NB 1. I think most players don't even understand or care for the difference between the various non-short trials. NB 2. Although I agree that dropping names instead of a description is not sufficient (in most cases), I do think that long-suit-trial is a description as much as a name. And somebody asking for an explanation has a mouth and can use it if he doesn't understand the first answer or wants to know more. God forbid that when I ask a simple question (and in the case of an alerted trial bid any normal player just wants to know whether it might be short or related to another suit) opponents are obliged to give me a US sue proof answer. It will take forever and then a little bit longer. But I agree that the balance between complete info and being concise can be tricky. Withholding 'hidden' info an opponent is looking for, is something completely different. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Trial Bids > At 09:35 20/01/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > > > >Now NS. My impression is they are rather unexperienced. In that context I > >consider this a good lesson in their bridge education. When a trial gets > >explained as long or help (you should always ask a clarification if it is > >important for you), quite often the actual holding is three small or so (and > >sometimes a good long suit). So there is no real infraction. > > AG : there is at least the infraction of entioning an agreement by its > name, not by describing it. Okay, it won't be penalized very often. But > when it creates confusion, you're responsible for it. > > > >You simply > >cannot assume that declarer bids his second suit in this situation, quite > >often he decides to bid his third suit instead. That's bridge. In the end > >the goal of a trial bid is to find the best contract, not to help opponents. > > AG : that's the goal of any declaration. However, there is a law that > states that "your complete set of agreements must be at disposal of your > opponents", including trial bids if you do use them. And this is an area > that is most sensible to non-declared (implicit, conscious or not) > agreements, which will make me doubly suspicious without any mention on the > CC. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Tue Jan 21 07:51:54 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:51:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120134929.00a95930@pop.starpower.net> <006801c2c0d3$771b8580$9225e150@endicott> <000d01c2c11c$40e093e0$25b54351@noos.fr> <001f01c2c120$4b36ec00$3e36e150@endicott> Message-ID: <004901c2c121$f85692e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Grattan, I guess I have to read your wording more carefully. By the way, part of this thread was about what happened. How do we continue if declarer says 'any' and defenders don't react (46B5). As soon as dummy picks one does 45F apply? Is declarer allowed to pick one after all? Or has the TD when called to force defenders to make a choice (but 46B5 says 'may' and not 'must'). Funny to play games like this but for practical purposes I do like my own 72B (or whatever blunt axe) solution better. He who creates this kind of mess has to foot the bill. By the way I still owe you a mail about claiming. Jaap van dar Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "How prone to doubt, how cautious > are the wise." {Alexander Pope} > ============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Grattan Endicott" ; > "bridge laws mailing list" > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:10 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > > > > Eric: > > 'any card ---> lowest with some tie break' > > > > Grattan: > > 'any card ---> highest with some tie break' > > > > According to me you are introducing complications > > for solving a non-problem (I am sure I can come up > > with an example where the middle card works best). > > IMHO it is much simpler to treat 'any card' as a > > (serious) infraction if it actually matters what dummy > > plays. Just apply 72B/74 or maybe a new better > > article which basically should say that whatever > > (possible) gain from this type of infraction should > >be 'compensated'. > > > > Jaap van der neut > > > +=+ I did not say, of course, that I had been > *persuaded* by the suggestion. +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Tue Jan 21 22:21:54 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:21:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120134929.00a95930@pop.starpower.net> <004801c2c0ba$a09ba480$9201a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00c001c2c19e$b257fea0$e0053dd4@b0e7g1> It is a non-problem: If a change of Law46B5 is required do not allow declarer to say "play anything", because HE has to fulfil Law 45B. Ben From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Jan 21 10:46:59 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:46:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation Message-ID: > > > > Eric: > > 'any card ---> lowest with some tie break' > > > > Grattan: > > 'any card ---> highest with some tie break' > > > > According to me you are introducing complications > > for solving a non-problem (I am sure I can come up > > with an example where the middle card works best). > > IMHO it is much simpler to treat 'any card' as a > > (serious) infraction if it actually matters what dummy > > plays. Just apply 72B/74 or maybe a new better > > article which basically should say that whatever > > (possible) gain from this type of infraction should > >be 'compensated'. > > > > Jaap van der neut > > > +=+ I did not say, of course, that I had been > *persuaded* by the suggestion. +=+ I had an uproar from quite some TD's in the European TD course long time ago (10 years or so) when they had to answer the following case in their exam: Declarer played 4S and had won 8 tricks. With still one trump in hand he played a small club towards dummy with KJ6 of clubs, LHO adding the 9. After thinking for more than a minute he said: 'I really don't know, play one'. (no clubs played before, declarer had another one and defenders had AQ109 between them) Defenders called the TD. What should he do? Those protesting TD's had been happy to find L46B5 after which they decided that defenders werwe allowed to decide that the club 6 had to be played, contract one off. The answer was that it was obvious that declarer meant to say that he did not know which one to play from KJ trying to find the tenth trick (using the sentence between brackets in the heading of L46B). Therefore the decision should be that defenders now had the choice to let him play the J or the K but certainly not the 6. To make the result different from that by using the wrong answer we had given LHO AQ9 of course. ton From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Jan 21 12:51:29 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:51:29 GMT Subject: [blml] Trial Bids Message-ID: <3e2d4251.6bba.0@esatclear.ie> [Snip ... ] I do think that long-suit-trial is a description as much as a name. And somebody asking for an explanation has a mouth and can use it if he doesn't understand the first answer or wants to know more. God forbid that when I ask a simple question (and in the case of an alerted trial bid any normal player just wants to know whether it might be short or related to another suit) opponents are obliged to give me a US sue proof answer. It will take forever and then a little bit longer. But I agree that the balance between complete info and being concise can be tricky. Withholding 'hidden' info an opponent is looking for, is something completely different. +++ sry Jaap got to disagree on this point (agree on all your other points). Anyway we've been over this before - the ole how much to explain on an alert in the name of keeping the game going at a reasonable speed and not having to hear the opps lasts months bidding habits ... BUT ... (1) Naming a convention as an alert is not sufficient and in many cases misleading. "LONG" suit trial in itself suggests 4+ cards. I consider myself a reasonable player and my definition until yesterday of a long suit trial was 4+ cards goodish suit. So unless there is a universal meaning for a conventionally named bid which every LOL on the planet knows then alerting a bid via its conventional name is misleading as the opps view and yours as to the meaning of that bid can and normally do vary, sometimes dramatically. I know we've been over this ad nausema - but this includes stayman :>> (2) I have no problem with people messing around in the bidding (eg) 3D as a long suit trial on the given hand. Fair enough - it puts the opps off and is perfectly legal. On the given hand it worked a treat. I do however insist that each such deviation get recorded and that subsequent similar occurences now constitute an understanding which must be reflected in their alert. Now this is all great in theory ... but in my experience, competitions I've played in, international, national or local dont record this sort of information. As a result there is no history built up and a pair keeps abusing an alert procedure. I can point to several pairs who regularly get away with this practice. Theorectically - continuous abuse of an alert and as a result continuous reformulating of an alert will lead to a meaningless alert and should lead to a meaningless convention. In practice, I've never seen it happen. In my experience this sort of alert abuse is common, extremely hard to control and is generally never stopped. My own amateur opinion on this case is that IF E/W could point to a CC with LS trials AND this was a 1st/2nd occurence of such a bid then I let it stand - tough on N/S. It also gets recorded and E/W will be informed they must alert more fully from now on. IF this is not the 1st/2nd time this has happened I rule against E/W and adjust the score to 3S+1. I may even penalise them for alert abuse or even disallow them that convention depending on the their history. With NO history and/or No CC as was the case - I'm afraid my ruling would be purely arbitary based on what side of the bed I got up from. I would like to think I would be objective and like Alain rule against E/W as N/S were certainly damaged but who knows ... in any case a very unsatisfactory resolution that i'm sure would be globally inconsistent. Karel -- http://www.iol.ie From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jan 21 13:14:32 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:14:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation In-Reply-To: <006801c2c0d3$771b8580$9225e150@endicott> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120134929.00a95930@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030121075747.00a9aec0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:29 PM 1/20/03, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > I have long been in the habit, when I am dummy and declarer tells > > me to "play anything", of always choosing the lowest-ranked card > > in the dummy, breaking ties by suit order. By doing this > > automatically I assure myself that my choice can not be > > influenced by anything I might have noticed about the earlier > > play, even subconsciously. > > > > Might that be worth considering as a replacement for L46B5? > > It would certainly avoid the problem we are currently > > discussing. > >+=+ Well, if we were to adopt some such rule, would >it not be safer to go for the highest by rank, and by >suit order if a tie? Actually, I suggest you adopt the >change yourself, tilting the selection to opponents' >possible advantage rather than your own? (If TDs >allow you to do this). I like it. I "invented" my procedure by analogizing to L46B2: if declarer calls for "a spade" the law requires me to play the lowest spade in dummy, so I figured if declarer calls for "a card" I should play the lowest card in dummy. I think I shall try out Grattan's suggestion, although I'm a bit concerned that my doing so might, in some circumstances, look so odd as to raise a concern on the part of my opponents that I really am reacting to something I know about the deal. But if the law was to prescribe this play, that wouldn't be a concern. I suspect that there would be some problems in transition, but they would be easily solved by seeing that directors were reasonably liberal in their interpretation of the parenthetical in L46B, i.e. when I pulled dummy's only ace and declarer immediately blurted out, "No, no, not that one!" we would automatically rule that his "different intention is incontrovertable". I confess that (a) it is very common around here to call for "anything" ("play a grape"), and I have been known to do it myself, and (b) I have never inquired of a TD as to whether my personal algorithm is acceptable. It does sometimes happen that an opponent will direct me to play a different card, but surprisingly rarely. 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 Jan 21 13:29:10 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:29:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation In-Reply-To: <001f01c2c120$4b36ec00$3e36e150@endicott> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120134929.00a95930@pop.starpower.net> <006801c2c0d3$771b8580$9225e150@endicott> <000d01c2c11c$40e093e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030121081643.00ab2c80@pop.starpower.net> At 02:33 AM 1/21/03, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > > Eric: > > 'any card ---> lowest with some tie break' > > > > Grattan: > > 'any card ---> highest with some tie break' > > > > According to me you are introducing complications > > for solving a non-problem (I am sure I can come up > > with an example where the middle card works best). > > IMHO it is much simpler to treat 'any card' as a > > (serious) infraction if it actually matters what dummy > > plays. Just apply 72B/74 or maybe a new better > > article which basically should say that whatever > > (possible) gain from this type of infraction should > >be 'compensated'. > > > > Jaap van der neut > >+=+ I did not say, of course, that I had been >*persuaded* by the suggestion. +=+ Nor am I. I was merely describing my own personal mechanical rule for choosing a card when I'm dummy and it comes up, and thought I'd put out the idea of using it (or some other mechanical rule) as the basis for a replacement for L46B5. But the point of doing so would be to simplify rulings in such situations in an attempt to eliminate problematic cases; I would oppose a change based on reference to L72B, which would have the opposite effect. I suppose this means that I should find myself sympathetic to those who have argued, in the actual case, that opponents who do not exercise their option under (the current) L46B5 have no further recourse. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Tue Jan 21 14:24:37 2003 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:24:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids In-Reply-To: Karel's message of Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:51:29 GMT Message-ID: [Jaap van der Neut] [edited to cut down line length for quoting, *sigh*] : NB 1. I think most players don't even understand or care for the : difference between the various non-short trials. : : NB 2. Although I agree that dropping names instead of a description : is not sufficient (in most cases), I do think that long-suit-trial : is a description as much as a name. And somebody asking for an : explanation has a mouth and can use it if he doesn't understand the : first answer or wants to know more. God forbid that when I ask a : simple question (and in the case of an alerted trial bid any normal : player just wants to know whether it might be short or related to : another suit) opponents are obliged to give me a US sue proof : answer. It will take forever and then a little bit longer. But I : agree that the balance between complete info and being concise can : be tricky. Withholding 'hidden' info an opponent is looking for, : is something completely different. I'm with Karel in his reply to this. If someone names a convention and then confusion arises because of different interpretations of how that convention is played, the explainer is at fault. I know the arguments against this but I'd like to make a more general point. I wish we'd all (players mostly) follow correct procedure whether as laid out in the Laws or Conditions of Contest or by Zonal/National Authorities where appropriate. Explain agreements as fully as time constraints allow (this *isn't* all that slow and practice will make it quicker). Use the correct procedure for alerting. Despite my constant pleas as NPC, most of my European Championship players (and most countries are the same) continue to alert in lazy ways that (a) cause problems and (b) will count against them with TDs and Appeal Committees. Follow the stop bid procedure where it is in force. Wait until three passes before assuming the auction is over. And so on... It has been my experience that attempts by players to "save time" only end up wasting time when problems arise as a result. And it worries me that the overall effect of all this is that players give the appearance of not caring about the Laws of the game. [Karel] > (2) I have no problem with people messing around in the bidding (eg) 3D as > a long suit trial on the given hand. Fair enough - it puts the opps off and > is perfectly legal. On the given hand it worked a treat. I do however insist > that each such deviation get recorded and that subsequent similar occurences > now constitute an understanding which must be reflected in their alert. Just a minor point but when choosing any of the common flavours of non-short-suit trial bid, I'd make one with Q10x ahead of AKJx in a side suit every time. It isn't "messing about" to do so. AKJx will be useful opposite any holding, even the dreaded xxx. Whereas Q10x needs high cards (or possibly shortage) opposite to be any good. Of course, that needs to be mentioned in any explanation when you are asked and I'd probably alert under any jurisdiction because so many opponents won't realize it. But it doesn't take much time to say something like: may chose a three (or even 2 card suit) where fitting honours will be useful (if that is the agreement). --- Considering the number of wheels that Microsoft has found reason to invent, one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even vaguely resembles a circle. -- anon From gester@lineone.net Tue Jan 21 12:20:29 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:20:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120134929.00a95930@pop.starpower.net> <006801c2c0d3$771b8580$9225e150@endicott> <000d01c2c11c$40e093e0$25b54351@noos.fr> <001f01c2c120$4b36ec00$3e36e150@endicott> <004901c2c121$f85692e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001701c2c15e$8ec42120$30242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > Grattan, > > I guess I have to read your wording more carefully. > > By the way, part of this thread was about what > happened. How do we continue if declarer says > 'any' and defenders don't react (46B5). As soon > as dummy picks one does 45F apply? Is declarer > allowed to pick one after all? Or has the TD when > called to force defenders to make a choice (but > 46B5 says 'may' and not 'must'). > +=+ No - the TD has no power to require defender to choose. He does have power to enforce Law 46A. I think also that if defender chooses, the reason that underlies his choice is UI for declarer. ~ G ~ +=+ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Jan 21 23:33:14 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:33:14 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120134929.00a95930@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Eric Landau wrote: > I have long been in the habit, when I am dummy and declarer tells me to > "play anything", of always choosing the lowest-ranked card in the > dummy, breaking ties by suit order. By doing this automatically I > assure myself that my choice can not be influenced by anything I might > have noticed about the earlier play, even subconsciously. My partner and I discussed this a couple years back, and formed a partnership agreement that, when told to play anything, we always played the highest card remaining in dummy. (The idea being to deliberately spoil our own chances for bonus tricks from an endplay, if we were wrong about dummy's cards being irrelevant.) Curiously, your message made me realize we have no set way to break ties between cards of equal rank. Suit rank seems obvious. I think what I've been doing is longest suit first (and whatever's handy if that's a tie too) but I really can't recall! As far as Law changes, if we change from the current "either defender may designate" (a right which virtually no non-director even knows exists -- most players *laugh* at me, and don't reach for the card I name, when I do designate one as a defender; then I have to call the director to explain to them that yes, defenders can tell them what to play if they don't say) I'd like it to say, vaguely revoke-like, that if declarer wins a trick with a card that he could have legally played to a "play anything" trick, it is taken from him. That would save us the bother of defenders having to designate. GRB From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Jan 22 00:33:43 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:33:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: Message-ID: <019401c2c1ad$eb23f360$8b1827d9@pbncomputer> Gordon wrote: > My partner and I discussed this a couple years back, and formed a > partnership agreement that, when told to play anything, we always played > the highest card remaining in dummy. (The idea being to deliberately spoil > our own chances for bonus tricks from an endplay, if we were wrong about > dummy's cards being irrelevant.) Players have long had a habit of doing... well, almost anything. The trouble is that any attempt to outlaw those "habits" meets with a degree of resistance that, from a rational standpoint, is quite incredible, but illustrates well the dictum of Michael Flanders that "you can't change human nature". It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that Americans are still permitted to ask each other "No spades, partner?" It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that any attempt to replace the current mish-mash with mechanical rules that can be fairly and consistently applied by officials at any level to players at any level is doomed to failure. Suppose one were to have a rule that declarer must, in requesting a card from dummy, name the suit and the rank (the rank alone would suffice unless dummy could not follow to the suit led). If he did not, either defender could choose the card to be played. Now, this would be a perfectly fair, practical, and sensible rule, whereas the current rule is unfair, impractical, and lunatic. This nonsensical thread would never have occurred had the simple rule existed since 1926, and the game of bridge would be very much the better thereby. Apart from anything else, Ton Kooijman would not have to go around bamboozling European directors by referring them to some bit in brackets half a mile away when they had found something that appeared to address the current question. Yet the simple rule will never exist, because we are now in the habit of saying "small, please", and no one is going to tell us that we can't. It's not that I mind so much. After all, I am very old. But from time to time, I wonder whether I might not be failing in some duty to make the game an easier one for the people that I hope will still be playing it a hundred - nay, a thousand - years from now. David Burn London, England From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Wed Jan 22 01:29:40 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:29:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030121202651.02b757e0@mail.fscv.net> >... Q10x needs high cards (or possibly shortage) opposite to be any good. >Of course, that needs to be mentioned in any explanation when you are >asked and I'd probably alert under any jurisdiction because so many >opponents won't realize it. But it doesn't take much time to say >something like: may chose a three (or even 2 card suit) where fitting >honours will be useful (if that is the agreement). What is the current requirement in the ACBL? Is a help suit game try still alertable? Walt From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Wed Jan 22 07:12:50 2003 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:12:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030120182343.01d2d140@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001b01c2c1e5$adc781c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Alain, I do think that we basically agree on everything. It is just that I tend to look at this kind of cases from a players point of view. And then the CC is completely irrelevant because what you need to know (opps habits) cannot be found there. That said I do realize that there is quite a problem at the intermediate level where people start playing all kind of 'conventions'. Unfortunately they don't yet know how to ask questions and how to answer them. IMHO the correct explanation (barring some very uncommon partnerships habits) of this kind of trials is just 'non-short' or 'looking for stuff in that suit' or why not the 90% of the time correct answer 'no (special) agreement'. People all the time answer what they think it is or should be rather than the partnership agreement. Of course the real/next question is about habits but then you at their honesty's mercy because whatever they answer it cannot be checked for all practical purposes. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Trial Bids > At 09:35 20/01/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > > > >Now NS. My impression is they are rather unexperienced. In that context I > >consider this a good lesson in their bridge education. When a trial gets > >explained as long or help (you should always ask a clarification if it is > >important for you), quite often the actual holding is three small or so (and > >sometimes a good long suit). So there is no real infraction. > > AG : there is at least the infraction of entioning an agreement by its > name, not by describing it. Okay, it won't be penalized very often. But > when it creates confusion, you're responsible for it. > > > >You simply > >cannot assume that declarer bids his second suit in this situation, quite > >often he decides to bid his third suit instead. That's bridge. In the end > >the goal of a trial bid is to find the best contract, not to help opponents. > > AG : that's the goal of any declaration. However, there is a law that > states that "your complete set of agreements must be at disposal of your > opponents", including trial bids if you do use them. And this is an area > that is most sensible to non-declared (implicit, conscious or not) > agreements, which will make me doubly suspicious without any mention on the > CC. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Jan 22 07:41:58 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:41:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030120182343.01d2d140@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001b01c2c1e5$adc781c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <004301c2c1eb$7b0fbee0$5554e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" ; "Alain Gottcheiner" Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 7:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Trial Bids > I do think that we basically agree on everything. It is > just that I tend to look at this kind of cases from a > players point of view. > +=+ A curious feature of this list is that we tend to refer to other contributors as though they were not players. Actually I think it is the one thing we all have in common. It just suits us to identify the differences; some part of each of us views each subject as a player, some part of many of us also views each subject with the eye of a director and/or legislator or administrator, appeal committee member, even journalist. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Jan 22 07:51:02 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:51:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: <004401c2c1eb$7c45a6d0$5554e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <008901c2c1fb$40bd8730$70d8fea9@WINXP> Henk's information here explains what is happening. Now it is clear to me that I, like many others from time to time is subject to a "message held" situation, not because there is something wrong with my own posting or system but because I have inherited some dubious feature with the message I am commenting on. (Most recently with the message from Nancy). Questions and/or suggestions: Is it feasible when a "held" message is released to blml to have some warning automatically added that the message has been held due to some unhappy feature which most likely will cause another "message hold" situation if responded to? Even more advantageous would be some way of identifying which part of the "offending" message should be deleted in order to avoid "message held" propagation? I am not happy about asking Henk to spend his time identifying the problem in each case, it must be some automatic function in order to be feasible. regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Anne Jones" Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 8:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Polite > Anne, > > > What fun. > > I have just replied to Nancy's posting and got the following message from > > the moderator. > > ========== > > Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > > > > Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... > > > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > > > The reason it is being held: > > > > Message has a suspicious header > > > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > > notification of the moderator's decision. > > =============== > > > Now all I ask is how Nancy;s posting got though with such a header. I > > don't see ONE four letter word. How careful do we have to be before we > > don't trigger some anti spamming / anti porning device :-)))))))) > > 1. Whether or not Nancy's posting got through is irrelevant, the mail > got rejected because of the headers in your mail. > > 2. We do have spam filters on BLML, the way this filter works is to > calculate a score based on various criteria for every posting. If the > score is too high, the moderator is asked to check by hand if the > message is spam or not. In your case, there were 2 factors that > triggered the filter: > > 2.a. The message was sent with header line containing an illegal FQDN > (Fully Qualified Domain Name) "annescomputer", and not > "annescomputer.baa-lamb.co.uk" as it should be. Check with your > sysadmin to fix this. > > 2.b. The message was repeated in HTML for no good reason. Switch off > postings in HTML. > > 3. If a posting requires moderator approval, it will go through, it will > just be delayed a bit. Under normal circumstances, I'll check the > messages that require approval queue once or twice a day, so the delay > is about 12-24 hours and a bit longer when I'm not near a computer. > I don't think that there is anything that urgent on the list that > requires faster approval. > > So: if you get a "waiting for approval message", just be patient, if > it is about bridge, it will appear. > > 4. No, I'm not going to change the spam filters. I CAN set them such > that this message would have gone through. Unfortunately, at least > half a dozen spam mails would have gone through as well and I'm sure > we don't want that. > > Henk > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jan 20 19:12:09 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:12:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... In-Reply-To: <003501c2c00d$aa8e3730$6401a8c0@hare> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030119140706.00aa2c50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120140315.00aa91f0@pop.starpower.net> --=====================_2017060==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 05:54 PM 1/19/03, Nancy wrote: >If I have read the Law correctly, Declarer did not expose a card 48A, >Declarer faced his cards Law 48B. I like the use of "may " and my >decision was to allow the lead to stand and let declarer's partner >play the hand (even though my ruling was probably >incorrect!). Everyone was happy and a lesson was learned by all, >including the director! That was certainly a reasonable decision, as it conforms to the first rule of directing low-level club games: Always remember that the customers are there to play bridge. That means not deciding boards by an adjudicated result when the law permits you to avoid doing so, and Nancy's solution accomplishes that. But it would have left me mildly uncomfortable knowing that the chance of North gaining by his irregularity was as good as his chance of losing by it. And using L48A at least gives me some basis on which to justify my ruling. While Nancy is quite right that it doesn't apply literally, as North did not expose his cards "accidentally", I think we all agree that what he did comes a lot closer to being an "accident" than to being an attempt to claim. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_2017060==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 05:54 PM 1/19/03, Nancy wrote:

If I have read the Law correctly, Declarer did not expose a card 48A, Declarer faced his cards Law 48B.  I like the use of "may " and my decision was to allow the lead to stand and let declarer's partner play the hand (even though my ruling was probably incorrect!).  Everyone was happy and a lesson was learned by all, including the director! 

That was certainly a reasonable decision, as it conforms to the first rule of directing low-level club games:  Always remember that the customers are there to play bridge.  That means not deciding boards by an adjudicated result when the law permits you to avoid doing so, and Nancy's solution accomplishes that.

But it would have left me mildly uncomfortable knowing that the chance of North gaining by his irregularity was as good as his chance of losing by it.  And using L48A at least gives me some basis on which to justify my ruling.  While Nancy is quite right that it doesn't apply literally, as North did not expose his cards "accidentally", I think we all agree that what he did comes a lot closer to being an "accident" than to being an attempt to claim.

Eric Landau                     ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_2017060==.ALT-- From svenpran@online.no Wed Jan 22 09:22:48 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:22:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030119140706.00aa2c50@pop.starpower.net> <003501c2c00d$aa8e3730$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <004b01c2c1f7$d48082f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C2C200.35F25E20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This has been a curious thread! If you read the Laws correctly you should begin at either Law 48B1 or = directly at Law 54A, the last sentence of which says that if declarer begins to spread his = hand ..... he must spread his entire hand.=20 Thus we rule Law 54A, declarer has spread his hand (as he "may" do) and = becomes=20 dummy. South becomes the declarer, no kind of claim has occurred. (Law 48B2 is explicitly not applicable after an OLOOT) regards Sven ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nancy T Dressing=20 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List ; Eric Landau=20 Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... If I have read the Law correctly, Declarer did not expose a card 48A, = Declarer faced his cards Law 48B. I like the use of "may " and my = decision was to allow the lead to stand and let declarer's partner play = the hand (even though my ruling was probably incorrect!). Everyone was = happy and a lesson was learned by all, including the director! =20 Nancy ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Eric Landau=20 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List=20 Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... At 12:31 AM 1/18/03, Nancy wrote: New Players are fun! At the club today, NLM game, : The declaring pair have combined masterpoint total of 2!. Both = have been playing about 6 months. bidding was: N E S W 1S p 2D - p 2NT p 3 NT all pass . East made his opening lead and N proceeded to place his hand on = the table as the dummy. When I was called to the table, N said "I = thought I was the dummy!" In a situation like this, do we apply Law 48B2 and Law 68. =20 "When declarer faces his cards at any other time than immediately = following a lead out of turn,, he may be deemed to have made a claim or = concession of tricks, and then Law 68 applies."=20 or does the word "may" in this law give the director another = option? (Such as allowing the lead to stand and the partner of the = offender become the declarer and play the hand?) Do we "play" the hand with all the cards (all 4 players) face up = and determine the outcome of the hand???? The Preface to TFLB says what "may" means when applied to a player, = but gives no guidance as to how it is to be interpreted when applied to = the director. Normal English usage suggests it means that the director, = in such situations, is permitted some latitude for common sense and = discretion. I find it generally satisfactory to interpret such = directives that use "may" as meaning something like, to borrow from L46, = that the law tells us what the director should do "except when the = [player's] different intention is incontrovertable". That is clearly = the case here; nobody would suggest that North had any possible = intention of claiming, and treating this as a claim situation would be = so silly that I can't imagine how one might offer a convincing rationale = to the players at the table. I would rule that L48A applies, tell North to pick up his hand, = South to put the dummy down, and play to proceed normally. I would = "penalize" North sufficiently, IMO, by reading the law slowly enough to = ensure that E-W had enough time to get a good look at his cards before = he picked them up. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C2C200.35F25E20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This has been a curious = thread!
If you read the Laws correctly you = should begin at=20 either Law 48B1 or directly at Law 54A,
the last sentence of which says that if = declarer=20 begins to spread his hand ..... he must
spread his entire hand.
 
Thus we rule Law 54A, declarer has = spread his hand=20 (as he "may" do) and becomes
dummy.
 
South becomes the declarer, no kind of = claim has=20 occurred.
 
(Law 48B2 is explicitly not applicable = after an=20 OLOOT)
 
regards Sven
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Nancy = T=20 Dressing
To: Bridge Laws Discussion List ; Eric = Landau=20
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 = 11:54=20 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] I thought I = was the=20 dummy.....

If I have read the Law correctly, Declarer did = not=20 expose a card 48A, Declarer faced his cards Law 48B.  I like the = use of=20 "may " and my decision was to allow the lead to stand and let = declarer's=20 partner play the hand (even though my ruling was probably = incorrect!). =20 Everyone was happy and a lesson was learned by all, including the=20 director! 
Nancy
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Eric Landau=20
Sent: Sunday, January 19, = 2003 2:51=20 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] I thought = I was the=20 dummy.....

At 12:31 AM 1/18/03, Nancy wrote:

New=20 Players are fun!  At the club today, NLM game, =20 :
The declaring pair have = combined=20 masterpoint total of 2!.  Both have been playing about 6=20 months.
bidding = was:
 N     = E   =20 S    W
1S    p  2D -  p
2NT p 3 NT all pass
.
East made his = opening lead and=20 N proceeded to place his hand on the table as the dummy.  = When I was=20 called to the table,  N said "I thought I was the=20 dummy!"
In a situation like = this, do we=20 apply Law 48B2 and Law 68. 
 "When declarer faces his cards at any other time = than=20 immediately following a lead out of turn,, he may be deemed = to have=20 made a claim or concession of tricks,  and then Law 68 = applies."=20
or does the word "may" in = this law give=20 the director another option?  (Such as allowing the lead to = stand and=20 the partner of the offender become the declarer and play the=20 hand?)
Do we "play" the hand = with all=20 the cards (all 4 players) face up and determine the outcome of the = hand????

The Preface to TFLB says what = "may" means=20 when applied to a player, but gives no guidance as to how it is to = be=20 interpreted when applied to the director.  Normal English usage = suggests it means that the director, in such situations, is = permitted some=20 latitude for common sense and discretion.  I find it generally=20 satisfactory to interpret such directives that use "may" as meaning=20 something like, to borrow from L46, that the law tells us what the = director=20 should do "except when the [player's] different intention is=20 incontrovertable".  That is clearly the case here; nobody would = suggest=20 that North had any possible intention of claiming, and treating this = as a=20 claim situation would be so silly that I can't imagine how one might = offer a=20 convincing rationale to the players at the table.

I would = rule that=20 L48A applies, tell North to pick up his hand, South to put the dummy = down,=20 and play to proceed normally.  I would "penalize" North = sufficiently,=20 IMO, by reading the law slowly enough to ensure that E-W had enough = time to=20 get a good look at his cards before he picked them = up.

Eric=20 = Landau           &= nbsp;        =20 ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale=20 = Drive           &n= bsp;    =20 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD = 20910-1607     Fax=20 (301) 589-4618

------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C2C200.35F25E20-- From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Wed Jan 22 09:50:13 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:50:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030120182343.01d2d140@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001b01c2c1e5$adc781c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <004301c2c1eb$7b0fbee0$5554e150@endicott> Message-ID: <005301c2c1fc$1d9f6560$25b54351@noos.fr> Grattan: > +=+ A curious feature of this list is that we tend > to refer to other contributors as though they were > not players Dear Grattan, Twisting words again. Of course every TD is also a 'player'. But for high-level TD-ing this doesn't hold true. Very few TD's can be considered players in a EC/WC context or whatever serious event. I used player in that sense of the word. This is not necessarily a problem. But it becomes a problem if TD's (or AC members) with modest bridge skills refuse to accept that reality. It is often difficult for me to take TD's (AC's) serious who are discussing bridge issues in a way which shows that they are well beyond their turf. But if they cannot accept the first truth (their bridge level) they also cannot accept my opinion that they should refrain from bridge-judgements that surpass their abilities. That said you can be a top class TD based on rather limited bridge skills. As long as you stick to the TD's job. Which is establishing facts, isolating the real questions, finding the correct law, pacifying upset players (probably the most important single skill), etc. And yes also applying judgement. But for every TD (some are quite good players) there is a level where he cannot judge anymore and needs to rely on peer-players. Good TD's know how to get that help in an efficient way. But if you want to indulge in bridge-judgement beyond the level where you are comfortable you should just play the game. Like we all do. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Trial Bids > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "How prone to doubt, how cautious > are the wise." {Alexander Pope} > ============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Bridge Laws" ; > "Alain Gottcheiner" > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 7:12 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Trial Bids > > > > I do think that we basically agree on everything. It is > > just that I tend to look at this kind of cases from a > > players point of view. > > > +=+ A curious feature of this list is that we tend > to refer to other contributors as though they were > not players. Actually I think it is the one thing we > all have in common. It just suits us to identify the > differences; some part of each of us views each > subject as a player, some part of many of us > also views each subject with the eye of a director > and/or legislator or administrator, appeal committee > member, even journalist. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Wed Jan 22 09:55:24 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:55:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <019401c2c1ad$eb23f360$8b1827d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <005801c2c1fc$6772eea0$25b54351@noos.fr> David, Of course I agree with you on principle and on most of the details. But what is wrong with people using 'small (spade)' and 'high (spade)' because this is perfectly clear normal language usage meaning the smallest/highest (spade) available. And yes it also unchangeable habit but why (try to) change habits that don't cause problems. The problem arises when declarer gives unclear instructions or worse when using 'any' or 'does not matter' which 'forces' dummy to participate in the play which is a no-no. I have no hard feelings about 'unclear' instructions caused by language problems and the like. A six-seven mix-up can easily happen in a foreign language. Ace-eight in English is also infamous. Dutch and French cards have a V in common in (D=queen F=jack) etc. I really don't mind if a TD uses some judgement in this kind of ceases (like bidding box mechanical errors). But faulty instructions is another class for me. Of course it is / should be an infraction when you say 'any card' or the like because it is declarers duty to name a card. But at the end of a hand it does happen (very often a claim is pending). Now as long as the 'any claim' is correct (dummy has become irelevant) I don't really mind about it. Nobody does because there is nothing there. But if the 'any claim' is incorrect (it does matter what dummy plays) it should be treated as an (serious) infraction appling rules like 72B if the mechanical rule gives insufficient redress. But then I am close to my view about claims. I don't mind too much about less than perfect wording (no way to prevent that) but if you create a problem doing so you have to pay for it (and here I agree fully with you that there should be far more mechanical rules and far less TD judgement and far less exceptions). By the way, I think I share your feeling about this 'Kooijman bamboolizing' case. This is just too much. If the guy says 'any' at this stage he deserves no protection so why do we clutter the law with all kind of exceptions. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 1:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > Gordon wrote: > > > My partner and I discussed this a couple years back, and formed a > > partnership agreement that, when told to play anything, we always > played > > the highest card remaining in dummy. (The idea being to deliberately > spoil > > our own chances for bonus tricks from an endplay, if we were wrong > about > > dummy's cards being irrelevant.) > > Players have long had a habit of doing... well, almost anything. The > trouble is that any attempt to outlaw those "habits" meets with a degree > of resistance that, from a rational standpoint, is quite incredible, but > illustrates well the dictum of Michael Flanders that "you can't change > human nature". It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that > Americans are still permitted to ask each other "No spades, partner?" It > is for this reason, and this reason alone, that any attempt to replace > the current mish-mash with mechanical rules that can be fairly and > consistently applied by officials at any level to players at any level > is doomed to failure. > > Suppose one were to have a rule that declarer must, in requesting a card > from dummy, name the suit and the rank (the rank alone would suffice > unless dummy could not follow to the suit led). If he did not, either > defender could choose the card to be played. > > Now, this would be a perfectly fair, practical, and sensible rule, > whereas the current rule is unfair, impractical, and lunatic. This > nonsensical thread would never have occurred had the simple rule existed > since 1926, and the game of bridge would be very much the better > thereby. Apart from anything else, Ton Kooijman would not have to go > around bamboozling European directors by referring them to some bit in > brackets half a mile away when they had found something that appeared to > address the current question. > > Yet the simple rule will never exist, because we are now in the habit of > saying "small, please", and no one is going to tell us that we can't. > > It's not that I mind so much. After all, I am very old. But from time to > time, I wonder whether I might not be failing in some duty to make the > game an easier one for the people that I hope will still be playing it a > hundred - nay, a thousand - years from now. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Wed Jan 22 10:03:03 2003 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:03:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Polite References: <008901c2c1fb$40bd8730$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <006201c2c1fd$78a59780$25b54351@noos.fr> About the filter issue. I have also run more than once into message hold without a good reason (of course there is a reason for the filter). Ideas: - Sven is right, the system should flag a 'held' message to warn and to prevent from a rehold of the reply (if the filter supports such manipulation). - Maybe we could try an intermediate level of the filter in between holding and ok. Such messages should be flagged but let through. So far there is more of a hold problem than a spam problem. Why not try. If this creates spam than you can always tune down again. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Polite > Henk's information here explains what is happening. > > Now it is clear to me that I, like many others from time to time > is subject to a "message held" situation, not because there is > something wrong with my own posting or system but because > I have inherited some dubious feature with the message I am > commenting on. (Most recently with the message from Nancy). > > Questions and/or suggestions: > > Is it feasible when a "held" message is released to blml to > have some warning automatically added that the message has > been held due to some unhappy feature which most likely will > cause another "message hold" situation if responded to? > > Even more advantageous would be some way of identifying > which part of the "offending" message should be deleted in > order to avoid "message held" propagation? > > I am not happy about asking Henk to spend his time > identifying the problem in each case, it must be some > automatic function in order to be feasible. > > regards Sven > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > To: "Anne Jones" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 8:52 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Polite > > > > Anne, > > > > > What fun. > > > I have just replied to Nancy's posting and got the following message > from > > > the moderator. > > > ========== > > > Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > > > > > > Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... > > > > > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > > > > > The reason it is being held: > > > > > > Message has a suspicious header > > > > > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > > > notification of the moderator's decision. > > > =============== > > > > > Now all I ask is how Nancy;s posting got though with such a header. I > > > don't see ONE four letter word. How careful do we have to be before we > > > don't trigger some anti spamming / anti porning device :-)))))))) > > > > 1. Whether or not Nancy's posting got through is irrelevant, the mail > > got rejected because of the headers in your mail. > > > > 2. We do have spam filters on BLML, the way this filter works is to > > calculate a score based on various criteria for every posting. If the > > score is too high, the moderator is asked to check by hand if the > > message is spam or not. In your case, there were 2 factors that > > triggered the filter: > > > > 2.a. The message was sent with header line containing an illegal FQDN > > (Fully Qualified Domain Name) "annescomputer", and not > > "annescomputer.baa-lamb.co.uk" as it should be. Check with your > > sysadmin to fix this. > > > > 2.b. The message was repeated in HTML for no good reason. Switch off > > postings in HTML. > > > > 3. If a posting requires moderator approval, it will go through, it will > > just be delayed a bit. Under normal circumstances, I'll check the > > messages that require approval queue once or twice a day, so the delay > > is about 12-24 hours and a bit longer when I'm not near a computer. > > I don't think that there is anything that urgent on the list that > > requires faster approval. > > > > So: if you get a "waiting for approval message", just be patient, if > > it is about bridge, it will appear. > > > > 4. No, I'm not going to change the spam filters. I CAN set them such > > that this message would have gone through. Unfortunately, at least > > half a dozen spam mails would have gone through as well and I'm sure > > we don't want that. > > > > Henk > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: > http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 hermandw@skynet.be Wed Jan 22 10:17:26 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:17:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030119140706.00aa2c50@pop.starpower.net> <003501c2c00d$aa8e3730$6401a8c0@hare> <004b01c2c1f7$d48082f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E2E6FB6.6010401@skynet.be> No, Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > This has been a curious thread! > > If you read the Laws correctly you should begin at either Law 48B1 or > directly at Law 54A, > > the last sentence of which says that if declarer begins to spread his > hand ..... he must > > spread his entire hand. > That piece of law text comes within L54, the beginning of which states that this applies when there has been a lead out of turn. In Nancy's case, there has been no such lead - the lead was by the correct opponent ! > > > Thus we rule Law 54A, declarer has spread his hand (as he "may" do) and > becomes > > dummy. > > > > South becomes the declarer, no kind of claim has occurred. > > > > (Law 48B2 is explicitly not applicable after an OLOOT) > > > > regards Sven > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Nancy T Dressing > > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List ; Eric > Landau > > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:54 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... > > > If I have read the Law correctly, Declarer did not expose a card > 48A, Declarer faced his cards Law 48B. I like the use of "may " and > my decision was to allow the lead to stand and let declarer's > partner play the hand (even though my ruling was probably > incorrect!). Everyone was happy and a lesson was learned by all, > including the director! > > Nancy > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Eric Landau > > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:51 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... > > > At 12:31 AM 1/18/03, Nancy wrote: > >> New Players are fun! At the club today, NLM game, : >> The declaring pair have combined masterpoint total of 2!. >> Both have been playing about 6 months. >> bidding was: >> N E S W >> 1S p 2D - p >> 2NT p 3 NT all pass >> . >> East made his opening lead and N proceeded to place his hand >> on the table as the dummy. When I was called to the table, N >> said "I thought I was the dummy!" >> In a situation like this, do we apply Law 48B2 and Law 68. >> "When declarer faces his cards at any other time than >> immediately following a lead out of turn,, he may be deemed to >> have made a claim or concession of tricks, and then Law 68 >> applies." >> or does the word "may" in this law give the director another >> option? (Such as allowing the lead to stand and the partner >> of the offender become the declarer and play the hand?) >> Do we "play" the hand with all the cards (all 4 players) face >> up and determine the outcome of the hand???? > > > The Preface to TFLB says what "may" means when applied to a > player, but gives no guidance as to how it is to be interpreted > when applied to the director. Normal English usage suggests it > means that the director, in such situations, is permitted some > latitude for common sense and discretion. I find it generally > satisfactory to interpret such directives that use "may" as > meaning something like, to borrow from L46, that the law tells > us what the director should do "except when the [player's] > different intention is incontrovertable". That is clearly the > case here; nobody would suggest that North had any possible > intention of claiming, and treating this as a claim situation > would be so silly that I can't imagine how one might offer a > convincing rationale to the players at the table. > > I would rule that L48A applies, tell North to pick up his hand, > South to put the dummy down, and play to proceed normally. I > would "penalize" North sufficiently, IMO, by reading the law > slowly enough to ensure that E-W had enough time to get a good > look at his cards before he picked them up. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Wed Jan 22 10:26:20 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:26:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030119140706.00aa2c50@pop.starpower.net> <003501c2c00d$aa8e3730$6401a8c0@hare> <004b01c2c1f7$d48082f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E2E6FB6.6010401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00ca01c2c200$b52080f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Sorry, my apologies! So much for reading "carefully" Yes, then I agree that North is still the declarer and has exposed cards but not made any claim. regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... > No, Sven, > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > This has been a curious thread! > > > > If you read the Laws correctly you should begin at either Law 48B1 or > > directly at Law 54A, > > > > the last sentence of which says that if declarer begins to spread his > > hand ..... he must > > > > spread his entire hand. > > > > > That piece of law text comes within L54, the beginning of which states > that this applies when there has been a lead out of turn. In Nancy's > case, there has been no such lead - the lead was by the correct opponent ! > > .....(snip) From henk@ripe.net Wed Jan 22 10:35:58 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:35:58 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Polite In-Reply-To: <006201c2c1fd$78a59780$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Jaap, Sven, > - Sven is right, the system should flag a 'held' message to warn and to > prevent from a rehold of the reply (if the filter supports such > manipulation). This information is in the header lines. If you are interested in this, read those. RFC822 explains them in great detail. Another quick way to detect is a message was held, is to look at send time and arrival time, if that is more than 5 to 10 minutes, then the mail has been held up in the hold queue. > - Maybe we could try an intermediate level of the filter in between > holding and ok. Such messages should be flagged but let through. So far > there is more of a hold problem than a spam problem. Why not try. If > this creates spam than you can always tune down again. No, no, no. The problem _IS_ spam. The majority of mails that end up in the hold queue are spam or misdirected administrative queries. The only reason that you never see them is because I reject them before they are sent to the list. > > Even more advantageous would be some way of identifying > > which part of the "offending" message should be deleted in > > order to avoid "message held" propagation? Generally, all headers starting with "X-". Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 22 10:43:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... In-Reply-To: <004b01c2c1f7$d48082f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > This has been a curious thread! > If you read the Laws correctly you should begin at either Law 48B1 or > directly at Law 54A, the last sentence of which says that if declarer > begins to spread his hand ..... he must spread his entire hand. Curious perhaps - but it has just moved to the bizarre. North was declarer and East led. Why on earth are we looking at the lead out of turn rules? Does anybody think North was attempting a claim? Of course not so L48b2 doesn't apply. North picks up his cards, South puts down dummy, play proceeds normally (albeit the defenders have the advantage of knowing North's cards). If North has displayed only part of his hand, particularly putting down 3 low cards in a suit in which he holds Axxx or some such deceptive ploy then we adjust subsequently under L73f2. If East led by spinning his card onto the table so that it ended up nearer West than himself (assume he is a rubber bridge player doing penance in a duplicate game) then I will rule differently. Tim From svenpran@online.no Wed Jan 22 11:04:21 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:04:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Polite References: Message-ID: <00f801c2c206$049b8ad0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Thanks, The only remaining problem is that I usually never inspect the headers unless I have a particular reason to do so. Such reason is most often the feedback message from blml that my post is being held, and that is a bit late for me to take any corrective action. So if for instance a blml post that has been held could have the following line (or something similar) inserted as the first line in the body of the message: >>> This message has been held by blml filter for approval <<< and possibly also the dubious part(s) of the message flagged that would be an answer to my wish. regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Jaap van der Neut" Cc: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Polite > Jaap, Sven, > > > - Sven is right, the system should flag a 'held' message to warn and to > > prevent from a rehold of the reply (if the filter supports such > > manipulation). > > This information is in the header lines. If you are interested in this, > read those. RFC822 explains them in great detail. Another quick way to > detect is a message was held, is to look at send time and arrival time, if > that is more than 5 to 10 minutes, then the mail has been held up in the > hold queue. > > > > - Maybe we could try an intermediate level of the filter in between > > holding and ok. Such messages should be flagged but let through. So far > > there is more of a hold problem than a spam problem. Why not try. If > > this creates spam than you can always tune down again. > > No, no, no. The problem _IS_ spam. The majority of mails that end up in > the hold queue are spam or misdirected administrative queries. The only > reason that you never see them is because I reject them before they are > sent to the list. > > > > > Even more advantageous would be some way of identifying > > > which part of the "offending" message should be deleted in > > > order to avoid "message held" propagation? > > Generally, all headers starting with "X-". > > Henk > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > > > > > From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jan 22 13:26:50 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:26:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120134929.00a95930@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030122081532.00aadec0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:33 PM 1/21/03, Gordon wrote: >As far as Law changes, if we change from the current "either defender may >designate" (a right which virtually no non-director even knows exists -- >most players *laugh* at me, and don't reach for the card I name, when I do >designate one as a defender; then I have to call the director to explain >to them that yes, defenders can tell them what to play if they don't >say) I'd like it to say, vaguely revoke-like, that if declarer wins a >trick with a card that he could have legally played to a "play >anything" trick, it is taken from him. That would save us the bother of >defenders having to designate. That is another suggestion worthy of consideration. But it would have to say "if declarer wins a trick that he would not otherwise have won..." (or something similar), else we penalize him a trick for calling for "anything" when dummy has all high cards in one suit. However, it lacks the particular appeal of the "lowest card" or "highest card" approaches in that it is not purely mechanical and so still leaves open the possibility of requiring post-play analysis and adjudication of the deal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From Anne Jones" <003501c2c00d$aa8e3730$6401a8c0@hare> <004b01c2c1f7$d48082f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <006001c2c1fc$e3333ae0$2f2e6651@annescomputer> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005D_01C2C1FC.E31B4610 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Law 54a applies only when there has been a lead out of turn. There has = been no lead out of turn :-) Law 48a applies Anne ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Sven Pran=20 To: blml=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... This has been a curious thread! If you read the Laws correctly you should begin at either Law 48B1 or = directly at Law 54A, the last sentence of which says that if declarer begins to spread his = hand ..... he must spread his entire hand.=20 Thus we rule Law 54A, declarer has spread his hand (as he "may" do) = and becomes=20 dummy. South becomes the declarer, no kind of claim has occurred. (Law 48B2 is explicitly not applicable after an OLOOT) regards Sven ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nancy T Dressing=20 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List ; Eric Landau=20 Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... If I have read the Law correctly, Declarer did not expose a card = 48A, Declarer faced his cards Law 48B. I like the use of "may " and my = decision was to allow the lead to stand and let declarer's partner play = the hand (even though my ruling was probably incorrect!). Everyone was = happy and a lesson was learned by all, including the director! =20 Nancy ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Eric Landau=20 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List=20 Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... At 12:31 AM 1/18/03, Nancy wrote: New Players are fun! At the club today, NLM game, : The declaring pair have combined masterpoint total of 2!. Both = have been playing about 6 months. bidding was: N E S W 1S p 2D - p 2NT p 3 NT all pass . East made his opening lead and N proceeded to place his hand on = the table as the dummy. When I was called to the table, N said "I = thought I was the dummy!" In a situation like this, do we apply Law 48B2 and Law 68. =20 "When declarer faces his cards at any other time than = immediately following a lead out of turn,, he may be deemed to have made = a claim or concession of tricks, and then Law 68 applies."=20 or does the word "may" in this law give the director another = option? (Such as allowing the lead to stand and the partner of the = offender become the declarer and play the hand?) Do we "play" the hand with all the cards (all 4 players) face up = and determine the outcome of the hand???? The Preface to TFLB says what "may" means when applied to a = player, but gives no guidance as to how it is to be interpreted when = applied to the director. Normal English usage suggests it means that = the director, in such situations, is permitted some latitude for common = sense and discretion. I find it generally satisfactory to interpret = such directives that use "may" as meaning something like, to borrow from = L46, that the law tells us what the director should do "except when the = [player's] different intention is incontrovertable". That is clearly = the case here; nobody would suggest that North had any possible = intention of claiming, and treating this as a claim situation would be = so silly that I can't imagine how one might offer a convincing rationale = to the players at the table. I would rule that L48A applies, tell North to pick up his hand, = South to put the dummy down, and play to proceed normally. I would = "penalize" North sufficiently, IMO, by reading the law slowly enough to = ensure that E-W had enough time to get a good look at his cards before = he picked them up. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618=20 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 ------=_NextPart_000_005D_01C2C1FC.E31B4610 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Law 54a applies only when there has = been a lead out=20 of turn. There has been no lead out of turn :-) Law 48a = applies
Anne
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Sven = Pran=20
To: blml
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, = 2003 9:22=20 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] I thought I = was the=20 dummy.....

This has been a curious = thread!
If you read the Laws correctly you = should begin=20 at either Law 48B1 or directly at Law 54A,
the last sentence of which says that = if declarer=20 begins to spread his hand ..... he must
spread his entire hand.
 
Thus we rule Law 54A, declarer has = spread his=20 hand (as he "may" do) and becomes
dummy.
 
South becomes the declarer, no kind = of claim has=20 occurred.
 
(Law 48B2 is explicitly not = applicable after an=20 OLOOT)
 
regards Sven
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Nancy T=20 Dressing
To: Bridge Laws Discussion List ; Eric = Landau=20
Sent: Sunday, January 19, = 2003 11:54=20 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] I thought = I was the=20 dummy.....

If I have read the Law correctly, Declarer = did not=20 expose a card 48A, Declarer faced his cards Law 48B.  I like = the use of=20 "may " and my decision was to allow the lead to stand and let = declarer's=20 partner play the hand (even though my ruling was probably = incorrect!). =20 Everyone was happy and a lesson was learned by all, including the=20 director! 
Nancy
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Eric=20 Landau
Sent: Sunday, January 19, = 2003 2:51=20 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] I = thought I was=20 the dummy.....

At 12:31 AM 1/18/03, Nancy wrote:

New=20 Players are fun!  At the club today, NLM game, =20 :
The declaring pair have = combined=20 masterpoint total of 2!.  Both have been playing about 6=20 months.
bidding = was:
 N     = E   =20 S    W
1S    p  2D -  = p
2NT p 3 NT all pass
.
East made his = opening lead=20 and N proceeded to place his hand on the table as the = dummy.  When=20 I was called to the table,  N said "I thought I was the=20 dummy!"
In a situation = like this, do=20 we apply Law 48B2 and Law 68. 
 "When declarer faces his cards at any other time = than=20 immediately following a lead out of turn,, he may be = deemed to=20 have made a claim or concession of tricks,  and then Law 68 = applies."
or does the = word "may" in=20 this law give the director another option?  (Such as = allowing the=20 lead to stand and the partner of the offender become the = declarer and=20 play the hand?)
Do we = "play" the hand=20 with all the cards (all 4 players) face up and determine the = outcome of=20 the hand????

The Preface to TFLB says = what "may"=20 means when applied to a player, but gives no guidance as to how it = is to=20 be interpreted when applied to the director.  Normal English = usage=20 suggests it means that the director, in such situations, is = permitted some=20 latitude for common sense and discretion.  I find it = generally=20 satisfactory to interpret such directives that use "may" as = meaning=20 something like, to borrow from L46, that the law tells us what the = director should do "except when the [player's] different intention = is=20 incontrovertable".  That is clearly the case here; nobody = would=20 suggest that North had any possible intention of claiming, and = treating=20 this as a claim situation would be so silly that I can't imagine = how one=20 might offer a convincing rationale to the players at the = table.

I=20 would rule that L48A applies, tell North to pick up his hand, = South to put=20 the dummy down, and play to proceed normally.  I would = "penalize"=20 North sufficiently, IMO, by reading the law slowly enough to = ensure that=20 E-W had enough time to get a good look at his cards before he = picked them=20 up.

Eric=20 = Landau           &= nbsp;        =20 ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale=20 = Drive           &n= bsp;    =20 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD = 20910-1607     Fax=20 (301) 589-4618


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by = AVG=20 anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: = 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date:=20 10/01/2003

------=_NextPart_000_005D_01C2C1FC.E31B4610-- From HauffHJ@aol.com Wed Jan 22 11:01:08 2003 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:01:08 EST Subject: [blml] law78-non-scorers Message-ID: <19e.fafade7.2b5fd3f4@aol.com> --part1_19e.fafade7.2b5fd3f4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thema: Fair Scoring Datum: 19.01.03 >sven remarked 05.01.03) " I fail completely to see any relevance of this posting when Match points or IMP Scoring...is used"< Dear Sven any MP-Scoring or IMP scoring includes scores for non-scorers. The posting "the influence of evaluation in scoring methods" (BMLM law78-non-scorers) gives the basic theoretical facts to the problem as described below about two years ago. Whenever the reciprok system is used, the result of Matchpointing or IM-Pointing will be influenced by the known prosents or gifts. There are better methods of IMP/Matchpointing which exclude presents and gifts. In my opinion a system where the non-scorers are evaluated by the number of tricks they made is an optimal solution. Software to do this exists. Paul f i t f o r p r i n t o u t Published in "The Bridge world" Vol.72 Number 6 March 2001 (USA) Fair Scoring in Pair Tournaments by Paul Hauff, Bad Nauheim,Germany An editorial in " the Bridge world" (USA) magazine propounds: "There must be only the Laws, established, pub-lished, interpreted, clarified and ad-justed by one supreme legal author-ity." But interpretation may not be simple. In particular, Duplicate Law 77, which awards points to de-clarer's side for fulfilled contracts and to declarer's opponents for un-dertricks, does not specify how to treat the side not awarded such points. Different interpretations lead to alternative types of games, with varying tactics. For exarnple, if all non-scorers are to be given the same number of matchpoints regardless of the award to their table oppo-nents, there would be no profit in a successful sacrifice nor loss in one that pays too much; one would re-ceive the same zero raw score whether the opponents scored 300, 420 or 500. U s i n g N e g a t i v e s The current, familiar extension of Duplicate Law 77 is to award the non-scoring side the negative of the award to the scoring side: If North-South get 300. East-West get minus 300, and so forth. But the law does not establish that as correct. Today's practice, perhaps no more than the consequence of a simple way of thinking, has been added to the original Law: it is not an -interpre-tation." The consequences of this approach are well known. The most disturbing is that "gifts" are some-times bestowed upon an undeserving opponent. True, in the long run the stronger players as a group prevail and the weaker are relegated to lesser positions, but the distributed gifts affect everyone's stand-ings. This can be especially painful to those whose local clubs group players according to average match-point performance; it is not only the winners and the near-winners who are affected. Matchpointing in Howell and Mitchell tournaments neglects the contract-bridge scoring relation-ships established by Vanderbilt. Suppose that all North-South pairs make three notrump minus one. Whatever the cause of the de-feat, the opponents of the downgoer get a top. But in Vanderbilt's table, the score value of 50 or 100 is far away from the 400 or 600 of the other scorer and certainly not a top. D i f f e r e n t I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s Alternative treatments of the side not awarded points under Duplicate Law 77 can be used without incon-sistency. For example: (1) All opponents of scorers re-ceive zero. This is a comrnon-sense approach where the Law does not fix a value for scorers' opponents. Under such a rule, all non-scorers would receive the same matchpoint award. (2) Opponents of scorers are di-vided into groups, perhaps: (a) sacrificers, reducing the opponentss score, (b) defenders of making con-tracts, (c) defeated declarers. There is justice in scoring group (a) ahead of group (b), and that in turn ahead of group (c). (3) Opponents uf scorers are ranked by the number of tricks taken. This technique avoids inap-propriate junction between scorer and non-scorer. B i l a t e r a l vs. U n i l a t e r a l E v a l u a t i o n One of the significant elernents of the current extension of Law 77 is that North-South and East-West are always evaluated separately. The Laws do not request this bilateral approach, saying in this regard only that, "each contestant is awarded. for scores made by different contest-ants who have played the same board and whose scores are com-pared with his . . . " In particular. they do not say, for example, "those who played the same board and held the same cards",- as they would if bilateral scoring were to be man-dated. Evaluating all scores on a board together would preserve Van-derbilt's invention and have a sub-stantial effect on the impact of "gifts" obtained through oppo-nents' blunders. The effect of matchpointing across a l l scores made on a board in both directions, when compared to today's standard, is enormous. Would it be unfair because some pairs would hold hands of lesser scoring potential than others? Not necessarily. Consider a "perfect" Mitchell movement (each pair, al-ways sitting in the same direction, contests all the boards in play) in which all North-South and all East-West pairs have exactly the same overall potential at the outset of the tournament. Provided that winners are to be selected in each direction (which is the standard Mitchell practice), we are free to score each individual board in the manner deemed fairest. Did those who instituted bilateral evaluation do so with full knowl-edge of the consequences? Our best guess is that the labor-saving device of awarding table companions the inverse matchpoint score (e.g., if 30 is top and a particular North-South gets 18, then a matching East-West gets 12-or) made this approach to matchpoints very attractive. Practical Aspects Decades ago, ease of calculating the results was a meaningful consid-eration in determining tournament mechanics. However, in the com-puter age, virtually any scoring method can be supported by a pro-gram that will calculate the results effectively immediately. Indeed. those who would like to see the re-sults of different approaches to matchpointing can use soft-ware that permits the choice of dif-ferent methods by mouse click. Conclusion Presently, the universe of bridge is far away from implementing al-ternative methods for better scoring. But we should start. Paul Hauff - . - . - . - . - . - . - . --part1_19e.fafade7.2b5fd3f4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thema: <Bridge> Fair Scoring
Datum: 19.01.03
>sven remarked  05.01.03) " I fail completely to see any relevance of this posting when Match points or IMP Scoring...is used"<
Dear Sven
any MP-Scoring or IMP scoring includes scores for non-scorers.
The posting "the influence of evaluation in scoring methods" (BMLM law78-non-scorers)
gives the basic theoretical facts to the problem as described below about two years ago.

Whenever  the reciprok system is used, the result of Matchpointing or IM-Pointing will be influenced by the known prosents or gifts.
There are better methods of  IMP/Matchpointing which exclude presents and gifts.
In my opinion a system where the non-scorers are evaluated by the number of tricks they made is an optimal solution. Software to do this exists.

Paul


f i t   f o r   p r i n t o u t
Published in "The Bridge world" Vol.72 Number 6 March 2001 (USA)

Fair Scoring in Pair Tournaments
by Paul Hauff, Bad Nauheim,Germany
An editorial in " the Bridge world" (USA) magazine propounds:
"There must be only the Laws, established, pub-lished,
interpreted, clarified and ad-justed by one supreme legal
author-ity."   But interpretation may not be simple. In particular,
Duplicate Law 77,   which awards points to de-clarer's side
for fulfilled contracts and to declarer's opponents for
un-dertricks, does not specify how to treat the side not
awarded such points. Different interpretations lead to
alternative types of games, with varying tactics. For exarnple,
if all non-scorers are to be given the same  number of
matchpoints regardless of the award to their table oppo-nents,
there would be no profit in a successful sacrifice nor loss in
one that pays too much;  one would re-ceive the same zero
raw score whether the opponents scored 300, 420 or 500.

U s i n g   N e g a t i v e s
The current, familiar extension of Duplicate Law 77 is to award
the non-scoring side the negative of the award to the scoring
side: If North-South get 300. East-West get minus 300, and
so forth. But the law does not establish that as correct.
Today's practice, perhaps no more than the consequence
of a simple way of thinking, has been added  to the original
Law: it is not an -interpre-tation."  The consequences of this
approach are well known. The most disturbing is that "gifts" are
some-times  bestowed upon an undeserving opponent.
True, in the long run the stronger players as a group prevail
and the weaker are relegated to lesser positions, but
the distributed gifts affect everyone's stand-ings. This can
be especially painful to those whose local clubs group
players according to average match-point performance;
it is not only the winners and the near-winners who
are affected.
Matchpointing in Howell and Mitchell tournaments
neglects the contract-bridge scoring relation-ships
established by Vanderbilt. Suppose that all North-South
pairs make three notrump minus one.  Whatever the cause
of the de-feat, the opponents of the downgoer get a top.
But in Vanderbilt's table, the score value of 50 or 100
is far away from the 400 or 600 of the other scorer
and certainly not a top.

D i f f e r e n t   I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
Alternative treatments of the side not awarded points under
Duplicate Law 77 can be used without incon-sistency.
For example:
(1) All opponents of scorers re-ceive zero. This is a
comrnon-sense approach where the Law does not fix a
value for scorers' opponents. Under such a rule, all
non-scorers would receive the same matchpoint
award.
(2) Opponents of scorers are di-vided into groups, perhaps:
(a) sacrificers, reducing the opponentss score,
(b) defenders of making con-tracts, (c) defeated declarers.
There is justice in scoring group (a) ahead of group (b),
and that in turn ahead of group (c).
(3) Opponents uf scorers are ranked by the number of
tricks taken. This technique avoids inap-propriate junction
between scorer and non-scorer.

B i l a t e r a l   vs.   U n i l a t e r a l   E v a l u a t i o n
One of the significant elernents of the current extension
of Law 77 is that North-South and East-West are always
evaluated separately. The Laws do not request this
bilateral approach, saying in this regard only that,
"each contestant is awarded. for scores made by different
contest-ants who have played the same board and whose
scores are com-pared with his . . . "  In particular. they
do not say, for example, "those who played the same
board and held the same cards",- as they would if
bilateral scoring were to be man-dated. Evaluating all
scores on a board together would preserve Van-derbilt's
invention and have a sub-stantial effect on the impact
of "gifts" obtained through oppo-nents' blunders.
The effect of matchpointing across  a l l  scores made
on a board in both directions, when compared to today's
standard, is enormous. Would it be unfair because some
pairs would hold hands of lesser scoring potential than
others? Not necessarily. Consider a "perfect" Mitchell
movement (each pair, al-ways sitting in the same direction,
contests all the boards in play) in which all North-South
and all East-West pairs have exactly the same overall
potential at the outset of the tournament. Provided that
winners are to be selected in each direction (which is
the standard Mitchell practice), we are free to score
each individual board in the manner deemed fairest.

Did those who instituted bilateral evaluation do
so with full knowl-edge of the consequences? Our
best guess is that the labor-saving device of awarding
table companions the inverse matchpoint score
(e.g., if 30 is top and a particular North-South gets 18,
then a matching East-West gets 12-or) made this
approach to matchpoints very attractive.

Practical Aspects
Decades ago, ease of calculating the results was a
meaningful consid-eration in determining tournament
mechanics. However, in the com-puter age,  virtually any
scoring method can be supported by a pro-gram that will
calculate the results effectively immediately. Indeed. those
who would like to see the re-sults of different approaches
to matchpointing can use soft-ware that permits the choice
of dif-ferent methods by mouse click.

Conclusion
Presently, the universe of bridge is far away from
implementing al-ternative methods for better scoring.
But we should start.

Paul Hauff
- . - . - . - . - . - . - .
 --part1_19e.fafade7.2b5fd3f4_boundary-- From henk@ripe.net Wed Jan 22 13:39:02 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:39:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Polite In-Reply-To: <00f801c2c206$049b8ad0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Sven Pran wrote: > Thanks, > > The only remaining problem is that I usually never inspect the headers > unless I have a particular reason to do so. Such reason is most often > the feedback message from blml that my post is being held, and that > is a bit late for me to take any corrective action. > > So if for instance a blml post that has been held could have the > following line (or something similar) inserted as the first line in > the body of the message: > > >>> This message has been held by blml filter for approval <<< > > and possibly also the dubious part(s) of the message flagged > > that would be an answer to my wish. I looked at the software and there is no easy way to do this, so no, sorry. Henk > > regards Sven > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > To: "Jaap van der Neut" > Cc: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:35 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Polite > > > > Jaap, Sven, > > > > > - Sven is right, the system should flag a 'held' message to warn and to > > > prevent from a rehold of the reply (if the filter supports such > > > manipulation). > > > > This information is in the header lines. If you are interested in this, > > read those. RFC822 explains them in great detail. Another quick way to > > detect is a message was held, is to look at send time and arrival time, if > > that is more than 5 to 10 minutes, then the mail has been held up in the > > hold queue. > > > > > > > - Maybe we could try an intermediate level of the filter in between > > > holding and ok. Such messages should be flagged but let through. So far > > > there is more of a hold problem than a spam problem. Why not try. If > > > this creates spam than you can always tune down again. > > > > No, no, no. The problem _IS_ spam. The majority of mails that end up in > > the hold queue are spam or misdirected administrative queries. The only > > reason that you never see them is because I reject them before they are > > sent to the list. > > > > > > > > Even more advantageous would be some way of identifying > > > > which part of the "offending" message should be deleted in > > > > order to avoid "message held" propagation? > > > > Generally, all headers starting with "X-". > > > > Henk > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: > http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Jan 22 15:27:40 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:27:40 GMT Subject: [blml] Trial Bids Message-ID: <3e2eb86c.352c.0@esatclear.ie> [snip .... ] >This is not necessarily a problem. But it becomes a problem if TD's (or AC members) with modest bridge skills refuse to accept that reality. It is often difficult for me to take TD's (AC's) serious who are discussing bridge issues in a way which shows that they are well beyond their turf. But if they cannot accept the first truth (their bridge level) they also cannot accept my opinion that they should refrain from bridge-judgements that surpass their abilities. That said you can be a top class TD based on rather limited bridge skills. As long as you stick to the TD's job. Which is establishing facts, isolating the real questions, finding the correct law, >pacifying upset players (probably the most important single skill), etc. And yes also applying judgement. But for every TD (some are quite good players) there is a level where he cannot judge anymore and needs to rely on peer-players. Good TD's know how to get that help in an efficient way. But if you want to indulge in bridge-judgement beyond the level where you are comfortable you should just play the game. Like we all do. +++ Jaap in this thread and previous ones has made some very "Realistic" points. From my own Irish point of view the above scenario is common place. I'd go so far as to say that alot of the posts I put up are directly related to this issue (ie) Committees and Td's ruling on issues whichout an appropriate matching level of bridge expertise. Happily - the CBAI along with Ferghal's help is currently attempting to rectify this issue (big Cheer). Another observation I've made is that alot of posts revolve around the players having no written proof as to what they are playing, either a properly filled out CC or additional notes. Talking purely at competition level - is there a case for ruling against a player just on no written proof filled out ?? (ie) in my previous post they alerted long suit trial had no CC - so we are now heavily biased toward ruling against them ?? Karel -- http://www.iol.ie From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Wed Jan 22 23:21:26 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:21:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] POOT accepted Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030123101133.02df5e30@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> The other day I was dealer as South. Partner passed out of turn The director explained the options to East, who apparently said verbally, "I don't accept the bid", and then passed. I didn't hear this, but I saw the pass card out and assuming that the POOT had been accepted, bid 1D, saying "you are accepting my partner's pass, so we just carry on". The director was called back and claimed that East had in fact also passed out of turn, and that I had accepted it. He further ruled that my partner was still obliged to pass at the first opportunity. Surely this cannot be correct? but I can't find an explicit mention of this case among the laws. Can anyone help? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From David.Barton@boltblue.com Thu Jan 23 00:06:37 2003 From: David.Barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:06:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120134929.00a95930@pop.starpower.net> <006801c2c0d3$771b8580$9225e150@endicott> <000d01c2c11c$40e093e0$25b54351@noos.fr> <001f01c2c120$4b36ec00$3e36e150@endicott> <004901c2c121$f85692e0$25b54351@noos.fr> <001701c2c15e$8ec42120$30242850@pacific> Message-ID: <000301c2c273$51f16f80$0300a8c0@mshome.net> Well thanks for all those comments. I had no idea what I was starting when I asked what I imagined was a simple question. The situation arose in a local league match played without a TD in attendance and then referred to the League Secretary for a decision (with no more details than I gave). The decision given (for which I was consulted) was result stood. I thought the case interesting enough to give an airing on BLML. Having read all the comments, I could live with either decision (zero or one trick to declarer). The decision I still feel unhappy about (I shall describe as the GE position) is that defenders forfeit the right to an adjustment if they don't nominate a card to be played. If you look at it from the defenders' point of view then nominating appears to be a losing option. It would only be right if (a) they were aware that their choice was UI to declarer (b) they believe an appeals committee would come to the same conclusion (c) that the appeals committee would conclude that UI had been used (just imagine Declarer stating that he knew that W had a heart left and always intended keeping the heart king.) Law 10C1 provides " When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available". I have always taken this as meaning that ALL the legal (as opposed to bridge) implications of exercising any option must be made available to enable an appropriate option to be chosen. In this case a Director would have to explain the UI implications and what rights were being given up by not nominating. What chance of this happening? The issue of a choice of penalty being UI has wide implications. One that springs easily to mind is an OLOT. If Declarer say forbids the suit, then presumably the Director should be warning the defenders that the knowledge that declarer does not want that suit led is UI and that declarer should call him back if he believes the UI may have been used. Does anyone want to open this can of worms? David.Barton@boltblue.com From adam@irvine.com Thu Jan 23 00:01:30 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:01:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] POOT accepted In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:21:26 +1100." <5.1.1.6.0.20030123101133.02df5e30@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <200301230001.QAA02660@mailhub.irvine.com> Tony Musgrove wrote: > The other day I was dealer as South. Partner passed out of turn > The director explained the options to East, who apparently > said verbally, "I don't accept the bid", and then passed. > I didn't hear this, but I saw the pass card out and assuming > that the POOT had been accepted, bid 1D, saying "you are > accepting my partner's pass, so we just carry on". The director was > called back and claimed that East had in fact also passed > out of turn, and that I had accepted it. He further ruled > that my partner was still obliged to pass at the first > opportunity. Surely this cannot be correct? but > I can't find an explicit mention of this case among the laws. > > Can anyone help? Here's my opinion: I think the director is technically correct. North passed out of turn; East did not accept the pass, meaning North must pass at his next opportunity (L30A); it is now South's turn to call, but East passed out of turn; South has called, accepting the pass out of turn (L29A). However, there are other factors. In my experience, when there's been an irregularity, the TD stays around long enough to make sure things keep going on the right track. So, after the TD explains to East his options, and East says "I don't accept the bid", the TD would then tell South that it's his turn to bid, and that North must pass at his next opportunity (and East would have a chance to speak up if he actually intended to accept the pass and misspoke). If, on the other hand, East accepted the pass, the TD would then say "OK, the auction proceeds normally, no penalty". If a bizarre occurrence happened such as East saying he doesn't accept the bid and then passing, the TD would still be around to make a ruling and try to stop everybody else from doing anything until the TD could sort it out. I suspect that the TD make a table judgment, possibly asking East some questions, and rule either (1) East actually accepted the pass and misspoke, or (2) North's pass out of turn was not accepted, East now passed out of turn, so unless South accepts East's pass, L30A applies to both of them. I'm not sure just what went on at your table, but it sounds like the TD left the table too early, and this mistake damaged you because you were not properly informed of what was supposed to happen next. Perhaps a L82C ruling is in order? -- Adam From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Thu Jan 23 01:58:21 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:58:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation In-Reply-To: <005801c2c1fc$6772eea0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <019401c2c1ad$eb23f360$8b1827d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030122205436.02987090@mail.fscv.net> At 04:55 AM 22/01/2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >David, > >Of course I agree with you on principle and on most of the details. But what >is wrong with people using 'small (spade)' and 'high (spade)' because this >is perfectly clear normal language usage meaning the smallest/highest >(spade) available. And yes it also unchangeable habit but why (try to) >change habits that don't cause problems. To my mind there is a very positive advantage to not calling high rather than ace of S when following suit. After all one of the tables next to me is going to play this board next round in most cases and not everyone is as ethical as thee and me. Walt From john@asimere.com Thu Jan 23 03:34:31 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 03:34:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] POOT accepted In-Reply-To: <200301230001.QAA02660@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030123101133.02df5e30@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <200301230001.QAA02660@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: In article <200301230001.QAA02660@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> The other day I was dealer as South. Partner passed out of turn >> The director explained the options to East, who apparently >> said verbally, "I don't accept the bid", and then passed. >> I didn't hear this, but I saw the pass card out and assuming >> that the POOT had been accepted, bid 1D, saying "you are >> accepting my partner's pass, so we just carry on". The director was >> called back and claimed that East had in fact also passed >> out of turn, and that I had accepted it. He further ruled >> that my partner was still obliged to pass at the first >> opportunity. Surely this cannot be correct? but >> I can't find an explicit mention of this case among the laws. >> snip > >I'm not sure just what went on at your table, but it sounds like the >TD left the table too early, and this mistake damaged you because you >were not properly informed of what was supposed to happen next. >Perhaps a L82C ruling is in order? > I hadn't thought of "Director error". IMO there is no TD error, rather it's incompetence. I'd be unhappy about a L82C ruling here. ... we'd be issuing them everywhere if we started here. cheers john > -- Adam > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Walt.Flory@fscv.net Thu Jan 23 04:43:39 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:43:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation - Correction! In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030122205436.02987090@mail.fscv.net> References: <005801c2c1fc$6772eea0$25b54351@noos.fr> <019401c2c1ad$eb23f360$8b1827d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030122234247.021715b0@mail.fscv.net> At 08:58 PM 22/01/2003, Walt.Flory@fscv.net wrote: >At 04:55 AM 22/01/2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >>David, >> >>Of course I agree with you on principle and on most of the details. But what >>is wrong with people using 'small (spade)' and 'high (spade)' because this >>is perfectly clear normal language usage meaning the smallest/highest >>(spade) available. And yes it also unchangeable habit but why (try to) >>change habits that don't cause problems. > > >To my mind there is a very positive advantage to calling high rather than >ace of S when following suit. After all one of the tables next to me is >going to play this board next round in most cases and not everyone is as >ethical as thee and me. > >Walt > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jan 23 07:57:13 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:57:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] POOT accepted References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030123101133.02df5e30@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <200301230001.QAA02660@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002601c2c2b5$22b595b0$f83be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] POOT accepted > > > > I hadn't thought of "Director error". IMO there > is no TD error, rather it's incompetence. I'd be > unhappy about a L82C ruling here. ... we'd be > issuing them everywhere if we started here. > cheers john > > +=+ A very fine distinction between error and incompetence. Before the Director leaves the table he should at least ensure that all four players are up to speed with his ruling and, where relevant, the option selected. I would think he should stay long enough to ensure that anything mechanical proceeds smoothly - it is usual to be called back if needed in judgemental cases where he has obtained statements of facts and then said 'play on'. I would expect a Director to kick himself in this case and rule voluntarily that he had committed an error. ~ G ~ +=+ From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Jan 23 08:07:44 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:07:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation Message-ID: > > +=+ No - the TD has no power to require defender > to choose. He does have power to enforce Law 46A. > I think also that if defender chooses, the reason that > underlies his choice is UI for declarer. ~ G ~ +=+ interesting remark; before expressing my doubt could you explain why you think this to be UI? L16 heading makes it possible to draw another conclusion. And does this approach you suggest apply to all other cases where opponents may accept irregularities or have a choice? An example. RHO has a penalty card and declarer forbids the lead in that suit. Is the reason that he doesn't want that lead UI for defenders? ton From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Jan 23 08:11:27 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 02:11:27 -0600 Subject: [blml] POOT accepted References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030123101133.02df5e30@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 17:21 PM Subject: [blml] POOT accepted > The other day I was dealer as South. Partner passed out of turn > The director explained the options to East, who apparently > said verbally, "I don't accept the bid", and then passed. > I didn't hear this, but I saw the pass card out and assuming > that the POOT had been accepted, bid 1D, saying "you are > accepting my partner's pass, so we just carry on". The director was > called back and claimed that East had in fact also passed > out of turn, and that I had accepted it. He further ruled > that my partner was still obliged to pass at the first > opportunity. Surely this cannot be correct? but > I can't find an explicit mention of this case among the laws. > > Can anyone help? > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) I believe that the matter revolves around the status of the OPOOT. It is noted that dealer's RHO has acted without the benefit of the director. Had the director been called and RHO rejected the POOT [the OPOOT having been canceled] and then passed then the TD would have immediately awarded a penalty option to dealer for RHO's COOT. But that did not happen. What did happen was that the OPOOT had not been withdrawn. Dealer's RHO accepted the OPOOT and created UI to the partner via the extraneous comment that the POOT was not accepted. As L29A is clear, comment or not, if offender's LHO calls the right to penalize is forfeited. imo, no one has any business starting the auction before all the players are ready to proceed, at least they shouldn't have any business. For one thing I think it is inappropriate to hold a player culpable for what has been said before the auction begins- especially while they have their nose buried in their cards. Of course, there is nothing in law that advises players to not start the auction until all the players at least seem ready. regards roger pewick From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 23 08:44:25 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:44:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: Message-ID: <001d01c2c2bb$a4beb630$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Kooijman, A > > +=+ No - the TD has no power to require defender > > to choose. He does have power to enforce Law 46A. > > I think also that if defender chooses, the reason that > > underlies his choice is UI for declarer. ~ G ~ +=+ > interesting remark; before expressing my doubt could you explain why you > think this to be UI? L16 heading makes it possible to draw another > conclusion. > And does this approach you suggest apply to all other cases where opponents > may accept irregularities or have a choice? An example. RHO has a penalty > card and declarer forbids the lead in that suit. Is the reason that he > doesn't want that lead UI for defenders? Absolutely (IMO): "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents". This apparently does not include inferences drawn from opponents choice(s) when they have alternative options after irregularities by own side. In short (as we have been teached in Norway): Information obtained directly or indirectly from infraction of law is UI for offending side until that same information becomes available from legal (and not withdrawn) call and or play. regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jan 22 23:00:38 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:00:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... In-Reply-To: <004b01c2c1f7$d48082f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030119140706.00aa2c50@pop.starpower.net> <003501c2c00d$aa8e3730$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030122175634.00aa1200@pop.starpower.net> --=====================_2080030==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 04:22 AM 1/22/03, Sven wrote: >This has been a curious thread! >If you read the Laws correctly you should begin at either Law 48B1 or >directly at Law 54A, >the last sentence of which says that if declarer begins to spread his >hand ..... he must >spread his entire hand. > >Thus we rule Law 54A, declarer has spread his hand (as he "may" do) >and becomes >dummy. > >South becomes the declarer, no kind of claim has occurred. > >(Law 48B2 is explicitly not applicable after an OLOOT) > >regards Sven >----- Original Message ----- >From: Nancy T Dressing > >If I have read the Law correctly, Declarer did not expose a card 48A, >Declarer faced his cards Law 48B. I like the use of "may " and my >decision was to allow the lead to stand and let declarer's partner >play the hand (even though my ruling was probably >incorrect!). Everyone was happy and a lesson was learned by all, >including the director! >Nancy >----- Original Message ----- >From: Eric Landau > >At 12:31 AM 1/18/03, Nancy wrote: > >>New Players are fun! At the club today, NLM game, : >>The declaring pair have combined masterpoint total of 2!. Both have >>been playing about 6 months. >>bidding was: >> N E S W >>1S p 2D - p >>2NT p 3 NT all pass >>. >>East made his opening lead and N proceeded to place his hand on the >>table as the dummy. When I was called to the table, N said "I >>thought I was the dummy!" >>In a situation like this, do we apply Law 48B2 and Law 68. >> "When declarer faces his cards at any other time than immediately >> following a lead out of turn,, he may be deemed to have made a claim >> or concession of tricks, and then Law 68 applies." >>or does the word "may" in this law give the director another >>option? (Such as allowing the lead to stand and the partner of the >>offender become the declarer and play the hand?) >>Do we "play" the hand with all the cards (all 4 players) face up and >>determine the outcome of the hand???? > >The Preface to TFLB says what "may" means when applied to a player, >but gives no guidance as to how it is to be interpreted when applied >to the director. Normal English usage suggests it means that the >director, in such situations, is permitted some latitude for common >sense and discretion. I find it generally satisfactory to interpret >such directives that use "may" as meaning something like, to borrow >from L46, that the law tells us what the director should do "except >when the [player's] different intention is incontrovertable". That is >clearly the case here; nobody would suggest that North had any >possible intention of claiming, and treating this as a claim situation >would be so silly that I can't imagine how one might offer a >convincing rationale to the players at the table. > >I would rule that L48A applies, tell North to pick up his hand, South >to put the dummy down, and play to proceed normally. I would >"penalize" North sufficiently, IMO, by reading the law slowly enough >to ensure that E-W had enough time to get a good look at his cards >before he picked them up. This is a curious reply, as the opening lead was not out of turn. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_2080030==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 04:22 AM 1/22/03, Sven wrote:

This has been a curious thread!
If you read the Laws correctly you should begin at either Law 48B1 or directly at Law 54A,
the last sentence of which says that if declarer begins to spread his hand ..... he must
spread his entire hand.
 
Thus we rule Law 54A, declarer has spread his hand (as he "may" do) and becomes
dummy.
 
South becomes the declarer, no kind of claim has occurred.
 
(Law 48B2 is explicitly not applicable after an OLOOT)
 
regards Sven
----- Original Message -----
From: Nancy T Dressing

If I have read the Law correctly, Declarer did not expose a card 48A, Declarer faced his cards Law 48B.  I like the use of "may " and my decision was to allow the lead to stand and let declarer's partner play the hand (even though my ruling was probably incorrect!).  Everyone was happy and a lesson was learned by all, including the director! 
Nancy
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Landau

At 12:31 AM 1/18/03, Nancy wrote:

New Players are fun!  At the club today, NLM game,  :
The declaring pair have combined masterpoint total of 2!.  Both have been playing about 6 months.
bidding was:
 N     E    S    W
1S    p  2D -  p
2NT p 3 NT all pass
.
East made his opening lead and N proceeded to place his hand on the table as the dummy.  When I was called to the table,  N said "I thought I was the dummy!"
In a situation like this, do we apply Law 48B2 and Law 68. 
 "When declarer faces his cards at any other time than immediately following a lead out of turn,, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks,  and then Law 68 applies."
or does the word "may" in this law give the director another option?  (Such as allowing the lead to stand and the partner of the offender become the declarer and play the hand?)
Do we "play" the hand with all the cards (all 4 players) face up and determine the outcome of the hand????

The Preface to TFLB says what "may" means when applied to a player, but gives no guidance as to how it is to be interpreted when applied to the director.  Normal English usage suggests it means that the director, in such situations, is permitted some latitude for common sense and discretion.  I find it generally satisfactory to interpret such directives that use "may" as meaning something like, to borrow from L46, that the law tells us what the director should do "except when the [player's] different intention is incontrovertable".  That is clearly the case here; nobody would suggest that North had any possible intention of claiming, and treating this as a claim situation would be so silly that I can't imagine how one might offer a convincing rationale to the players at the table.

I would rule that L48A applies, tell North to pick up his hand, South to put the dummy down, and play to proceed normally.  I would "penalize" North sufficiently, IMO, by reading the law slowly enough to ensure that E-W had enough time to get a good look at his cards before he picked them up.

This is a curious reply, as the opening lead was not out of turn.

Eric Landau                     ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_2080030==.ALT-- From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Jan 23 08:33:53 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:33:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... Message-ID: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C2BA.299C9B30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Eric: At 05:54 PM 1/19/03, Nancy wrote: If I have read the Law correctly, Declarer did not expose a card 48A, Declarer faced his cards Law 48B. I like the use of "may " and my decision was to allow the lead to stand and let declarer's partner play the hand (even though my ruling was probably incorrect!). Everyone was happy and a lesson was learned by all, including the director! That was certainly a reasonable decision, as it conforms to the first rule of directing low-level club games: Always remember that the customers are there to play bridge. That means not deciding boards by an adjudicated result when the law permits you to avoid doing so, and Nancy's solution accomplishes that. The lesson learned by the TD should have been that this decision was wrong indeed. As a general approach the TD never should allow to continue after an irregularity by accepting it. The reason is that a player could start to use such mistake to his advantage, knowing that his partner makes at least one extra trick as declarer for example. The best solution in accordance with the laws had been to let declarer pick up all cards exposed, after deciding that L 48B2 doesn't apply. But I would give some points to the choice for L48B2, because that is the only law covering this case explicitly. ton ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C2BA.299C9B30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"

Eric: 
At 05:54 PM 1/19/03, Nancy wrote:

If I have read the Law correctly, Declarer did not expose a card 48A, Declarer faced his cards Law 48B.  I like the use of "may " and my decision was to allow the lead to stand and let declarer's partner play the hand (even though my ruling was probably incorrect!).  Everyone was happy and a lesson was learned by all, including the director! 

That was certainly a reasonable decision, as it conforms to the first rule of directing low-level club games:  Always remember that the customers are there to play bridge.  That means not deciding boards by an adjudicated result when the law permits you to avoid doing so, and Nancy's solution accomplishes that.

The lesson learned by the TD should have been that this decision was wrong indeed.  As a general approach the TD never should allow to continue after an irregularity by accepting it. The reason is that a player could start to use such mistake to his advantage, knowing that his partner makes at least one extra trick as declarer for example.
The best  solution in accordance with the laws had been to let  declarer pick up all cards exposed, after deciding that L 48B2 doesn't apply. But I would give some points to the choice for L48B2, because that is the only law covering this case explicitly.
 
ton
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C2BA.299C9B30-- From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Jan 23 09:03:30 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:03:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation Message-ID: > By the way, I think I share your feeling about this 'Kooijman > bamboolizing' > case. This is just too much. If the guy says 'any' at this > stage he deserves > no protection so why do we clutter the law with all kind of > exceptions. > > Jaap van der Neut When I wrote this message I started adding the question: 'I am curious to know whether David agrees with this decision'. Then I removed it, being convinced that the answer would be 'yes' and not wanting to enlarge our differences of opinion in other situations. I read David's earlier reaction not as saying that he did not agree, but more as a confirmation from his side that our laws are badly written. With which I still don't agree. David's approach seems to be that any not too stupid guy should be able to decide to start being a TD and make the right solution reading the applicable law for the first time in his life. That is ridiculous. Of course you need the whole load of information before even thinking of deciding on whatever happened. And you need to use the basic principles, one of which being that you need to strive for fair results. A well educated but still inexperienced TD, confronted with this sitution and not aware of the heading of L46B, but having found L46B5 should be puzzled, not accepting that consequence. After which the chief TD will make him a compliment and will tell him to read the sentence between the brackets after which both will express their admiration for the writers of our well designed laws. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Jan 23 09:11:48 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:11:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] POOT accepted Message-ID: > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Tony Musgrove [mailto:ardelm@bigpond.net.au] > Verzonden: donderdag 23 januari 2003 00:21 > Aan: blml@rtflb.org > Onderwerp: [blml] POOT accepted > > > The other day I was dealer as South. Partner passed out of turn > The director explained the options to East, who apparently > said verbally, "I don't accept the bid", and then passed. > I didn't hear this, but I saw the pass card out and assuming > that the POOT had been accepted, bid 1D, saying "you are > accepting my partner's pass, so we just carry on". The director was > called back and claimed that East had in fact also passed > out of turn, and that I had accepted it. He further ruled > that my partner was still obliged to pass at the first > opportunity. Surely this cannot be correct? but > I can't find an explicit mention of this case among the laws. > > Can anyone help? > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) You should have completed the story. Because now west, mumbling: 'idiots all of you' put down his pass card after which dealer South said that he just had decided to pass also. The TD decided then the auction to be closed. ton From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jan 23 11:18:54 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:18:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: Message-ID: <001101c2c2d1$3a568fa0$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton, Nothing wrong with your reaction. Still a few remarks. I didn't suggest the law is badly written (that is a style issue which can be argued and I do from time to time) but that I simply disagree with the concept behind much of the current laws. Laws should be simple and clear because they should be understandable by all players who play the game (how else can they adhere to the laws), and not only by well educated experienced TD's. That said I fully accept the price that in all kind of silly exceptional situations certain rules can be very harsh. But why is that a problem, this happens in all other competitive sports as well. The difference between major and minor penalty cards, all kind of possibilities to correct a bid/play/action after it has been made, alert rules are different every year and different in every country, examples enough of what I think is sick. All this rubish should be abolished and IMHO the laws should be rewritten completely with easy of use in mind. Not so much for the TD's (the game is crazy enough so that there will be always interesting cases) but for the players. Try to listen to yourself (Ton>): > David's approach seems to be that any not > too stupid guy should be able to decide to start being a TD and make the > right solution reading the applicable law for the first time in his life. > That is ridiculous. Of course you need the whole load of information before > even thinking of deciding on whatever happened. David seems to have a very sound idea that also low-level TD's should be able to make decent rulings most of the time. Get real, we have only so much good TD's so we have to make do with lots of mediocre and bad TD's as well. I don't like the way you ridiculize this problem (ok it is a technique I use myself as well). Of course to be a TD you need some training. But the clearer and simpler the law the better all TD's (the good, the bad and the ugly) decisions will be. Ton: > And you need to use the > basic principles, one of which being that you need to strive for fair > results. Here I disagree completely. If you consider bridge to be a competitive sport the TD should not strive for fair results. The TD should simply apply the law (in a fair way). But laws have sometimes unfair effects. What is next on the menu. A modification of the revoke law because sometimes the penalty is very unfair? Are you sure it is not a good idea to make separate rules for (high-level) competition bridge (simple and strict) and recreational bridge (where you can soften the penalties for all the silly mistakes players make all the time) ? Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "David Burn" ; "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:03 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Another incomplete designation > > > By the way, I think I share your feeling about this 'Kooijman > > bamboolizing' > > case. This is just too much. If the guy says 'any' at this > > stage he deserves > > no protection so why do we clutter the law with all kind of > > exceptions. > > > > Jaap van der Neut > > > > > > When I wrote this message I started adding the question: 'I am curious to > know whether David agrees with this decision'. Then I removed it, being > convinced that the answer would be 'yes' and not wanting to enlarge our > differences of opinion in other situations. > > I read David's earlier reaction not as saying that he did not agree, but > more as a confirmation from his side that our laws are badly written. > > With which I still don't agree. David's approach seems to be that any not > too stupid guy should be able to decide to start being a TD and make the > right solution reading the applicable law for the first time in his life. > That is ridiculous. Of course you need the whole load of information before > even thinking of deciding on whatever happened. And you need to use the > basic principles, one of which being that you need to strive for fair > results. > A well educated but still inexperienced TD, confronted with this sitution > and not aware of the heading of L46B, but having found L46B5 should be > puzzled, not accepting that consequence. After which the chief TD will make > him a compliment and will tell him to read the sentence between the brackets > after which both will express their admiration for the writers of our well > designed laws. > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jvdneut@xs4all.nl Thu Jan 23 11:37:56 2003 From: jvdneut@xs4all.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:37:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trial Bids References: <3e2eb86c.352c.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <006a01c2c2d3$e2780680$25b54351@noos.fr> Karel: Talking purely at competition level - is there > a case for ruling against a player just on no written proof filled out ?? (ie) > in my previous post they alerted long suit trial had no CC - so we are now heavily > biased toward ruling against them ?? > On the official CC there are no explicit questions about trial bids. 'Never in my life' I have seen an entry on a CC as long as a pair uses normal trials (short suit trials are sometimes mentioned as they should IMO). Unfortunately normal trials includes all non-short trials. So ruling this case depending on the CC seems completely silly to me. Of course if you want to rule 'two different systems/explanations' you can use the CC as an (unfair) argument but that is not my view of this case. But what I still don't understand is why the trial got alerted. If only I could ask them a couple of questions. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Trial Bids > [snip .... ] > >This is not necessarily a problem. But it becomes a problem if TD's (or AC > members) with modest bridge skills refuse to accept that reality. It is often > difficult for me to take TD's (AC's) serious who are discussing bridge issues > in a way which shows that they are well beyond their turf. But if they cannot > accept the first truth (their bridge level) they also cannot accept my opinion > that they should refrain from bridge-judgements that surpass their abilities. > That said you can be a top class TD based on rather limited bridge skills. As > long as you stick to the TD's job. Which is establishing facts, isolating the > real questions, finding the correct law, > >pacifying upset players (probably the most important single skill), etc. And > yes also applying judgement. But for every TD (some are quite good players) > there is a level where he cannot judge anymore and needs to rely on peer-players. > Good TD's know how to get that help in an efficient way. But if you want to > indulge in bridge-judgement beyond the level where you are comfortable you should > just play the game. Like we all do. > > > +++ Jaap in this thread and previous ones has made some very "Realistic" points. > From my own Irish point of view the above scenario is common place. I'd go > so far as to say that alot of the posts I put up are directly related to this > issue (ie) Committees and Td's ruling on issues whichout an appropriate matching > level of bridge expertise. Happily - the CBAI along with Ferghal's help is > currently attempting to rectify this issue (big Cheer). > > > Another observation I've made is that alot of posts revolve around the players > having no written proof as to what they are playing, either a properly filled > out CC or additional notes. Talking purely at competition level - is there > a case for ruling against a player just on no written proof filled out ?? (ie) > in my previous post they alerted long suit trial had no CC - so we are now heavily > biased toward ruling against them ?? > > > Karel > -- > http://www.iol.ie > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Jan 23 12:06:36 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:06:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation Message-ID: Jaap: > > I didn't suggest the law is badly written No, but David did and does and (I am afraid) will do. > > Try to listen to yourself (Ton>): > > David's approach seems to be that any not > > too stupid guy should be able to decide to start being a TD > and make the > > right solution reading the applicable law for the first > time in his life. > > That is ridiculous. Of course you need the whole load of information > before > > even thinking of deciding on whatever happened. > David seems to have a very sound idea that also low-level > TD's should be > able to make decent rulings most of the time. Whatever level the TD has, he should know the laws. Get real, we > have only so much > good TD's so we have to make do with lots of mediocre and bad > TD's as well. > I don't like the way you ridiculize this problem (ok it is a > technique I use > myself as well). Hidden qualities apparently, I am not aware of ridiculizing this time. > > Ton: > > And you need to use the > > basic principles, one of which being that you need to > strive for fair > > results. > Here I disagree completely. This is not and should not be something of a personal opinion. The laws should express those principles. And they do, please read the scope where it says that decisions should be equity oriented and not penalty oriented. > If you consider bridge to be a > competitive sport > the TD should not strive for fair results. strong opinion, not supported by the laws as they are at the moment. > What is next on > the menu. A modification of the revoke law because sometimes > the penalty is > very unfair? yes indeed, clair voyant, aren't you? ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 23 12:54:30 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:54:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030123134241.01d297d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:06 23/01/2003 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > Try to listen to yourself (Ton>): > > > David's approach seems to be that any not > > > too stupid guy should be able to decide to start being a TD > > and make the > > > right solution reading the applicable law for the first > > time in his life. > > > That is ridiculous. Of course you need the whole load of information > > before > > > even thinking of deciding on whatever happened. > > David seems to have a very sound idea that also low-level > > TD's should be > > able to make decent rulings most of the time. > > >Whatever level the TD has, he should know the laws. > AG : oops. I guess no one of the TDs I've met does know every Law. The good ones, however, are able to recognize the problem when hearing it exposed, know classical cases (like the number of tricks for a revoke) by heart, and above all know how to use TFLB and interpret the Laws. Some even know enough bridge to try and give a reasonable assertion of an adjusted score. Do you expect something else ? > > If you consider bridge to be a > > competitive sport > > the TD should not strive for fair results. > > >strong opinion, not supported by the laws as they are at the moment. AG : in most competitive sports, some (many) laws are made for the sake of equity. Only to mention a few : soccer : new penalty shot in case of interference in the penalty area tennis : two balls given after a wrong call by a linesperson cricket : restrictions in lbw cases (with, in this case, a very obvious intent not to penalize for the sake of penalizing) cycling : re-run of a 3-person sprint leg after one has been disqualified and, of course, the famous Salt Lake City figure-skating tie Why should bridge differ ? The question behind all these rules is the same : what should, or could, have happened without the irragularity ? Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jan 23 13:34:39 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:34:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation Message-ID: <4959419.1043328879879.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Ton wrote: > > I didn't suggest the law is badly written > No, but David did and does and (I am afraid) will do. David thinks that placing a crucial clause in a parenthesis to the general preamble to a law is a poor idea. He realises why it was done, of course. If the Law said: "In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the director shall be summoned and shall award to declarer those tricks that the declarer can convince the director he intended to make." then everybody would realise what a truly ridiculous Law it was. David Burn London, England From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Jan 23 13:58:20 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:58:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation Message-ID: > > > Ton wrote: > > > > I didn't suggest the law is badly written Jaap: > > No, but David did and does and (I am afraid) will do. > > David thinks that placing a crucial clause in a parenthesis > to the general preamble to a law is a poor idea. He realises > why it was done, of course. If the Law said: > > "In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of > the card to be played from dummy, the director shall be > summoned and shall award to declarer those tricks that the > declarer can convince the director he intended to make." > > then everybody would realise what a truly ridiculous Law it was. > > David Burn > London, England Are you now suggesting that the laws were written this poorly (according to you) to hide the fact that the lawmakers did ridiculous things and were aware of it? Plain conspiracy? How exiting! I am willing to agree that we didn't need parenthesis for this crucial clause. Probably done to emphasize that it should be a rare exception to let declarer play another card than the one named. ton From jurgenr@t-online.de Thu Jan 23 14:06:45 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:06:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation Message-ID: Jaap, You are right, I think, in every detail - and David also - and now what? The pedantic, petty-burocratic, pompous, pseudo-legalistic attitude of the people in charge of the formulation of the rules of Bridge - today, yesterday, and tomorrow - seems to arise naturally. Such activities attract such people - and they will grattle on in their subcommittees forever. The same spirit prevails, so far as I can tell, in all analogous organizations - competitive chess, skat, cribbage, sailing, billiards etc etc. The ideal is a state where you have no indication who might have won until the appeals committee has met. If simplicity and consistency were seen as primary virtues, 2/3 of the verbiage and 9/10 of the obscurity could easily be removed from the rules of bridge. But then what would become of the priests, since such a canon requires no exegesis? Jürgen --------------------------------------------------------- Ton, Nothing wrong with your reaction. Still a few remarks. I didn't suggest the law is badly written (that is a style issue which can be argued and I do from time to time) but that I simply disagree with the concept behind much of the current laws. Laws should be simple and clear because they should be understandable by all players who play the game (how else can they adhere to the laws), and not only by well educated experienced TD's. That said I fully accept the price that in all kind of silly exceptional situations certain rules can be very harsh. But why is that a problem, this happens in all other competitive sports as well. The difference between major and minor penalty cards, all kind of possibilities to correct a bid/play/action after it has been made, alert rules are different every year and different in every country, examples enough of what I think is sick. All this rubish should be abolished and IMHO the laws should be rewritten completely with easy of use in mind. Not so much for the TD's (the game is crazy enough so that there will be always interesting cases) but for the players. Try to listen to yourself (Ton>): > David's approach seems to be that any not > too stupid guy should be able to decide to start being a TD and make the > right solution reading the applicable law for the first time in his life. > That is ridiculous. Of course you need the whole load of information before > even thinking of deciding on whatever happened. David seems to have a very sound idea that also low-level TD's should be able to make decent rulings most of the time. Get real, we have only so much good TD's so we have to make do with lots of mediocre and bad TD's as well. I don't like the way you ridiculize this problem (ok it is a technique I use myself as well). Of course to be a TD you need some training. But the clearer and simpler the law the better all TD's (the good, the bad and the ugly) decisions will be. Ton: > And you need to use the > basic principles, one of which being that you need to strive for fair > results. Here I disagree completely. If you consider bridge to be a competitive sport the TD should not strive for fair results. The TD should simply apply the law (in a fair way). But laws have sometimes unfair effects. What is next on the menu. A modification of the revoke law because sometimes the penalty is very unfair? Are you sure it is not a good idea to make separate rules for (high-level) competition bridge (simple and strict) and recreational bridge (where you can soften the penalties for all the silly mistakes players make all the time) ? Jaap van der Neut From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jan 23 14:43:17 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:43:17 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation Message-ID: <8237813.1043332997147.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Ton wrote: > Are you now suggesting that the laws were written this poorly (according to you) to hide the fact that the lawmakers did ridiculous things and were aware of it? No, of course not. The Laws were written like this because of the "Save the Rabbit" campaign. This effort to protect people from the consequences of not being able to follow suit, or wait their turn to call, or count their tricks before claiming, has been introduced into the Laws in an understated, almost apologetic, manner. All the "this law doesn't apply if declarer is a rabbit" clauses are in brackets, or footnotes, or the section at the back of the book. And the Laws were written like this because an influential group of idiots thinks that bridge is not a game played by people with cards. It is a game played by mental entities with abstract symbols. Thus, if you play or call for a card that your mind would not have selected, you must be permitted to retract that card. If you make some physical bid that is a mental absurdity, then you don't have to play in a cue bid after all, for the "Save the Metaphysical Rabbit" campaign will protect you. It does not matter how inattentive, clumsy, or downright incompetent you are in the actual bidding and playing of a hand. What matters is what you can convince some official afterwards that you would have done. Completely ludicrous, of course, and utterly impossible to administer with any degree of fairness or consistency. But it is the way things are, ever since Kaplan passed a response to Blackwood and didn't like the result he got, and ever since the American people stood up for their constitutional right to cheat by asking "No spades, partner?" and ever since... well, ever since people started to think that rabbits were such cuddly, lovable creatures. We reap the whirlwind, but unlike most of you lot, I didn't sow the wind, which ought to entitle me to complain once in a while. David Burn London, England From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jan 23 15:26:10 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:26:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: Message-ID: <003401c2c2f3$c3bbc720$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Ton, Funny responses you get when you make a strong statement. I said: If you consider bridge to be a competitive sport the TD should not strive for fair results. Of course this was also intended a little bit as a pun (just like David's last mail, but I am afraid Ton didn't get that one as well). Ton is maybe right his English leaves sometimes something to be desired. I took 'you need to strive for fair results' from a mail by Ton. For this to make sense Ton should have written 'rulings' instead of 'results'. But I think this is not really a language error :) . Anyway, don't forget the next sentence I said that TD should apply the law in a fair way. Which is something completely different, but I am afaid Ton doesn't (want to) understand (or agree to) that. It is simply too dangerous to mix law making with law enforcement. But the whole point is that rules are meant to regulate a sport. Without rules we cannot play a competitive sport. Once we agree on a set of rules (preferably fair ones) we play by that rules and the job of the TD is to enforce them, whether he likes them or not, whether they are fair or not. If you don't like the rules you should change them (not twist them). Bridge is a rather young sport and IMO the laws have not kept up with the developments of the last decades. But I am afraid I cannot change a culture. Just remember how Bobby Wolff 'interpreted' the rules some years ago. Nothing much has changed I am afraid. Ton: > This is not and should not be something of a personal opinion. The laws > should express those principles. And they do, please read the scope where it > says that decisions should be equity oriented and not penalty oriented. Twisting words again. Don't be silly. You know me well enough to know that I am one of most equity and least penalty oriented persons when it is about judgements (by the way, decision and judgement are different concepts). It is thanks to me and not to you that in Holland we give far fewer meaningless penalties nowadays. Anyway, the issue at hand is that the laws should be simpler and stricter (and yes better formulated). Which means less judgements and more mechanical resolve (penalties is maybe not a good word in this context). Then everybody will understand the rules better. And bridge will be a better game. Because the better the players understand the rules the better they follow them. And because the average TD will do a better job. And because players will better accept adverse rulings. I really wonder why you resist so much to this simple truth. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "Kooijman, A." ; "David Burn" ; "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:06 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Another incomplete designation > > > Jaap: > > > > I didn't suggest the law is badly written > > No, but David did and does and (I am afraid) will do. > > > > > > > > > > Try to listen to yourself (Ton>): > > > David's approach seems to be that any not > > > too stupid guy should be able to decide to start being a TD > > and make the > > > right solution reading the applicable law for the first > > time in his life. > > > That is ridiculous. Of course you need the whole load of information > > before > > > even thinking of deciding on whatever happened. > > David seems to have a very sound idea that also low-level > > TD's should be > > able to make decent rulings most of the time. > > > Whatever level the TD has, he should know the laws. > > > > > Get real, we > > have only so much > > good TD's so we have to make do with lots of mediocre and bad > > TD's as well. > > I don't like the way you ridiculize this problem (ok it is a > > technique I use > > myself as well). > > > Hidden qualities apparently, I am not aware of ridiculizing this time. > > > > > > Ton: > > > And you need to use the > > > basic principles, one of which being that you need to > > strive for fair > > > results. > > Here I disagree completely. > > > This is not and should not be something of a personal opinion. The laws > should express those principles. And they do, please read the scope where it > says that decisions should be equity oriented and not penalty oriented. > > > > > > > If you consider bridge to be a > > competitive sport > > the TD should not strive for fair results. > > > strong opinion, not supported by the laws as they are at the moment. > > > > > What is next on > > the menu. A modification of the revoke law because sometimes > > the penalty is > > very unfair? > > yes indeed, > clair voyant, aren't you? > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 23 09:17:33 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:17:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] I thought I was the dummy..... References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030119140706.00aa2c50@pop.starpower.net> <003501c2c00d$aa8e3730$6401a8c0@hare> <5.2.0.9.0.20030122175634.00aa1200@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005701c2c2c0$43860080$70d8fea9@WINXP> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01C2C2C8.A4ED2D50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > From: Eric Landau >Sven wrote: >> This has been a curious thread! .......... > This is a curious reply, as the opening lead was not out of turn. Indeed! And it is already a long time since I discovered my mistake and apologized to blml. regards Sven ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01C2C2C8.A4ED2D50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> From: Eric=20 Landau
>Sven wrote:
>> This has been a curious = thread!
..........
> This = is a curious=20 reply, as the opening lead was not out of=20 turn.

Indeed!
And it=20 is already a long time since I discovered my = mistake
and apologized=20 to blml.
 
regards=20 Sven
------=_NextPart_000_0054_01C2C2C8.A4ED2D50-- From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jan 23 15:37:14 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:37:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <8237813.1043332997147.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <004a01c2c2f5$4f916560$25b54351@noos.fr> David, Your language is just too funny. Why don't you answer my bidding quiz anymore. Just to make me (and the rest of the readers) laugh from time to time. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:43 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Another incomplete designation > Ton wrote: > > > Are you now suggesting that the laws were written this poorly (according to you) to hide the fact that the lawmakers did ridiculous things and were aware of it? > > No, of course not. The Laws were written like this because of the "Save the Rabbit" campaign. This effort to protect people from the consequences of not being able to follow suit, or wait their turn to call, or count their tricks before claiming, has been introduced into the Laws in an understated, almost apologetic, manner. All the "this law doesn't apply if declarer is a rabbit" clauses are in brackets, or footnotes, or the section at the back of the book. > > And the Laws were written like this because an influential group of idiots thinks that bridge is not a game played by people with cards. It is a game played by mental entities with abstract symbols. Thus, if you play or call for a card that your mind would not have selected, you must be permitted to retract that card. If you make some physical bid that is a mental absurdity, then you don't have to play in a cue bid after all, for the "Save the Metaphysical Rabbit" campaign will protect you. It does not matter how inattentive, clumsy, or downright incompetent you are in the actual bidding and playing of a hand. What matters is what you can convince some official afterwards that you would have done. > > Completely ludicrous, of course, and utterly impossible to administer with any degree of fairness or consistency. But it is the way things are, ever since Kaplan passed a response to Blackwood and didn't like the result he got, and ever since the American people stood up for their constitutional right to cheat by asking "No spades, partner?" and ever since... well, ever since people started to think that rabbits were such cuddly, lovable creatures. We reap the whirlwind, but unlike most of you lot, I didn't sow the wind, which ought to entitle me to complain once in a while. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@tameware.com Thu Jan 23 07:20:14 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 02:20:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? Message-ID: The Grand National Teams is an annual event in the ACBL. Each District in the ACBL qualifies a team to play in a national final. If a team qualifies with four or five players they are generally allowed to augment to bring their number up to six. Rules for augmentation are specified by each District. My District has traditionally had a permissive policy: "augmentation/replacement may take place from any member in good standing of the District." In part this is because we wish to give our teams the best possible chance to succeed at the national level. We've realized recently that this rule could have unintended consequences. One is that a sponsor could qualify for the national final without having to play a single board. Fortunately it has has not happened to date. We'd like to prevent if from occurring in the future if we can. Has anyone any suggestions for updating our conditions of contest to avoid this possibility? I know we could have a committee vet any prospective additions -- if possible I'd prefer something more objective. What do other jurisdictions do? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Jan 23 16:39:19 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:39:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? In-Reply-To: from "Adam Wildavsky" at Jan 23, 2003 02:20:14 AM Message-ID: <200301231639.h0NGdJQ12546@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Adam, Well, District 6 (Mid-Atlantic including MD, VA, DC, and a small part of DE) has it's COC on-line. You can access them at http://www.districtsix.org/Games/GNT/GNT2003/D6_Conditions.html. The relevant section is GENERAL CONDITIONS -PART II, Section 16 at the end. Unfortunately, our COC do not include anything to counter what you're trying to avoid. To add their two cents worth, I'm cc'ing our District Coordinator, Rae Dethlefsen, and our District GNT committee chair, Bill Cole, and maybe they can provide some more insight into how District 6 would address this problem. Rae and Bill, The note below came through a mailing list that I'm on call the Bridge Laws Mailing List (BLML). If you have any comments, please group reply to this message so that it will go to the mailing list. THanks. -Ted. > From: Adam Wildavsky > Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 02:20:14 -0500 > > The Grand National Teams is an annual event in the ACBL. Each > District in the ACBL qualifies a team to play in a national final. If > a team qualifies with four or five players they are generally allowed > to augment to bring their number up to six. Rules for augmentation > are specified by each District. > > My District has traditionally had a permissive policy: > "augmentation/replacement may take place from any member in good > standing of the District." In part this is because we wish to give > our teams the best possible chance to succeed at the national level. > > We've realized recently that this rule could have unintended > consequences. One is that a sponsor could qualify for the national > final without having to play a single board. Fortunately it has has > not happened to date. We'd like to prevent if from occurring in the > future if we can. Has anyone any suggestions for updating our > conditions of contest to avoid this possibility? I know we could have > a committee vet any prospective additions -- if possible I'd prefer > something more objective. What do other jurisdictions do? > > -- > Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC > adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com > From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Jan 23 16:31:04 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:31:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? References: Message-ID: <007101c2c2fc$d5920960$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 8:20 AM Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? > The Grand National Teams is an annual event in the ACBL. Each > District in the ACBL qualifies a team to play in a national final. If > a team qualifies with four or five players they are generally allowed > to augment to bring their number up to six. Rules for augmentation > are specified by each District. I have never liked that augmentation business. What if team A plays vs. team B in the District final (both teams being four men squads) then there is a collusion possibility. It may pay off to set up a deal between one of the teams & a pair from the other team: "you play below par and therefore help us win the match while we then add you as a third pair". I know about one case (from many, many years ago but still...) when this actually happened. Don't tell me, I know the answer already - very few people play bridge with the intention of cheating so it is unwise to have rules that prevent it etc. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Czego nie wykorzystujesz, procentuje! mBIZNES Konto i mBIZNES MAX. Efektywne oprocentowanie 5.64% i 6.59%. > http://link.interia.pl/f16c0 From adam@irvine.com Thu Jan 23 17:03:19 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:03:19 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? Message-ID: <200301231703.JAA10428@mailhub.irvine.com> Sorry if this has come up before . . . In responding to a post on r.g.b, I noticed what seems to be an oversight (or just really bad wording) in this law. Law 20F is divided into two parts, 20F1 and 20F2. Law 20F1 applies during the auction period, before the final pass. Law 20F2 applies after the final pass. Law 20F1 says, "replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question". However, this phrase's placement in 20F1 makes it appear that it applies only during the period when L20F1 applies, and not during the play period when L20F2 applies. So what's supposed to happen during the play period? If declarer wants to ask a question about a call made by the defense, "should" the reply "normally" be given by the partner of the defender who made the call? I think the intent is for the answer to be "yes", but the Laws don't actually say that. What about when a defender asks about the declaring side's auction? Does it matter in that case who answers the question? Anyway, I think the wording of the Law needs to be tweaked here. -- Adam From Chris@Pisarra.com Thu Jan 23 17:08:48 2003 From: Chris@Pisarra.com (Chris Pisarra) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:08:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? References: Message-ID: <059c01c2c302$18989940$6501a8c0@attbi.com> In District 21 (San Francisco Bay Area) a few years ago, a sponsor decided she was "unavailable" for the GNT finals, so she just sent her 4 strongest horses. She and her personal pro were elimianted from the team, of course, but then they were placed right back on via the augmentation process. Then they went on to win the GNT Then they went on to win the team trials Then they went on to win the Bermuda Bowl. All, perhaps, because the sponsor didn't have to play the district finals. Not that I'm holding a grudge, or anything. Chris From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Jan 23 17:53:08 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:53:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <8237813.1043332997147.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <004001c2c308$55752350$0a3df0c3@LNV> > Ton wrote: > > > Are you now suggesting that the laws were written this poorly (according to you) to hide the fact that the lawmakers did ridiculous things and were aware of it? > > No, of course not. >. We reap the whirlwind, but unlike most of you lot, I didn't sow the wind, which ought to entitle me to complain once in a while. > > David Burn > London, England 'Once in a while' you say? I expect more accurate descriptions from your side. More content related: we really differ on a matter of principles here. And in my opinion we should not use words as ''ridiculous'' in that case. There are good reasons to defend either of both approaches. Not being on the winning side doesn't make the established side ridiculous or inferior. And yes the drafting committee decided not to allow a change of a mental absurdity anymore, but does allow the change of an inadvertent call, the more so because the use of bidding boxes increases that irregularity dramatically. I am able to defend those choices and don't see that bridge is harmed by them. It might be better to try to convince yourself that we are not necessarily a bunch of idiots making those decisions. We need contributions like yours but it is not so easy to use them when some of it is quite extreme related to the more philosophical choice we have made. ton > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 23 19:04:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:04:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030123134241.01d297d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001b01c2c312$471c9b80$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ........... > AG : oops. I guess no one of the TDs I've met does know every Law. The good > ones, however, are able to recognize the problem when hearing it exposed, Just one comment: The good ones admit that it is a wise routine always to look up the applicable law in the book rather than ruling according to what they (believe) they remember. Exception: After 50 cases of faced opening lead out of turn one usually knows that one by heart. regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 23 19:11:11 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:11:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? References: <200301231703.JAA10428@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <003701c2c313$3171c610$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Adam Beneschan" > Sorry if this has come up before . . . > > In responding to a post on r.g.b, I noticed what seems to be an > oversight (or just really bad wording) in this law. > > Law 20F is divided into two parts, 20F1 and 20F2. Law 20F1 applies > during the auction period, before the final pass. Law 20F2 applies > after the final pass. > > Law 20F1 says, "replies should normally be given by the partner of a > player who made a call in question". However, this phrase's placement > in 20F1 makes it appear that it applies only during the period when > L20F1 applies, and not during the play period when L20F2 applies. > > So what's supposed to happen during the play period? If declarer > wants to ask a question about a call made by the defense, "should" the > reply "normally" be given by the partner of the defender who made the > call? I think the intent is for the answer to be "yes", but the Laws > don't actually say that. > > What about when a defender asks about the declaring side's auction? > Does it matter in that case who answers the question? No, I strongly assume that the arrangement and wording is intentional: To me it makes sense that during the play period any question from a defender should be directed to and answered by the declarer, dummy is not to participate. And the declarer should be free to address his question and request an answer from any defender at his choice. regards Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Jan 23 20:16:50 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:16:50 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? References: <200301231703.JAA10428@mailhub.irvine.com> <003701c2c313$3171c610$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <001001c2c31c$60417b80$9201a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" : > > To me it makes sense that during the play period any question from a > defender should be directed to and answered by the declarer, dummy > is not to participate. It is not what L20F2 says, and it doesn't make sense to me. Dummy should explain declarer's calls so that there will be no problem such as can arise when declarer explains his/her call but does not have the hand described. I cannot find where dummy has this right, however, so maybe you're right. Dummy may correct an explanation by declarer, however, in order to prevent an irregularity, i.e., MI. (L42B2). Before the opening lead is faced, both the presumed declarer and the presumed dummy should voluntarily disclose any pertinent information not yet disclosed, each explaining calls made by the other, without being asked. I wish the Laws required this instead of leaving it up to the SOs. > And the declarer should be free to address his > question and request an answer from any defender at his choice. A defender should not have to explain his/her own call, except in unusual circumstances that I can't think of right now. Several parts of L20F1 (the parenthetical part, the word "full," and the last clause) logically apply to L20F2 also. Do they really have to repeat it all? Note that L75C assumes that explanations treat with partner's calls, not one's own. A defender should not correct the other's explanation until play is complete (too much UI). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jan 23 20:49:09 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:49:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <8237813.1043332997147.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <004001c2c308$55752350$0a3df0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <004801c2c320$e26f25e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton, Obviously you are irritated by Davids language (which is excellent prose by the way). But now your own: Ton some days ago: > With which I still don't agree. David's approach seems to be that any not > too stupid guy should be able to decide to start being a TD and make the > right solution reading the applicable law for the first time in his life. > That is ridiculous. Of course you need the whole load of information before > even thinking of deciding on whatever happened. And you need to use the > basic principles, one of which being that you need to strive for fair > results. So David (me !?) is not the only one to use words like ridiculous in respect to another person opinion. Besides as I said in another mail Davids idea is far from idiculous. But this idea (concept) doesn't fit you so you call it ridiculous. And one day latter you cry foul because some others use the same techniques on you. Dear Ton if you don't want to be called a 'bunch of idiots' or whatever qualification then don't behave like such or at least restrain from giving cause. Jaap: > ... I don't like the way you ridiculize this problem ... (referring to the language above) Ton: > Hidden qualities apparently, I am not aware of ridiculizing this time. The language you used above is ridiculizing by any standard. Sad you don't realize it yourself. But I advise you to drop that style because you are no good at it. David is (but I am afraid that given your recent reactions to his mails you simply don't understand his English which I admit is not that easy). What would be welcome is you to adress the real issues rather than to dodge them all the time hidding behind silly details and irrelevant language issues. Ton: > > > Are you now suggesting that the laws were written this poorly (according > to you) to hide the fact that the lawmakers did ridiculous things and were > aware of it? This is for me 'proof' you didn't really understand what David has written today and in the past. There is no such suggestion. But then how do you communicate whith Grattan because his English is much 'worse' than David's (from the perspective of the non native speaker) ? Don't take this as a reproach, it is 'their fault', native English speakers don't always take into account that the rest of us is at a severe disadvantage, specially when they start using certain 'styles'. Ton today: > More content related: we really differ on a matter of principles here. Yes indeed we do, but you never ever want to discuss those principles. You tend to defend every dot and every comma but whenever it is really about something you are not there. The way you react to recents post doesn't fit a chairman of the laws committee. If you are so involved in the details who is handling the real issues? And yes I do think you and your committee are working from principles which I think are wrong. But I have no real hope those principles can be discussed let alone be changed in the (not so) near future. So from time to time people who can write column-style will make some fun out if it (not for the sake of fun but because we are sad). I am afraid that is part of your job. Ton: > And yes the drafting committee decided not to allow a change of a mental > absurdity anymore, but does allow the change of an inadvertent call, the > more so because the use of bidding boxes increases that irregularity > dramatically. I am able to defend those choices and don't see that bridge is > harmed by them. Ok, sometimes I like discussing details too, I have my weaknesses. Mental absurdity. If this means what I think it means that sounds quite good (so if you pass a cuebid you play there). Perfect. Keep it simple! Inavertent call. IMO should be limited to simple mechanical bidding box errors (you pick 1S instead of 1H). I prefer the rule to say that the correction should be 'immediate' (so there are no problems that the next guy has bid which creates too many complications). That you pick the wrong stack is 'ok', but that you don't look at what you are doing (which prevents you from correcting immediately) is 'not ok'. Keep it simple! Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Another incomplete designation > > > > Ton wrote: > > > > > Are you now suggesting that the laws were written this poorly (according > to you) to hide the fact that the lawmakers did ridiculous things and were > aware of it? > > > > No, of course not. > > > > > > >. We reap the whirlwind, but unlike most of you lot, I didn't sow the wind, > which ought to entitle me to complain once in a while. > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > 'Once in a while' you say? I expect more accurate descriptions from your > side. > > More content related: we really differ on a matter of principles here. And > in my opinion we should not use words as ''ridiculous'' in that case. There > are good reasons to defend either of both approaches. Not being on the > winning side doesn't make the established side ridiculous or inferior. > And yes the drafting committee decided not to allow a change of a mental > absurdity anymore, but does allow the change of an inadvertent call, the > more so because the use of bidding boxes increases that irregularity > dramatically. I am able to defend those choices and don't see that bridge is > harmed by them. > > It might be better to try to convince yourself that we are not necessarily a > bunch of idiots making those decisions. We need contributions like yours but > it is not so easy to use them when some of it is quite extreme related to > the more philosophical choice we have made. > > ton > > > > > > > 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 jaapb@noos.fr Thu Jan 23 21:06:53 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:06:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? References: <200301231703.JAA10428@mailhub.irvine.com> <003701c2c313$3171c610$70d8fea9@WINXP> <001001c2c31c$60417b80$9201a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <006101c2c323$5d319f40$25b54351@noos.fr> Marvin, I agree with your answer (almost) 100%. 'Of course' partner should still explain partners call also during play. All laws are based on this principle. I wouldn't mind to limit the right to ask questions after the (third card of the) first trick (creates more problems than it solves) but that is another discussion. And yes if there is a real mix-up there are some ideas that you should be able to ask both sides but that really is another discussion. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? > > From: "Sven Pran" : > > > > To me it makes sense that during the play period any question from a > > defender should be directed to and answered by the declarer, dummy > > is not to participate. > > It is not what L20F2 says, and it doesn't make sense to me. Dummy should > explain declarer's calls so that there will be no problem such as can arise > when declarer explains his/her call but does not have the hand described. I > cannot find where dummy has this right, however, so maybe you're right. > > Dummy may correct an explanation by declarer, however, in order to prevent > an irregularity, i.e., MI. (L42B2). > > Before the opening lead is faced, both the presumed declarer and the > presumed dummy should voluntarily disclose any pertinent information not yet > disclosed, each explaining calls made by the other, without being asked. I > wish the Laws required this instead of leaving it up to the SOs. > > > And the declarer should be free to address his > > question and request an answer from any defender at his choice. > > A defender should not have to explain his/her own call, except in unusual > circumstances that I can't think of right now. Several parts of L20F1 (the > parenthetical part, the word "full," and the last clause) logically apply > to L20F2 also. Do they really have to repeat it all? Note that L75C assumes > that explanations treat with partner's calls, not one's own. > > A defender should not correct the other's explanation until play is complete > (too much UI). > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Jan 23 21:02:56 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:02:56 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? In-Reply-To: <200301231703.JAA10428@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Law 20F1 says, "replies should normally be given by the partner of a > player who made a call in question". However, this phrase's placement > in 20F1 makes it appear that it applies only during the period when > L20F1 applies, and not during the play period when L20F2 applies. > > So what's supposed to happen during the play period? If declarer > wants to ask a question about a call made by the defense, "should" the > reply "normally" be given by the partner of the defender who made the > call? I think the intent is for the answer to be "yes", but the Laws > don't actually say that. > > What about when a defender asks about the declaring side's auction? > Does it matter in that case who answers the question? At least in my area, it is normal for one member of the declaring side to explain the whole auction in a few quick sentences, rather than declarer and dummy taking turns, when asked to explain the auction before the opening lead is faced. During the play itself, I can't remember hearing anyone ask dummy anything. Now that you mention it it is a bit odd that it doesn't say which defender you should ask about cardplay agreements. I am not eager to see it changed, however, since I see very little difference between the list of problems caused by hearing my partner explain somethiing and the list of problems I cause my partner when he hears me explain something. Usually all the defenders are asked is "what type of signals" or "from what holdings can the (whatever) be led". If "Is this an attitude or a suit-preference situation in your partnership?" were a fair question, I can see problems arising. But the answer to that is almost invariably "Each of us has to work that out based on our own cards and our general bridge knowledge, and so do you." > Anyway, I think the wording of the Law needs to be tweaked here. > > -- Adam > From adam@tameware.com Thu Jan 23 21:37:45 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:37:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? In-Reply-To: <059c01c2c302$18989940$6501a8c0@attbi.com> References: <059c01c2c302$18989940$6501a8c0@attbi.com> Message-ID: At 9:08 AM -0800 1/23/03, Chris Pisarra wrote: > Then they went on to win the GNT > > Then they went on to win the team trials I don't think these are related. The team trials do not take recent GNT finishes into account for either seeding or positioning points. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From john@asimere.com Thu Jan 23 21:27:11 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:27:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation In-Reply-To: <001b01c2c312$471c9b80$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030123134241.01d297d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001b01c2c312$471c9b80$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <001b01c2c312$471c9b80$70d8fea9@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >........... >> AG : oops. I guess no one of the TDs I've met does know every Law. The >good >> ones, however, are able to recognize the problem when hearing it exposed, > >Just one comment: The good ones admit that it is a wise routine always >to look up the applicable law in the book rather than ruling according to >what they (believe) they remember. > FWIW I rule OLOOT, LOOT, revoke, BOOT, Penalty cards from memory (together with all aspects of the lead penalties and UI considerations). In practise I know most of the rest but will say to the players "This is one where I need the book", which amuses most people. I've directed about 65,000 tables of some of the toughest bridge played. In many cases you will *need* the book as other rulings (such as card played by dummy not being the one designated) will surprise the players. Generally I find the first 5 are well understood and don't need any further discussion after the ruling. >Exception: After 50 cases of faced opening lead out of turn one usually >knows that one by heart. > >regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Thu Jan 23 21:34:30 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:34:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] POOT accepted In-Reply-To: <002601c2c2b5$22b595b0$f83be150@endicott> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030123101133.02df5e30@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <200301230001.QAA02660@mailhub.irvine.com> <002601c2c2b5$22b595b0$f83be150@endicott> Message-ID: <+ZpeKGFm$FM+EwX4@asimere.com> In article <002601c2c2b5$22b595b0$f83be150@endicott>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"How prone to doubt, how cautious > are the wise." {Alexander Pope} >============================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:34 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] POOT accepted > > >> >> > >> I hadn't thought of "Director error". IMO there >> is no TD error, rather it's incompetence. I'd be >> unhappy about a L82C ruling here. ... we'd be >> issuing them everywhere if we started here. >> cheers john >> > >+=+ A very fine distinction between error and >incompetence. Before the Director leaves >the table he should at least ensure that all >four players are up to speed with his ruling >and, where relevant, the option selected. I >would think he should stay long enough to >ensure that anything mechanical proceeds >smoothly - it is usual to be called back if >needed in judgemental cases where he has >obtained statements of facts and then said >'play on'. > I would expect a Director to kick >himself in this case and rule voluntarily that >he had committed an error. > ~ G ~ +=+ > I can live with that, Grattan. My failure to explain all the relevant issues wrt TFLB at this point *is* clearly an error. I'd hate to open a can of worms, where a BL could claim TD error for failure to enumerate the one million names of God, where it is totally irrelevant to the hand in question. In the case in question the fact the player didn't hear that the card was not accepted is not the TD's error, and the law clearly states a player " ...has no recourse ..... own misunderstanding ...". As you say, a fine line. cheers john > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Jan 23 22:02:12 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:02:12 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The District 19 (WA/BC/AK) conditions of contest for last year are posted at http://www.d19.org/competitions/GNT/GNTcoc01.html and no major changes have been made this year. We also have no specific rules about augmentation (except that it can't happen between semifinal and final match of the district competition.) The rules for replacing the 4th team member if only 3 of the original members are available, curiously, are stronger -- and specifically forbid the use of a player who played on another team at the district semifinals or finals. If t'were up to me, I'd suggest scrapping augmentation altogether. For that matter I am not overly keen on 6-member teams in general, and wouldn't be sorry to see the teams for big competitions restricted to 2 pairs expected to play throughout - not that I think it's likely to ever happen. GRB From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jan 23 22:54:45 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:54:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030123174615.00ac9c30@pop.starpower.net> At 02:20 AM 1/23/03, Adam wrote: >The Grand National Teams is an annual event in the ACBL. Each District >in the ACBL qualifies a team to play in a national final. If a team >qualifies with four or five players they are generally allowed to >augment to bring their number up to six. Rules for augmentation are >specified by each District. > >My District has traditionally had a permissive policy: >"augmentation/replacement may take place from any member in good >standing of the District." In part this is because we wish to give our >teams the best possible chance to succeed at the national level. > >We've realized recently that this rule could have unintended >consequences. One is that a sponsor could qualify for the national >final without having to play a single board. Fortunately it has has >not happened to date. We'd like to prevent if from occurring in the >future if we can. Has anyone any suggestions for updating our >conditions of contest to avoid this possibility? I know we could have >a committee vet any prospective additions -- if possible I'd prefer >something more objective. What do other jurisdictions do? IIRC, our district's policy requires that to be added to the team that wins the district-level playoff you must have qualified to play in it, but it is not necessary for you to have actually played. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Thu Jan 23 23:09:22 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:09:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030123174615.00ac9c30@pop.starpower.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030123180457.02a2eea0@mail.fscv.net> At 05:54 PM 23/01/2003, Eric Landau wrote: >IIRC, our district's policy requires that to be added to the team that >wins the district-level playoff you must have qualified to play in it, but >it is not necessary for you to have actually played. Eric This sounds very familiar. I believe it is also the policy in District 7. Does the MABC (Mid Atlantic Bridge Conference which is composed of Districts 6 and 7) set these policies? Probably not, but your comment raised the question in my mind. Walt From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jan 23 23:11:54 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:11:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation In-Reply-To: <8237813.1043332997147.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030123175934.00ac3ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:43 AM 1/23/03, dalburn wrote: >No, of course not. The Laws were written like this because of the >"Save the Rabbit" campaign. This effort to protect people from the >consequences of not being able to follow suit, or wait their turn to >call, or count their tricks before claiming, has been introduced into >the Laws in an understated, almost apologetic, manner. All the "this >law doesn't apply if declarer is a rabbit" clauses are in brackets, or >footnotes, or the section at the back of the book. > >And the Laws were written like this because an influential group of >idiots thinks that bridge is not a game played by people with cards. >It is a game played by mental entities with abstract symbols. Thus, if >you play or call for a card that your mind would not have selected, >you must be permitted to retract that card. If you make some physical >bid that is a mental absurdity, then you don't have to play in a cue >bid after all, for the "Save the Metaphysical Rabbit" campaign will >protect you. It does not matter how inattentive, clumsy, or downright >incompetent you are in the actual bidding and playing of a hand. What >matters is what you can convince some official afterwards that you >would have done. > >Completely ludicrous, of course, and utterly impossible to administer >with any degree of fairness or consistency. But it is the way things >are, ever since Kaplan passed a response to Blackwood and didn't like >the result he got, and ever since the American people stood up for >their constitutional right to cheat by asking "No spades, partner?" >and ever since... well, ever since people started to think that >rabbits were such cuddly, lovable creatures. We reap the whirlwind, >but unlike most of you lot, I didn't sow the wind, which ought to >entitle me to complain once in a while. This is undoubtedly due to the influence of the ACBL, where the "Save the Rabbit" campaign is known as the "Membership Retention and Growth Campaign", and is, by the ACBL's own frequently repeated admission, its absolute top priority. It has led to numerous regulations and decisions which have made it quite clear that a more accurate name would be the "Revenue Retention and Growth Campaign", inasmuch as Life Members who do not pay regular dues have been stripped of all privileges of membership (they are now, for example, even charged non-member rates to play in tournaments). Running a sensible competitive game has taken a distant second place to this top priority. The ACBL's input to the Laws is conditioned by the knowledge that without rabbits joining the ACBL and competing regularly in its events, the ACBL treasury would be unable to support the perqs and privileges to which its Directors and highly-placed appointed officials have become accustomed. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Fri Jan 24 04:26:22 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 23:26:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? In-Reply-To: from "Walt.Flory@fscv.net" at Jan 23, 2003 06:09:22 PM Message-ID: <200301240426.h0O4QMt12468@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Walt, District 6 and District 7 (MABC) use very similar policies. Some years ago, the MABC started adapting the policies set for both based on policies that were originally developed in D6. Just so everyone knows, the relevent section of the CoC from D6 is: " 16. Augmentation by any of our three winning teams of a 5th and/or 6th players may be made prior to the deadline imposed by the ACBL before the commencement of National Championship play. Such augmented players must be club-qualified members of District Six with an appropriate master point total for that particular flight. Those members augmented to a team will not receive compensation from the District." Although I haven't seen them recently, I believe that D7 uses very similar wording in their CoC. -Ted. > From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net > Subject: Re: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:09:22 -0500 > > At 05:54 PM 23/01/2003, Eric Landau wrote: > >IIRC, our district's policy requires that to be added to the team that > >wins the district-level playoff you must have qualified to play in it, but > >it is not necessary for you to have actually played. > > > Eric > > This sounds very familiar. I believe it is also the policy in District 7. > > Does the MABC (Mid Atlantic Bridge Conference which is composed of > Districts 6 and 7) set these policies? Probably not, but your comment > raised the question in my mind. > > Walt > From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Fri Jan 24 04:37:28 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:37:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124153328.00b8ed10@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Sorry this is not on topic, but I am sure one of the UK contingent will know the answer. Sometimes when I get 18 tables (twinned 9 table sections, boards 1-27), I elect to move the players as one section i.e. players move from t 18 to t 1. No two pairs play exactly the same set of opponents yet all play the same boards. Is there anything very sub optimal about this assuming ATF scoring? Tony (Sydney) From adam@tameware.com Fri Jan 24 05:59:05 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:59:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030123174615.00ac9c30@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030123174615.00ac9c30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: >IIRC, our district's policy requires that to be added to the team >that wins the district-level playoff you must have qualified to play >in it, but it is not necessary for you to have actually played. Do you mean that a player has to qualify at the club or unit level? That's not relevant for us -- we did away with both years ago. The first round of our event is at the District level. With a geographically small District this is practical for us - it might not be elsewhere. For what it's worth our conditions are posted here: http://gnyba.org/Flyers/GNTCOC2003.pdf -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From joanandron@worldnet.att.net Fri Jan 24 07:18:14 2003 From: joanandron@worldnet.att.net (JOAN GERARD) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 02:18:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? References: Message-ID: <000201c2c378$e39e00f0$2cdb4e0c@Dell4500> When the Grand National Team Event first began in the ACBL, the winning team was the 4th qualifier for the ACBL Team Trials. Additionally, at that time, the ACBL charged a high sanction fee and then paid for the teams to go the National Finals held at the Summer NABC's...... During this period the ACBL had some very strict rules, in addition to the residency require- ments, and some Districts, had Conditions of Contest in addition to the ACBL's. At that time District 3, (parts of New York State and New Jersey, excluding New York City & Long Island) had very rigid augmentation and replacement rules written into our Conditions. We also ran the event in three stages; club rounds, unit rounds and a District Final...... Now the ACBL no longer pays for the teams to come to the National Finals; it is no longer a qualifying event and we have relaxed our Conditions so that we, too, can try to send our very best team. Our Conditions dealingj with Augmentation & Replacement are as follows: A. The District Director, the District GNT Coordinator or the TD may approve a substitute in an emergency. Only one substitute is permitted at anytime time and no substitute is permitted if four or more members of record are available. A substitute may not appreciably strengthen the team. B. The permanent replacement of a player, who, for cause, cannot continue in the event is permitted only with the permission of the District Director, or GNT Coordinator. At the District Level. the replacement must be a member of the District and not appreciably strengthen the team. C. After the District Final and prior to the National Final a replacement will only be permitted if the replaced player agrees and, in the opinion of the District Director or GNT Coordinator, the replacement maintains or enhances the strength of the team. D. A replaced player permanently leaves the event with all masterpoints already earned and the replacement continues in the event earning masterpoints thereafter. Play percentage requirements apply to the replacement only for the portion of the event yet to be played. E. A team becomes ineligible to continue in the event when fewer than three original team members can continue and meet the play percentage requirements. F. A fifth and/or sixth member may be added to a team after the completion of the District Final. Any such player(s) must be a member of District 3. Augmentation will only be allowed if, in the opinion of the GNT Committee, the addition (s) is an attempt to maintain or improve the playing strength of the team. While these Conditions surely do not cover all possible situations they do solve Adam's problem of a sponsor who does not maintain the strength of the team.....if it is a sponsor who does maintain the strength, then it's ok with us. The problem of team A playing team B and dumping so that a pair can be added to team A from Team B.... well that could work both ways and also would have to mean that the entire team was aware or else there would be no guarantee. I think when there are well intentioned people in charge who believe in the integrity of an event, most conditions are workable. Hope this has been of some help. Best regards, Joan Gerard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 2:20 AM Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? > The Grand National Teams is an annual event in the ACBL. Each > District in the ACBL qualifies a team to play in a national final. If > a team qualifies with four or five players they are generally allowed > to augment to bring their number up to six. Rules for augmentation > are specified by each District. > > My District has traditionally had a permissive policy: > "augmentation/replacement may take place from any member in good > standing of the District." In part this is because we wish to give > our teams the best possible chance to succeed at the national level. > > We've realized recently that this rule could have unintended > consequences. One is that a sponsor could qualify for the national > final without having to play a single board. Fortunately it has has > not happened to date. We'd like to prevent if from occurring in the > future if we can. Has anyone any suggestions for updating our > conditions of contest to avoid this possibility? I know we could have > a committee vet any prospective additions -- if possible I'd prefer > something more objective. What do other jurisdictions do? > > -- > Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC > adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Jan 24 07:34:05 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:34:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? References: Message-ID: <002501c2c37a$fa8f0aa0$25b54351@noos.fr> Gordon, Of course you are right too. In reality people find practical solutions. Of course in normal cases the bidding is explained in a few sentences by one person rather than a duet. Of course questions like 'do you play standard or up-side down count' can be answered by either defender whatever the official rule. The problem arises when there is some bidding mix-up or when someone (almost always declarer) wants to ask a couple of questions at a 'sensitive' moment. Anyway I do think it would be a good idea that given a proper CC declarer should not ask questions about carding during play. You give yourself a perfect example. Questions like 'is this a suit-pref situation' are almost always meaningless and best answered by 'suit yourself'. When people ask me 'what is the meaning of S6' (when partner plays the S6) I tend to answer 'it means that he has the S6'. This happens only at lower level but then quite often and it is a good illustration how little the average player knows about the concept of the laws. And almost all questions about bidding should be asked at trick one. We all know the scene when a declarer who has to guess something (and defenders know that) start asking a dozen questions. Very often the questions are bogus but it is an art in itself to 'react' to the questions without giving the situation away. Or imagine a defender asking declarer suddenly during play if his bidding is consistent with holding 4 diamonds. Very few people know how to handle that whithout giving away whether they actualy hold 4 diamonds or not. Full disclosure is not (should not be) the same as the right to ask any question at any moment. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? > > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > > Law 20F1 says, "replies should normally be given by the partner of a > > player who made a call in question". However, this phrase's placement > > in 20F1 makes it appear that it applies only during the period when > > L20F1 applies, and not during the play period when L20F2 applies. > > > > So what's supposed to happen during the play period? If declarer > > wants to ask a question about a call made by the defense, "should" the > > reply "normally" be given by the partner of the defender who made the > > call? I think the intent is for the answer to be "yes", but the Laws > > don't actually say that. > > > > What about when a defender asks about the declaring side's auction? > > Does it matter in that case who answers the question? > > At least in my area, it is normal for one member of the declaring side to > explain the whole auction in a few quick sentences, rather than declarer > and dummy taking turns, when asked to explain the auction before the > opening lead is faced. > > During the play itself, I can't remember hearing anyone ask dummy > anything. > > Now that you mention it it is a bit odd that it doesn't say which defender > you should ask about cardplay agreements. I am not eager to see it > changed, however, since I see very little difference between the list of > problems caused by hearing my partner explain somethiing and the list of > problems I cause my partner when he hears me explain something. Usually > all the defenders are asked is "what type of signals" or "from what > holdings can the (whatever) be led". > > If "Is this an attitude or a suit-preference situation in your > partnership?" were a fair question, I can see problems arising. But the > answer to that is almost invariably "Each of us has to work that out based > on our own cards and our general bridge knowledge, and so do you." > > > Anyway, I think the wording of the Law needs to be tweaked here. > > > > -- Adam > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 24 07:58:13 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:58:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124153328.00b8ed10@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <000b01c2c37e$588fcd30$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Tony Musgrove" > Sorry this is not on topic, but I am sure one of the UK contingent > will know the answer. > > Sometimes when I get 18 tables (twinned 9 table sections, boards > 1-27), I elect to move the players as one section i.e. players move > from t 18 to t 1. No two pairs play exactly the same set of opponents > yet all play the same boards. Is there anything very sub optimal about > this assuming ATF scoring? Yes, test the "balance" and you will see why regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 24 08:20:17 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:20:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? References: <002501c2c37a$fa8f0aa0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001101c2c381$6e7b5850$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Jaap van der Neut" > The problem arises when there is some bidding mix-up or when someone (almost > always declarer) wants to ask a couple of questions at a 'sensitive' moment. > > Anyway I do think it would be a good idea that given a proper CC declarer > should not ask questions about carding during play. You give yourself a > perfect example. Questions like 'is this a suit-pref situation' are almost > always meaningless and best answered by 'suit yourself'. When people ask me > 'what is the meaning of S6' (when partner plays the S6) I tend to answer 'it > means that he has the S6'. This happens only at lower level but then quite > often and it is a good illustration how little the average player knows > about the concept of the laws. > > And almost all questions about bidding should be asked at trick one. We all > know the scene when a declarer who has to guess something (and defenders > know that) start asking a dozen questions. Very often the questions are > bogus but it is an art in itself to 'react' to the questions without giving > the situation away. Or imagine a defender asking declarer suddenly during > play if his bidding is consistent with holding 4 diamonds. Very few people > know how to handle that whithout giving away whether they actualy hold 4 > diamonds or not. > > Full disclosure is not (should not be) the same as the right to ask any > question at any moment. Given "perfect" CCs there is no reason to ask any question at any time. We never see "perfect" CCs. Is it really your opinion that a player who in trick 6 discovers the need to know whether opponent's bidding is consistent with holding (at least) just 4 diamonds or promising at least 5 diamonds shall be prohibited from asking "how many diamonds did he (or "you") promise according to your agreements"? And if your agreements are such that you "know" the leading of S6 shows that he has an odd number of small spades or he has an even number of small spades or he makes an invitation from his spade suit then I consider your answer of "he has the S6" as contempt. (Of course if you really have no explicit or implicit agreement on the leading of S6 then you just say so). There are some cases where questions (and in particular leading ones) are an abuse of L20F2, but let us leave that for the Director to sort out shall we? regards Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Jan 24 08:40:19 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:40:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation Message-ID: Jaap: > Ton, > > Obviously you are irritated by Davids language (which is > excellent prose by > the way). I am not at all irritated by Davids language. > So David (me !?) is not the only one to use words like > ridiculous in respect > to another person opinion. I never objected against using the word 'ridiculous'. It is one of the better words to be used in blml. This time I repeated it because of Davids use of it. > Besides as I said in another mail > Davids idea is > far from idiculous. I don't need your opinion to recognize the quality of almost all ideas coming from David. And even if I don't agree with them it is a pity to have to admit they are not ridiculous. But this idea (concept) doesn't fit you > so you call it > ridiculous. > And one day latter you cry foul I am not aware of that, but that could be my fault. because some > others use the same > techniques on you. Dear Ton if you don't want to be called a 'bunch of > idiots' It sounds exaggerated to use the plural for me, but if that expresses your feelings best, go ahead. or whatever qualification then don't behave like such > or at least > restrain from giving cause. > > Jaap: > > ... I don't like the way you ridiculize this problem ... > (referring to the > language above) > > Ton: > > Hidden qualities apparently, I am not aware of ridiculizing > this time. > > The language you used above is ridiculizing by any standard. > Sad you don't > realize it yourself. But I advise you to drop that style > because you are no > good at it. David is (but I am afraid that given your recent > reactions to > his mails you simply don't understand his English which I > admit is not that > easy). What would be welcome is you to adress the real issues > rather than to > dodge them all the time hidding behind silly details and > irrelevant language > issues. In my opinion blml is better of when we try to avoid personal attacks like yours. But if my contribution is as poor as you describe it is good to tell me. Then I better leave the floor for you. > > Yes indeed we do, but you never ever want to discuss those > principles. You > tend to defend every dot and every comma but whenever it is > really about > something you are not there. The way you react to recents > post doesn't fit a > chairman of the laws committee. Jurgen will be pleased to read this. I don't recognize myself in this description, but that of course is exactly the problem. > And yes I do think you and your committee are working from > principles which > I think are wrong. You probably will consider the following to be a silly language issue, so it be. I think that 'principles' are not to be described as right or wrong. They are a choice. It is too easy to call a choice you don't like a wrong one. It is a choice to try to establish a fair score in case of an irregularity in stead of punishing the offender. A very important one, since it decides the atmosphere in which bridge is played. And yes we could try to implement both ideas by splitting the bridge society in top and bottom (isn't that bridge?). The committee things that the bridge society is not in favour of such change and doesn't like that idea itself. > Inavertent call. IMO should be limited to simple mechanical > bidding box > errors (you pick 1S instead of 1H). I prefer the rule to say that the > correction should be 'immediate' (so there are no problems > that the next guy > has bid which creates too many complications). That you pick > the wrong stack > is 'ok', but that you don't look at what you are doing (which > prevents you > from correcting immediately) is 'not ok'. Keep it simple! Is that the principle you want me to adopt as the right one? ton > Jaap > From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jan 24 09:21:58 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:21:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124153328.00b8ed10@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <000b01c2c37e$588fcd30$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be> Totally wrong answer, Sven, sorry. Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Tony Musgrove" > > >>Sorry this is not on topic, but I am sure one of the UK contingent >>will know the answer. >> >>Sometimes when I get 18 tables (twinned 9 table sections, boards >>1-27), I elect to move the players as one section i.e. players move >>from t 18 to t 1. No two pairs play exactly the same set of opponents >>yet all play the same boards. Is there anything very sub optimal about >>this assuming ATF scoring? >> > > Yes, > test the "balance" and you will see why > The balance is the number of times pair one is compared to pair 18. Since both these pairs play all boards, in the same direction, they are compared all the time. The same is true for all pairs of NS pairs. The balance among the NS pairs is perfect. The balance among the EW pairs also. Of course you will announce two winners. I don't know the real answer to Tony's question, but balance certainly has nothing to do with it. > regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 24 10:41:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:41:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124153328.00b8ed10@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <000b01c2c37e$588fcd30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006101c2c395$31353830$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Totally wrong answer, Sven, sorry. > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > From: "Tony Musgrove" > > > > > >>Sorry this is not on topic, but I am sure one of the UK contingent > >>will know the answer. > >> > >>Sometimes when I get 18 tables (twinned 9 table sections, boards > >>1-27), I elect to move the players as one section i.e. players move > >>from t 18 to t 1. No two pairs play exactly the same set of opponents > >>yet all play the same boards. Is there anything very sub optimal about > >>this assuming ATF scoring? > >> > > > > Yes, > > test the "balance" and you will see why > > > > > The balance is the number of times pair one is compared to pair 18. > Since both these pairs play all boards, in the same direction, they > are compared all the time. The same is true for all pairs of NS pairs. > The balance among the NS pairs is perfect. The balance among the EW > pairs also. Of course you will announce two winners. > > I don't know the real answer to Tony's question, but balance certainly > has nothing to do with it. So I assume that it is irrelevant to you whether you meet the weaker or the stronger opponents as your share of the field? Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jan 24 10:54:06 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:54:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124153328.00b8ed10@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <000b01c2c37e$588fcd30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be> <006101c2c395$31353830$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E311B4E.2030402@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> >>I don't know the real answer to Tony's question, but balance certainly >>has nothing to do with it. >> > > > So I assume that it is irrelevant to you whether you meet the > weaker or the stronger opponents as your share of the field? > Sven > Sven, as I said, i haven't answered Tony's question. But Balance is not the correct answer. That deals with comparing NS to all other NS, and that one is perfect in Tony's case. You are now talking about whom you meet. Of course that is relevant. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gester@lineone.net Fri Jan 24 11:01:30 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:01:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? References: Message-ID: <002601c2c39a$5f861d80$a6182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? > > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > > Law 20F1 says, "replies should normally be given by the partner of a > > player who made a call in question". However, this phrase's placement > > in 20F1 makes it appear that it applies only during the period when > > L20F1 applies, and not during the play period when L20F2 applies. > > > > So what's supposed to happen during the play period? If declarer > > wants to ask a question about a call made by the defense, "should" the > > reply "normally" be given by the partner of the defender who made the > > call? I think the intent is for the answer to be "yes", but the Laws > > don't actually say that. > > +=+ The WBF Laws Committee has ruled as follows: "The Committee's attention was drawn to an internet discussion as to whether it is legitimate to address a question to the player whose call is asked about. This abnormal procedure can only be followed with the consent of the Director, who must be called, and at an appropriate time in the absence of the player's partner. Furthermore the Director must be persuaded that the circumstances require it: it is absolutely to be avoided that a player should be allowed to verify from player A (who made the call) whether the explanation of his partner B was correct. Players must correct their partners' explanations voluntarily at the due time specified in the Laws. " [Minutes of 1st September 1998]. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 24 11:36:05 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:36:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124153328.00b8ed10@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <000b01c2c37e$588fcd30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be> <006101c2c395$31353830$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E311B4E.2030402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007001c2c39c$c91e35f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Sven Pran wrote: > > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > >> > >>I don't know the real answer to Tony's question, but balance certainly > >>has nothing to do with it. > >> > > > > > > So I assume that it is irrelevant to you whether you meet the > > weaker or the stronger opponents as your share of the field? > > Sven > > > > > Sven, as I said, i haven't answered Tony's question. > But Balance is not the correct answer. That deals with comparing NS to > all other NS, and that one is perfect in Tony's case. Balance means a comparison between your overall strength of opposition to the overall opposition against each other pair playing each board the same direction as you. Note that in a matchpoint scored competitions you are "in team" with every other pair playing the same board as you do but in the other direction. Ideally you should have each other pair the same number of times "teammates" as "opponents". In a Howell (or barometer) movement this requires that each pair has every other pair the same number of boards played in the same direction as in opposing directions. In Mitchell the only way of achieving such balance is to ascertain that the accumulated strength of opponents met must be the same for all pairs playing in the same direction, that is you play as many rounds as there are tables to be scored together.. Your definition of a balanced Mitchell movement fails by being incomplete at the very moment you do not meet the same set of opponents unless you ascertain that each "set" of opponents are of the same strength. > > You are now talking about whom you meet. Of course that is relevant. And that is exactly what balancing is about. From jurgenr@t-online.de Fri Jan 24 11:46:20 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:46:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory Message-ID: Sorry this is not on topic, but I am sure one of the UK contingent will know the answer. Sometimes when I get 18 tables (twinned 9 table sections, boards 1-27), I elect to move the players as one section i.e. players move from t 18 to t 1. No two pairs play exactly the same set of opponents yet all play the same boards. Is there anything very sub optimal about this assuming ATF scoring? Tony (Sydney) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have 2 separate sections and want to score across the field the 2 NS lines should, ideally, have the same strength distribution, and the 2 EW lines also. If you want to overlap the groups as suggested you need to seat the players, both NS and EW, in such a way that any contiguous subset of 9 players has the same strength distribution. This requires that 1&10, 2&11, ... , 9&18 should be equally strong. It is quite unlikely that you can bring this distribution about. Jürgen From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jan 24 13:11:52 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:11:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030123174615.00ac9c30@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030123174615.00ac9c30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030124080811.00a13c20@pop.starpower.net> At 12:59 AM 1/24/03, you wrote: >>IIRC, our district's policy requires that to be added to the team >>that wins the district-level playoff you must have qualified to play >>in it, but it is not necessary for you to have actually played. > >Do you mean that a player has to qualify at the club or unit level? >That's not relevant for us -- we did away with both years ago. The >first round of our event is at the District level. With a >geographically small District this is practical for us - it might not >be elsewhere. I'm not sure what it would have meant, or even if it was then the policy, back when we had unit-level qualifying events, but we no longer do either. As of today, the player must have qualified at the club level. FWIW, that means virtually nothing, as one may play in as many club-level qualifying events as one wishes. 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 Fri Jan 24 13:13:15 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:13:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation Message-ID: Jaap: >> >> Yes indeed we do, but you never ever want to discuss those >> principles. You >> tend to defend every dot and every comma but whenever it is >> really about >> something you are not there. The way you react to recents >> post doesn't fit a >> chairman of the laws committee. Ton: >Jurgen will be pleased to read this. I am pleased that there are some sensible people who see, and are willing to say, what the approach of the Laws Committee should be in order to have a positive effect upon the game. The original topic of this thread is an excellent example of the disease. "Declarer must unambiguously designate a card to be played from dummy." Finished, done, nobody needs more than this. And what if he doesn't? Then RHO (Dummy must be silent) says: "Which card please?". Now if a declarer is a member if the ACBL, cannot see which cards are in dummy, or if he has a speech impediment, or perhaps cannot grasp the meaning of the requirement due to the atrophy of his Chomsky locus, then we will trust in the forbearance of the opponents, and we do not need rules to prescribe their behavior. If declarer breaks the rule in order to gain information from the reaction of the opponents, i.e. the 'discovery ploy', then you have a gross impropriety that can also arise in 67 other ways, and what should be done in such a case is an entirely separate issue. Jürgen >I don't recognize myself in this >description, but that of course is exactly the problem. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jan 24 13:20:26 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:20:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? In-Reply-To: <001101c2c381$6e7b5850$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <002501c2c37a$fa8f0aa0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030124081616.00aced80@pop.starpower.net> At 03:20 AM 1/24/03, Sven wrote: >And if your agreements are such that you "know" the leading of S6 >shows that he has an odd number of small spades or he has an even >number of small spades or he makes an invitation from his spade suit >then I consider your answer of "he has the S6" as contempt. >(Of course if you really have no explicit or implicit agreement on the >leading of S6 then you just say so). > >There are some cases where questions (and in particular leading ones) >are an abuse of L20F2, but let us leave that for the Director to sort >out shall we? If someone asks me the meaning of the S6, I will do my best to give a full and complete answer. But the answer will be in two parts: "If she thinks the S6 is a high card, it means..., but if she thinks it's a low card, it means... Well, three parts, actually: '...if she intends it to mean anything at all." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From axman22@hotmail.com Fri Jan 24 13:47:56 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:47:56 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? References: <002501c2c37a$fa8f0aa0$25b54351@noos.fr> <001101c2c381$6e7b5850$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > And if your agreements are such that you "know" the leading of S6 > shows that he has an odd number of small spades or he has an even > number of small spades or he makes an invitation from his spade suit Whatever the meaning of the above I think it is said very badly. I point to the use of the word 'know'. Certainly the only thing to tell the opponents are those things according to agreement, as in those things you know by agreement without having seen any unplayed cards. regards roger pewick > then I consider your answer of "he has the S6" as contempt. > (Of course if you really have no explicit or implicit agreement on the > leading of S6 then you just say so). > > There are some cases where questions (and in particular leading ones) > are an abuse of L20F2, but let us leave that for the Director to sort > out shall we? > > regards Sven From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Fri Jan 24 14:24:01 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:24:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? In-Reply-To: <002501c2c37a$fa8f0aa0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124090322.02b69ec0@mail.fscv.net> > >... When people ask me >'what is the meaning of S6' (when partner plays the S6) I tend to answer 'it >means that he has the S6'. I always try to answer the question which I believe the opponent is trying to ask, especially if it is a lower level player. In the case of the above question if the answer depends on whether the spot is low or high my answer is in the form of "If the 6 is a low card it means .... , and if it is a high card it means ....". If the question asked has a meaningful answer I answer it first, of course. Under the ACBL's "Zero Tolerance" policy I think that a director call would not be out of order if the opponent gave a condescending non-answer like "It means he has the six of spades", and I would expect the director to issue a warning to be polite. Nor do I believe that "He has the six of spades", even though it is strictly speaking accurate and responsive, fulfills the obligation of full disclosure, and therefore a second warning should be issued for that. This is especially true in the case of an answer to a player of lower level who might be intimidated and not ask another question to get the answer that he obviously was seeking with the first question. Walt From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Fri Jan 24 14:24:01 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:24:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? In-Reply-To: <002501c2c37a$fa8f0aa0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124090322.02b69ec0@mail.fscv.net> > >... When people ask me >'what is the meaning of S6' (when partner plays the S6) I tend to answer 'it >means that he has the S6'. I always try to answer the question which I believe the opponent is trying to ask, especially if it is a lower level player. In the case of the above question if the answer depends on whether the spot is low or high my answer is in the form of "If the 6 is a low card it means .... , and if it is a high card it means ....". If the question asked has a meaningful answer I answer it first, of course. Under the ACBL's "Zero Tolerance" policy I think that a director call would not be out of order if the opponent gave a condescending non-answer like "It means he has the six of spades", and I would expect the director to issue a warning to be polite. Nor do I believe that "He has the six of spades", even though it is strictly speaking accurate and responsive, fulfills the obligation of full disclosure, and therefore a second warning should be issued for that. This is especially true in the case of an answer to a player of lower level who might be intimidated and not ask another question to get the answer that he obviously was seeking with the first question. Walt From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jan 24 14:52:04 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:52:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: Message-ID: <3E315314.6010406@skynet.be> I've kep out of this discussion, but I'm fully with Ton here. J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: > Jaap: >=20 >>>Yes indeed we do, but you never ever want to discuss those >>>principles. You >>>tend to defend every dot and every comma but whenever it is >>>really about >>>something you are not there. The way you react to recents >>>post doesn't fit a >>>chairman of the laws committee. >>> >=20 > Ton: >=20 >>Jurgen will be pleased to read this. >> >=20 > I am pleased that there are some sensible people who see, and > are willing to say, what the approach of the Laws Committee > should be in order to have a positive effect upon the game. >=20 There are a lot of sensible people here, but they don't all see the=20 same thing. > The original topic of this thread is an excellent example of > the disease. "Declarer must unambiguously designate a card > to be played from dummy." Finished, done, nobody needs more > than this. And what if he doesn't? Then RHO (Dummy must be silent) > says: "Which card please?". >=20 No. That already is too much. That already can be enough for declarer to realize that there is a=20 problem. Declarer has not designated (has said "anything" or some such) so he=20 has lost the right to designate. The current solution, that opponents=20 can designate, seems enough - but this thread has shown it is not, or=20 not fully. Yet we saw that even this very particular instance can be dealt with.=20 So we don't really need to change the law. But I'd be in favour of a law change that says that if declarer does=20 not designate, dummy shall play any card (so as not to confuse=20 opponents) and a AS will be given if the card actually played affected=20 declarer's result in any positive way. What we don't want, however, is a rule that would be as harsh as (for=20 instance - I am not really advocating this) "if declarer does not=20 designate, he is deemed to have claimed and must show his hand and=20 lose all tricks he can by any legal line of play". We want to play bridge, and "play anything" is bridge. > Now if a declarer is a member if the ACBL, cannot see which > cards are in dummy, or if he has a speech impediment, or > perhaps cannot grasp the meaning of the requirement due to > the atrophy of his Chomsky locus, then we will trust in the > forbearance of the opponents, and we do not need rules to prescribe > their behavior. >=20 Yes we do, because we cannot trust opponents who might be bridge lawyers. > If declarer breaks the rule in order to gain information > from the reaction of the opponents, i.e. the > 'discovery ploy', then you have a gross impropriety that > can also arise in 67 other ways, and what should be done > in such a case is an entirely separate issue. >=20 Of course not. But we don't even need to go there. Declarer can be=20 quite innocent (as the one in this thread would well be) and still=20 profit from an inadvertant small mistake. Such profit must be=20 rectified in any set of laws. But that rectification must not take the=20 form of a rule that punishes the inadvertent mistake when no profit=20 arises from it. > J=FCrgen >=20 >=20 >>I don't recognize myself in this >>description, but that of course is exactly the problem. >> >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jan 24 15:15:19 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:15:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124153328.00b8ed10@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <000b01c2c37e$588fcd30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be> <006101c2c395$31353830$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E311B4E.2030402@skynet.be> <007001c2c39c$c91e35f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E315887.2040804@skynet.be> Comments interspersed: Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>From: "Herman De Wael" >>> >>> >>>>I don't know the real answer to Tony's question, but balance certainly >>>>has nothing to do with it. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>So I assume that it is irrelevant to you whether you meet the >>>weaker or the stronger opponents as your share of the field? >>>Sven >>> >>> >> >>Sven, as I said, i haven't answered Tony's question. >>But Balance is not the correct answer. That deals with comparing NS to >>all other NS, and that one is perfect in Tony's case. >> > > Balance means a comparison between your overall strength of opposition > to the overall opposition against each other pair playing each board the > same direction as you. Note that in a matchpoint scored competitions > you are "in team" with every other pair playing the same board as you > do but in the other direction. Ideally you should have each other pair > the same number of times "teammates" as "opponents". > Ideally - but that is only in a fully balanced. There are tournaments (full Mitchells) that are balanced in both groups separate. > In a Howell (or barometer) movement this requires that each pair has > every other pair the same number of boards played in the same > direction as in opposing directions. > > In Mitchell the only way of achieving such balance is to ascertain that > the accumulated strength of opponents met must be the same for all > pairs playing in the same direction, that is you play as many rounds > as there are tables to be scored together.. > No - that is not balance. > Your definition of a balanced Mitchell movement fails by being > incomplete at the very moment you do not meet the same set of > opponents unless you ascertain that each "set" of opponents are > of the same strength. > > >>You are now talking about whom you meet. Of course that is relevant. >> > > And that is exactly what balancing is about. > No it is not. A full Mitchell is balanced in the sense that each NS pair is compared exactly the same number of times with each other NS pair. In that sense, the the movement that Tony described is also balanced. (separately for NS and EW). > _______________________________________________ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Fri Jan 24 15:17:12 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:17:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030124080811.00a13c20@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030123174615.00ac9c30@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030123174615.00ac9c30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124101431.02abc9e0@mail.fscv.net> At 08:11 AM 24/01/2003, Eric Landau wrote: > >.... the player must have qualified at the club level. > >FWIW, that means virtually nothing, as one may play in as many club-level >qualifying events as one wishes. It means revenue enhancement for the ACBL. Walt From toddz@att.net Fri Jan 24 15:36:31 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:36:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030124080811.00a13c20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Landau > To: Adam Wildavsky > Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? > > > At 12:59 AM 1/24/03, you wrote: > >Do you mean that a player has to qualify at the club > or unit level? > >That's not relevant for us -- we did away with both > years ago. The > >first round of our event is at the District level. With a > >geographically small District this is practical for us > >- it might not be elsewhere. District 20 is Vancouver, WA; all of Oregon; all of Hawaii and parts of northern California. They run the super-flight as a district final only still requiring the club-level qualifying largely to get people to play at the clubs more often. The (potentially arrogant) reason for this is that all the best players in the district either live in Vancouver or Portland or would make the trip just for the finals. All other flights have northern and southern semi-finals with the site of the finals alternating between the north and south every year. This year is the first year that the finals are being held over the internet finally allowing players from Hawaii to compete and you will likely see some of them at the NABC finals. You will for NAP at least. > I'm not sure what it would have meant, or even if it > was then the policy, back when we had unit-level qualifying > events, but we no longer do either. As of today, the player > must have qualified at the club level. There still appears to be a semi-final round, two teams qualifying at some event around DC and two more qualifying from an event around Norfolk unless I've been confused by the literature. -Todd From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 24 15:41:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:41:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? References: <002501c2c37a$fa8f0aa0$25b54351@noos.fr> <001101c2c381$6e7b5850$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <001501c2c3bf$21a00420$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Roger Pewick" > From: "Sven Pran" ........... > > And if your agreements are such that you "know" the leading of S6 > > shows that he has an odd number of small spades or he has an even > > number of small spades or he makes an invitation from his spade suit > > Whatever the meaning of the above I think it is said very badly. I > point to the use of the word 'know'. Certainly the only thing to tell > the opponents are those things according to agreement, as in those > things you know by agreement without having seen any unplayed cards. Immediately ahead of the line where you found the word "know" I used the additional words "according to agreements" in a slightly different context (snipped away by you). I am very surprised that it should be necessary to repeat these words on the immediately following line when it ought to be obvious for anybody reading my note that I wrote about agreements all the time? Or do I overrate the capabilities of my readers? Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 24 16:25:25 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:25:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124153328.00b8ed10@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <000b01c2c37e$588fcd30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be> <006101c2c395$31353830$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E311B4E.2030402@skynet.be> <007001c2c39c$c91e35f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E315887.2040804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002401c2c3c5$34159b00$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Comments interspersed: > > Sven Pran wrote: ........... > > Balance means a comparison between your overall strength of opposition > > to the overall opposition against each other pair playing each board the > > same direction as you. Note that in a matchpoint scored competitions > > you are "in team" with every other pair playing the same board as you > > do but in the other direction. Ideally you should have each other pair > > the same number of times "teammates" as "opponents". > > > > > Ideally - but that is only in a fully balanced. > There are tournaments (full Mitchells) that are balanced in both > groups separate. I don't think we disagree that you can various degrees of balance? > > > > In a Howell (or barometer) movement this requires that each pair has > > every other pair the same number of boards played in the same > > direction as in opposing directions. > > > > In Mitchell the only way of achieving such balance is to ascertain that > > the accumulated strength of opponents met must be the same for all > > pairs playing in the same direction, that is you play as many rounds > > as there are tables to be scored together.. > > > > > No - that is not balance. > > > > Your definition of a balanced Mitchell movement fails by being > > incomplete at the very moment you do not meet the same set of > > opponents unless you ascertain that each "set" of opponents are > > of the same strength. > > > > > >>You are now talking about whom you meet. Of course that is relevant. > >> > > > > And that is exactly what balancing is about. > > > > > No it is not. > > A full Mitchell is balanced in the sense that each NS pair is compared > exactly the same number of times with each other NS pair. In that > sense, the the movement that Tony described is also balanced. > (separately for NS and EW). You may have your definition of balanced, I really do not care, except that it is apparent from our exchanges that under your definition it is not sufficient to have a fully balanced Mitchell movement to secure a "fair" movement unless the schedule is "complete". I prefer a definition that can be used directly as a tool to obtain "fair" movements and help us understand the underlying principles. Sven From axman22@hotmail.com Fri Jan 24 16:26:14 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:26:14 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? References: <002501c2c37a$fa8f0aa0$25b54351@noos.fr> <001101c2c381$6e7b5850$70d8fea9@WINXP> <001501c2c3bf$21a00420$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? > From: "Roger Pewick" > > From: "Sven Pran" > ........... > > > And if your agreements are such that you "know" the leading of S6 > > > shows that he has an odd number of small spades or he has an even > > > number of small spades or he makes an invitation from his spade suit > > > > Whatever the meaning of the above I think it is said very badly. I > > point to the use of the word 'know'. Certainly the only thing to tell > > the opponents are those things according to agreement, as in those > > things you know by agreement without having seen any unplayed cards. > > Immediately ahead of the line where you found the word "know" I used > the additional words "according to agreements" in a slightly different > context (snipped away by you). > > I am very surprised that it should be necessary to repeat these words > on the immediately following line when it ought to be obvious for > anybody reading my note that I wrote about agreements all the time? > > Or do I overrate the capabilities of my readers? > > Sven You used the phrase 'if your agreements are such that you "know" '. This phrase has a broad scope, very broad. For one, it does not limit the information derived solely from what the agreement promised. But it includes, specifically in addition to, inferences, conclusions, and judgements incorporating information extraneous to the agreement [such as information from the cards held]. Any explanation utilizing extraneous information will provide a communication to partner from which he might make inferences- improper inferences from UI. As to the mentioned preceding sentence. Bidding, and play, are the outcome of several processes including judgment of information. As such I prefer to explain agreements concerning holdings as 'it promises ....' Why? Because bids and plays are a result of application of judgment with respect to agreements in force. Anyway, my opinion is that it is never appropriate to ask a leading question during a hand. If a player isn't forthcoming about their agreement and he unfairly benefits there is a remedy available, not that the remedy solves the problem. regards roger pewick From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 24 16:39:37 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:39:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? References: <002501c2c37a$fa8f0aa0$25b54351@noos.fr> <001101c2c381$6e7b5850$70d8fea9@WINXP> <001501c2c3bf$21a00420$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <003e01c2c3c7$2f9a6130$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Roger Pewick" > From: "Sven Pran" > > From: "Roger Pewick" > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > ........... > > > > And if your agreements are such that you "know" the leading of S6 > > > > shows that he has an odd number of small spades or he has an even > > > > number of small spades or he makes an invitation from his spade > suit > > > > > > Whatever the meaning of the above I think it is said very badly. I > > > point to the use of the word 'know'. Certainly the only thing to > tell > > > the opponents are those things according to agreement, as in those > > > things you know by agreement without having seen any unplayed cards. > > > > Immediately ahead of the line where you found the word "know" I used > > the additional words "according to agreements" in a slightly different > > context (snipped away by you). > > > > I am very surprised that it should be necessary to repeat these words > > on the immediately following line when it ought to be obvious for > > anybody reading my note that I wrote about agreements all the time? > > > > Or do I overrate the capabilities of my readers? > > > > Sven > > You used the phrase 'if your agreements are such that you "know" '. This is a direct copy from the pertinent part of message you commented: begin quote .......................shall be prohibited from asking "how many diamonds did he (or "you") promise according to your agreements"? And if your agreements are such that you "know" the leading of S6 shows that .................... end quote I apologize for overrating you Sven From adam@tameware.com Fri Jan 24 18:37:19 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 13:37:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:36 AM -0500 1/24/03, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >This year is the first year that the finals are being held over the >internet finally allowing players from Hawaii to compete and you >will likely see some of them at the NABC finals. You will for NAP >at least. Fantastic! Where can I find out about the logistics of these events? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From john@asimere.com Fri Jan 24 17:35:04 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:35:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] Competition theory In-Reply-To: <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124153328.00b8ed10@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <000b01c2c37e$588fcd30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be> Message-ID: In article <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Totally wrong answer, Sven, sorry. agree with Herman > >> From: "Tony Musgrove" >> >> >>>Sorry this is not on topic, but I am sure one of the UK contingent >>>will know the answer. >>> >>>Sometimes when I get 18 tables (twinned 9 table sections, boards >>>1-27), I elect to move the players as one section i.e. players move >>>from t 18 to t 1. No two pairs play exactly the same set of opponents >>>yet all play the same boards. Is there anything very sub optimal about >>>this assuming ATF scoring? >>> I don't think it makes any difference as far as ATF scoring goes provided it gives a 2-winner movement. The boards are all played by all players; it's only a question of having different opponents than you would have had. David Martin would be more sure of the answer than I however. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jan 24 20:08:12 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:08:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? Message-ID: <200301242008.PAA29246@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "JOAN GERARD" > F. A fifth and/or sixth member may be added to a team > after the completion of the District Final. Any such > player(s) must be a member of District 3. Augmentation > will only be allowed if, in the opinion of the GNT Committee, > the addition (s) is an attempt to maintain or improve the > playing strength of the team. > > While these Conditions surely do not cover all possible > situations they do solve Adam's problem of a sponsor > who does not maintain the strength of the team. Yes, but of course it requires a personal judgment and could easily generate hard feelings. An alternative rule might be one that requires added players to have won through the early stages of the competition. This is no doubt imperfect, but it is objective. > The problem of team A playing team B and > dumping so that a pair can be added to team A from > Team B.... well that could work both ways and also > would have to mean that the entire team was aware or > else there would be no guarantee. If the captain decides which players to add, only he and the dumping pair need be aware of the agreement. One way to prevent such dumping is to say that anyone on a team defeated in direct head-to-head competition (perhaps only in the semi-finals and finals) by the winning team is ineligible to be added. This would, of course, have the disadvantage of eliminating some strong players, but it would certainly prevent suspicion and conflict of interest. From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jan 24 21:44:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 21:44 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation In-Reply-To: <4959419.1043328879879.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: Rabbits *are* cute, cuddly and lovable - more importantly they are pretty much the bottom of the bridge food chain (feel free to dwell on partners who have played like vegetables). Unleashing legal myxomatosis on our cuddly rabbits will, in the short term, lead to the evolution of more effective predators amongst an already small population. In the longer term it may lead to the extinction of the predators as well. Bridge needs rabbits - nurture them. Tim From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jan 25 00:17:39 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:17:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation In-Reply-To: <001b01c2c312$471c9b80$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030123134241.01d297d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124191205.0248db10@mail.comcast.net> At 02:04 PM 1/23/2003, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >........... > > AG : oops. I guess no one of the TDs I've met does know every Law. The >good > > ones, however, are able to recognize the problem when hearing it exposed, > >Just one comment: The good ones admit that it is a wise routine always >to look up the applicable law in the book rather than ruling according to >what they (believe) they remember. In particular, you may miss the fine points. East opens 1S, South bids 3H, and West bids 1NT. The TD is called, and without a book, is likely to give the ruling, "North may accept the 1NT bid. If not, then if you correct your 1NT bid to 3NT, the auction proceeds. If you bid anything else, your partner is barred for the remainder of the auction." That's OK as far as it goes, but if West bids 3S and North bids 4H, nobody knows about the lead penalty. Should East be on lead, South may forbid the lead of any one suit. From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Sat Jan 25 00:39:53 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 11:39:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory In-Reply-To: References: <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be> <5.1.1.6.0.20030124153328.00b8ed10@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <000b01c2c37e$588fcd30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030125113038.00b7ef38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> I appreciate the comments received. I feel intuitively that it would be better to keep the two sections separated so that at least the two EW fields would play the same opponents. Then it would only remain to seed the two NS and the two EW fields to get a fair overall result. However when I have two sections, there is a natural gravitation of good players to the "good" side, and the weaker players like to sit on the bunny side. My efforts are to try to foil these seating strategies. >-- >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 joanandron@worldnet.att.net Sat Jan 25 01:02:45 2003 From: joanandron@worldnet.att.net (JOAN GERARD) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 20:02:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? References: <200301242008.PAA29246@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004e01c2c40d$795e7e50$46dd4e0c@Dell4500> Dear Steve, Our Grand National Team Competition at this point has become an only one stage competition.... the District Finals - so we can't have the same conditions that we had many years ago when we could require that players competed in each stage...... And because it is such a Grass Roots type event, the captain is a captain in name only. Our major ACBL competitions deal with dumping in the manner that you suggest.... you cannot augment with someone from a head-to-head match in the Finals..........But this is at the District Level and our "SuperFlight" sometimes has as few as four or five teams...It is a flighted event. Thanks for your comments. Best regards, Joan Gerard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 3:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? > > From: "JOAN GERARD" > > F. A fifth and/or sixth member may be added to a team > > after the completion of the District Final. Any such > > player(s) must be a member of District 3. Augmentation > > will only be allowed if, in the opinion of the GNT Committee, > > the addition (s) is an attempt to maintain or improve the > > playing strength of the team. > > > > While these Conditions surely do not cover all possible > > situations they do solve Adam's problem of a sponsor > > who does not maintain the strength of the team. > > Yes, but of course it requires a personal judgment and could easily > generate hard feelings. > > An alternative rule might be one that requires added players to have > won through the early stages of the competition. This is no doubt > imperfect, but it is objective. > > > The problem of team A playing team B and > > dumping so that a pair can be added to team A from > > Team B.... well that could work both ways and also > > would have to mean that the entire team was aware or > > else there would be no guarantee. > > If the captain decides which players to add, only he and the dumping > pair need be aware of the agreement. > > One way to prevent such dumping is to say that anyone on a team > defeated in direct head-to-head competition (perhaps only in the > semi-finals and finals) by the winning team is ineligible to be added. > This would, of course, have the disadvantage of eliminating some strong > players, but it would certainly prevent suspicion and conflict of > interest. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jan 25 03:20:07 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 22:20:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] POOT accepted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 1/23/03, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >I hadn't thought of "Director error". IMO there is no TD error, rather >it's incompetence. I'd be unhappy about a L82C ruling here. ... we'd be >issuing them everywhere if we started here. cheers john I take your point, but... I think one could argue that TD incompetence *is* TD error. Assuming, of course, that the TD in question is capable of correcting the factor(s) leading to his incompetence. :-) And if you do not rule under 82C, how *do* you rule in this case? Tell South he's out of luck, even though the situation is not entirely his fault? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jan 25 03:52:35 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 22:52:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? In-Reply-To: <001001c2c31c$60417b80$9201a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 1/23/03, Marvin French wrote: >It is not what L20F2 says, and it doesn't make sense to me. Dummy >should explain declarer's calls so that there will be no problem such >as can arise when declarer explains his/her call but does not have the >hand described. I've seen this kind of comment before, and while I recognize the reality that players may complain when such a situation arises, I fail to see where they have a basis in law for the complaint. Declarer has a right to make a call that deviates from his partnership agreements, but is *required* to explain the agreements, not the deviation. Personally, I think more players need to be made aware of this - and if they become annoyed in the process, perhaps they'll remember it. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jan 25 03:31:43 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 22:31:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] POOT accepted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 1/23/03, Roger Pewick wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tony Musgrove" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 17:21 PM >Subject: [blml] POOT accepted > > >> The other day I was dealer as South. Partner passed out of turn >> The director explained the options to East, who apparently >> said verbally, "I don't accept the bid", and then passed. >> I didn't hear this, but I saw the pass card out and assuming >> that the POOT had been accepted, bid 1D, saying "you are >> accepting my partner's pass, so we just carry on". The director was >> called back and claimed that East had in fact also passed >> out of turn, and that I had accepted it. He further ruled >> that my partner was still obliged to pass at the first >> opportunity. Surely this cannot be correct? but >> I can't find an explicit mention of this case among the laws. >> >> Can anyone help? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tony (Sydney) > > >I believe that the matter revolves around the status of the OPOOT. > >It is noted that dealer's RHO has acted without the benefit of the >director. That turns out not to be the case. "Partner passed out of turn. The director explained the options to East, who apparently said verbally, "I don't accept the bid", and then passed." >Had the director been called and RHO rejected the POOT [the >OPOOT having been canceled] and then passed then the TD would have >immediately awarded a penalty option to dealer for RHO's COOT. > >But that did not happen. What did happen was that the OPOOT had not >been withdrawn. Dealer's RHO accepted the OPOOT and created UI to the >partner via the extraneous comment that the POOT was not accepted. As >L29A is clear, comment or not, if offender's LHO calls the right to >penalize is forfeited. I don't think this follows, given the above. >imo, no one has any business starting the auction before all the >players are ready to proceed, at least they shouldn't have any >business. For one thing I think it is inappropriate to hold a player >culpable for what has been said before the auction begins- especially >while they have their nose buried in their cards. I take your point, but... "The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner looks at the face of his cards." - Law 17A. If, as you say, the players have their nose buried in their cards, the auction has begun. >Of course, there is nothing in law that advises players to not start >the auction until all the players at least seem ready. Not explicitly, no. It seems a matter of etiquette. From svenpran@online.no Sat Jan 25 08:29:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 09:29:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be> <5.1.1.6.0.20030124153328.00b8ed10@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <000b01c2c37e$588fcd30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be> <5.1.1.6.0.20030125113038.00b7ef38@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <000d01c2c44b$f2b4ed50$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Tony Musgrove" > I appreciate the comments received. I feel intuitively > that it would be better to keep the two sections separated > so that at least the two EW fields would play the same > opponents. Then it would only remain to seed the two > NS and the two EW fields to get a fair overall result. However > when I have two sections, there is a natural gravitation of good > players to the "good" side, and the weaker players like to > sit on the bunny side. My efforts are to try to foil these > seating strategies. And based upon experience from our club championship some 15 - 20 years ago: Whatever you try to fool such strategies, they will fool you! (We tried to merge the initial rounds in a similar way, but ended up with half the A-class players not even qualifying for the final rounds and a typical B-class pair ending up as champions mainly because they favoured too much from the skewed balance in the arrangement) regards Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Jan 25 08:43:34 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 09:43:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? References: <002501c2c37a$fa8f0aa0$25b54351@noos.fr> <001101c2c381$6e7b5850$70d8fea9@WINXP> <001501c2c3bf$21a00420$70d8fea9@WINXP> <003e01c2c3c7$2f9a6130$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <002f01c2c44d$dd4c82a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear all, Who overrates who ? I said: When they ask me the meaning of partners S6 I tend to answer that partner has the S6. The real point is that this type of questions (and I am surprised how often that phrasing is used, it happens most often at the first discard) is completely illegal and shows how little most players understand about the law. TD's and lawmakers should do something about this problem rather than criticising me or anybody elsed how we go about reacting to questions that shouldn't be asked. That said, I am a nice boy and I tend to laugh when answering 'he has S6' or 'come on' or whatever, after which I try to let them ask a more meaningful question. One thing I don't do is start guessing myself what they are after because it is not that easy to understand players capable of asking such questions. Still 90% of the time 'he has the S6' is a correct answer because every trick partner has to play a card and he is not signalling all the time. Sven: >Perfect CC doesn't exist. Of course it doesn't for bidding. But carding has a much more limited scope. And given a proper filled out CC, questions about carding should be rare. On the official French CC this is explicitly mentioned. And I think they are right. Because questions during play tends to generate UI. Sven: > Is it really your opinion that a player who in trick 6 discovers the need > to know whether opponent's bidding is consistent with holding (at least) > just 4 diamonds or promising at least 5 diamonds shall be prohibited > from asking "how many diamonds did he (or "you") promise according > to your agreements"? Sven I said that ALMOST all questions should be asked at trick 1. Since asking questions during play is a bad idea for all kind of reasons it should be avoided. Any sane player (at least from a certain level) asks a complete explanation of opps bidding at trick one (or when leading). If you follow this simple normal procedure there is little need to ask questions during play. Of course if some detail becomes very important later on you might need to ask some more (don't worry I do myself). But I favor some kind of protection against players that start asking questions during play that should/could be asked at trick 1. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? > From: "Roger Pewick" > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > From: "Roger Pewick" > > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > ........... > > > > > And if your agreements are such that you "know" the leading of S6 > > > > > shows that he has an odd number of small spades or he has an even > > > > > number of small spades or he makes an invitation from his spade > > suit > > > > > > > > Whatever the meaning of the above I think it is said very badly. I > > > > point to the use of the word 'know'. Certainly the only thing to > > tell > > > > the opponents are those things according to agreement, as in those > > > > things you know by agreement without having seen any unplayed cards. > > > > > > Immediately ahead of the line where you found the word "know" I used > > > the additional words "according to agreements" in a slightly different > > > context (snipped away by you). > > > > > > I am very surprised that it should be necessary to repeat these words > > > on the immediately following line when it ought to be obvious for > > > anybody reading my note that I wrote about agreements all the time? > > > > > > Or do I overrate the capabilities of my readers? > > > > > > Sven > > > > You used the phrase 'if your agreements are such that you "know" '. > > This is a direct copy from the pertinent part of message you commented: > > begin quote > > .......................shall be prohibited > from asking "how many diamonds did he (or "you") promise according > to your agreements"? > > And if your agreements are such that you "know" the leading of S6 > shows that .................... > > end quote > > I apologize for overrating you > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Sat Jan 25 06:40:49 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 07:40:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another incomplete designation References: <3E315314.6010406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c2c4b7$bf4dc740$af053dd4@b0e7g1> > There are a lot of sensible people here, but they don't all see the same thing. > The original topic of this thread is an excellent example of > the disease. "Declarer must unambiguously designate a card > to be played from dummy." Finished, done, nobody needs more > than this. And what if he doesn't? Then RHO (Dummy must be silent) > says: "Which card please?". > No. That already is too much. > That already can be enough for declarer to realize that there is a problem. > Declarer has not designated (has said "anything" or some such) so he has lost the right to designate. The current solution, that opponents can designate, seems enough - but this thread has shown it is not, or not fully. > Yet we saw that even this very particular instance can be dealt with. > So we don't really need to change the law. > But I'd be in favour of a law change that says that if declarer does not designate, dummy shall play any card (so as not to confuse opponents) and a AS will be given if the card actually played affected declarer's result in any positive way. > What we don't want, however, is a rule that would be as harsh as (for instance - I am not really advocating this) "if declarer does not designate, he is deemed to have claimed and must show his hand and lose all tricks he can by any legal line of play". > We want to play bridge, and "play anything" is bridge. Reply to the above: As I wrote earlier players are not familiar with the Laws. They learned at the bridge-school that declarer is obliged to play a card from dummy by naming the card. In practice this will do. But at a certain moment declarer says: "Play anything" and dummy is dutiful. The OPS have never heard of Law46B5. Ben From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Jan 25 22:14:31 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:14:31 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? References: Message-ID: <002001c2c4bf$270a9dc0$9201a8c0@san.rr.com> Ed Repper wrote: > Marvin French wrote: > > >It is not what L20F2 says, and it doesn't make sense to me. Dummy > >should explain declarer's calls so that there will be no problem such > >as can arise when declarer explains his/her call but does not have the > >hand described. > > I've seen this kind of comment before, and while I recognize the reality > that players may complain when such a situation arises, I fail to see > where they have a basis in law for the complaint. Declarer has a right > to make a call that deviates from his partnership agreements, but is > *required* to explain the agreements, not the deviation. Personally, I > think more players need to be made aware of this - and if they become > annoyed in the process, perhaps they'll remember it. > Of course there is no basis in law for the complaint, but neither is there anything in the Laws that say the presumed dummy cannot disclose the meaning of calls made by the presumed declarer, and vice versa. Once in a blue moon I respond 1D to 1C with xxx diamonds. Often the opening leader, on my left, will start asking questions about our one-over-one responses, and I do not want to say "We avoid bidding very weak suits," which is our partnership agreement. It's legal, of course, for me to say that, but most opponents are never going to be trained to respect that legality. To protect my reputation in the eyes of such opponents, I want partner to explain my calls. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From Anne Jones" The auction starts 2H(weak) - 3C (alerted) This is a site with no self alerting so all table sees the alert. 3C bidder now leaves and does not return. Table collapses. Some hours later opening side, in same seats, meet this board again and consider that in order to be ethical they will only continue to play it if auction is unchanged. The auction starts 2H(weak) - 3C (not alerted) In a similar f2f situation Law 15C would apply. What online law would apply here? Has the WBF LC addressed this (not unusual) problem? Anne --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 From gillp@bigpond.com Sun Jan 26 13:06:31 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:06:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] Conditions of Contest for Augmentation? Message-ID: <014001c2c53b$c08e78a0$94c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Joan Gerard wrote: >When the Grand National Team Event first began ..... > >Now the ACBL no longer pays for the teams to come to >the National Finals; it is no longer a qualifying event >and we have relaxed our Conditions so that we, too, >can try to send our very best team. Our Conditions >dealing with Augmentation & Replacement are as follows: > ..... In Australia, our Grand National Open Teams similarly has relaxed augmentation rules, even though the ABF still does pay the airfares for the non-Sydney finalists to travel to Sydney. Despite a plethora of playing sponsors here in Oz, in practice our GNOT has never had the problem which Adam suggested of a sponsor being augmented. Some reasons are probably that it is relatively easy for sponsored teams to reach the 48 team National Finals of our GNOT, that sponsors prefer to play early on while it's easy, and that pros prefer to be paid for the preliminary matches, so that the chances of a team of pros qualifying then augmenting a sponsor is small. Or perhaps it's simply that noone here has thought of the idea of augmetning a sponsor, and it may in fact one day happen. For the last week, most of Australia's BLMLists have been absent from BLML as they're playing or directing our biggest annual Nationals in bushfire-ravaged Canberra (last night I was driving in bushland on the outskirts of Canbera and reported a small unattended bushfire to the Fire Brigade, by the way). The main event at our Summer Nationals is the NOT or National Open Teams with about 250 teams, often including Lavazza and/or top Polish squads. The NOT has five stages and has quite detailed augmentation rules in its Conditions of Contest. I do not believe these CoC's are on the web, so I will do my best to recall them.... The NOT's First Stage is a 14 round Swiss over five days to qualify 16 teams. Teams may augment until 4-30pm last Friday which was the end of the session time for the 14th round. Augmentees and all other players may only play in the next Stage if they meet a minimum board requirement from the previous Stage. To be allowed to play in the Second Stage, each player must have played at least 3 of the 14 matches. Thereafter, to play in a subsequent Stage up to and including the Grand Final, a player must have played at least a quarter of the boards in the previous Stage. These minimum board requirements are above and beyond the minimum board requiremtns for our Playoff Points. Furthermore it is not permitted to augment someone who has been knocked out of the NOT. Our tough rules have some disadvantages - for example, halfway through the Grand Final last year, our team had to concede when we were reduced to three players for various reasons. So perhaps Australia is not a good country to copy when it comes to CoC's and the like. Still, I will find out if our NOT CoC's are online as it's still quite interesting. Peter Gill Sydney, Australia. From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Jan 26 13:43:19 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:43:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124153328.00b8ed10@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <000b01c2c37e$588fcd30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be> <006101c2c395$31353830$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E311B4E.2030402@skynet.be> <007001c2c39c$c91e35f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E315887.2040804@skynet.be> <002401c2c3c5$34159b00$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E33E5F7.4040903@skynet.be> Yes Sven, Sven Pran wrote: >> > > You may have your definition of balanced, I really do not care, except > that it is apparent from our exchanges that under your definition it is not > sufficient to have a fully balanced Mitchell movement to secure a "fair" > movement unless the schedule is "complete". > Indeed. > I prefer a definition that can be used directly as a tool to obtain "fair" > movements and help us understand the underlying principles. > And how do you suggest to contest a fair tournament with 36 pairs, which was the number Tony asked about. In one session, of course. There are a huge number of movements, and 99% of those are not "fair" under your definition. Nor can they be made fair, since there are simply not enough rounds to be played. But many of them are "balanced" (my definition - and the generally accepted one - see the Swedish book for instance), and those that are not can be changed to make them as balanced as possible. Which makes for an attribute for which it seems quite sensible to me to be defining an adjective for. > 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 Sun Jan 26 16:35:12 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:35:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030124153328.00b8ed10@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <000b01c2c37e$588fcd30$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E3105B6.7010906@skynet.be> <006101c2c395$31353830$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E311B4E.2030402@skynet.be> <007001c2c39c$c91e35f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E315887.2040804@skynet.be> <002401c2c3c5$34159b00$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3E33E5F7.4040903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01c2c558$e6738700$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Yes Sven, > > Sven Pran wrote: > > >> > > > > You may have your definition of balanced, I really do not care, except > > that it is apparent from our exchanges that under your definition it is not > > sufficient to have a fully balanced Mitchell movement to secure a "fair" > > movement unless the schedule is "complete". > > > > > Indeed. > > > > I prefer a definition that can be used directly as a tool to obtain "fair" > > movements and help us understand the underlying principles. > > > > > And how do you suggest to contest a fair tournament with 36 pairs, > which was the number Tony asked about. In one session, of course. There is no way you can, and it is no use trying to fool oneself that it is possible, especially not when the basic schedule is according to the Mitchell system (which inherently is as unbalanced as it is possible). > > There are a huge number of movements, and 99% of those are not "fair" > under your definition. Nor can they be made fair, since there are > simply not enough rounds to be played. But many of them are > "balanced" (my definition - and the generally accepted one - see the > Swedish book for instance), and those that are not can be changed to > make them as balanced as possible. I have the Sweedish book issued in 1990, there they emphasize strongly the importance of observing the strength of opponents when balancing incomplete schedules. My impression is that you may possibly have stopped reading after the discussion on balancing complete schedules, or that the special considerations for incomplete schedules have been omitted from your book? And by the way, our Norwegian national championships for pairs are played with 82 pairs in the final after regional qualifying rounds. The finals are played with 81 rounds for a total of 162 boards. Not in a single session of course, but this works fine. If you have an important tournament with so many pairs I think you should forget the "single session" argument and concentrate upon obtaining an as fair as possible schedule. (It can never be perfect in all respects). Sven From david-martin@talk21.com Sun Jan 26 19:03:50 2003 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 19:03:50 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory Message-ID: <009f01c2c56d$c61b9a00$5c5a01d5@davicaltd> Tony Musgrove wrote: > Sorry this is not on topic, but I am sure one of the UK contingent > will know the answer. > > Sometimes when I get 18 tables (twinned 9 table sections, boards > 1-27), I elect to move the players as one section i.e. players move > from t 18 to t 1. No two pairs play exactly the same set of opponents > yet all play the same boards. Is there anything very sub optimal about > this assuming ATF scoring? > ####### IMO, from a mathematical perspective of competition, there is virtually no difference and Tony's approach is fine. Whether the movement is two winner or arrow-switched to produce a single winner, there will be imbalances in competition between various pairs because the movement is not perfect, ie. each NS and EW pair only plays half of their total line. All that Tony's approach does is shift some of the imbalances to different pairs but it does increase or decrease the total amount of imbalance nor does it concentrate the imbalance in some unfair way on particular pairs. David Martin ######## From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jan 27 08:08:40 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:08:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Online UI Message-ID: - > Van: Anne Jones [mailto:anne@baa-lamb.co.uk] > > The auction starts 2H(weak) - 3C (alerted) > > This is a site with no self alerting so all table sees the alert. > 3C bidder now leaves and does not return. Table collapses. > > Some hours later opening side, in same seats, meet this board > again and > consider that in order to be ethical they will only continue > to play it if > auction is unchanged. > The auction starts 2H(weak) - 3C (not alerted) > > In a similar f2f situation Law 15C would apply. > > What online law would apply here? Has the WBF LC addressed this (not > unusual) problem? > > Anne It probably would be better if a player can't start playing a board for the second time. Or is this a too complicated condition for the software? I don't think we addressed this specific situation when we discussed the online rules. But I don't see a real problem here, why not applying L15C? Which means that the auction is not the same and the board has to be cancelled. And my opinion is that if a player is allowed to play a board he has started before, the software should prevent that play continues when the auction deviates, including the alerts of course. ton From jurgenr@t-online.de Mon Jan 27 11:19:18 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:19:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Online UI Message-ID: Of course, I understand that a squarehead of any nationality would take Ton's contribution as a joke and admire its subtlety; but I will take it seriously, and admire its subtlety, just in case it was meant for roundheads. >From Ton(>): >It probably would be better if a player can't start playing a board for the >second time. I do not understand why. You are missing a great opportunity to simplify the game as well as its rules. >Or is this a too complicated condition for the software? It is clear why one might think so; however, nothing is too complicated for software, it is the programmers who have limitations. Analogously, nothing is too complicated for Laws, but the Lawgivers have limitations. A program that deals the same hand twice, only to take measures to prevent play, is precisely analogous to the laws coercing the play of a contract, only to disallow any result. >I don't think we addressed this specific situation when we discussed the >online rules. Clearly an oversight, but an excusable one. What was it that you did discuss at these meetings? And was the dinner satisfactory? >But I don't see a real problem here, why not applying L15C? Right! And this can be generalized. No program can be considered complete unless it provides for the possibility that it has flaws. Do you think "Press OK if you want an apology, press CANCEL to apply law 15C" would be appropriate? There was a man by the name of Dijkstra who became well known for grattling on about formal proofs of the correctness of programs. Of course, these theories, when they apply, apply not only to programs but to any logical construct. Dijkstra is probably retired now, but no doubt he has followers who could be enticed to join you for dinner at the LC meetings and, in return, prove the consistency of corpus juris pontis. In fact, for a suitable honorarium, I can do this for you. For a small additional fee I can also certify the coherence of form and content. Unfortunately, completeness proofs are still out of range, I think - but perhaps progress was made while I was distracted. >Which means that the auction is not the same and the board has to be >cancelled. Yes the program could handle that - but why should it? If the program is to deal the same hand twice there is no reason why it should not deal it 3, 4, ... or N times. Therefore the exact opposite ruling might be equally appropriate: The deal is to be discarded only if the auction is not different. Alternatively, you could wait for the 48th card to be played and discard the hand only if the play was also identical. The reason is obviously that otherwise only LOL&Ms with less than 6 bits of memory could find pleasure in the game. >And my opinion is that if a player is allowed to play a board he has started >before, the software should prevent that play continues when the auction >deviates, including the alerts of course. See above for the reason why the opposite is equally desirable. "Press VARY to change the bidding, press AGAIN to repeat the deal, press RULE to apply a law". (x) select a law at random. >ton From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Jan 27 12:25:55 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:25:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Online UI References: Message-ID: <3E352553.4030103@skynet.be> J=FCrgen, this is totally uncaaled for, and completely out of line. Please refrain in future from contributions of this nature. Sarcasm has its time and place, but not to address personal attacks on=20 good willing administrators who you have never met. I am referring to: J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: > Of course, I understand that a squarehead of any nationality would > take Ton's contribution as a joke and admire its > subtlety; but I will take it seriously, and admire its subtlety, > just in case it was meant for roundheads. >=20 >=20 > Clearly an oversight, but an excusable one. What was it that you did > discuss at these meetings? And was the dinner satisfactory? >=20 >=20 > There was a man by the name of Dijkstra who became well known for > grattling on about formal proofs of the correctness of programs. > Of course, these theories, when they apply, apply not only to programs > but to any logical construct. Dijkstra is probably retired now, > but no doubt he has followers who could be enticed to join you for > dinner at the LC meetings and, in return, prove the consistency of > corpus juris pontis. In fact, for a suitable honorarium, I can > do this for you. For a small additional fee I can also certify the > coherence of form and content. Unfortunately, completeness proofs are > still out of range, I think - but perhaps progress was made while > I was distracted. >=20 > (x) select a law at random. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Jan 27 12:58:16 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:58:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Online UI Message-ID: >=20 >=20 > J=FCrgen, this is totally uncaaled for, and completely out of line. > Please refrain in future from contributions of this nature. > Sarcasm has its time and place, but not to address personal=20 > attacks on=20 > good willing administrators who you have never met. And as far as I am in control that will never happen. The nice thing = about this reaction is that while telling the world that I am an idiot, = Jurgen demonstates not to understand a syllable of the problem Anne was = describing. Still I am starting to understand David Stevenson better and better, = the atmosphere in blml is changing a lot last months. May be my = contributions are an explanation, though I didn't change much during the years I am a member now. Anyway I have decided to decrease my contributions = drastically, there are too many more clever people around these days. Good luck.=20 ton=20 From moranl@netvision.net.il Mon Jan 27 14:01:27 2003 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 16:01:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Online UI In-Reply-To: <3E352553.4030103@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20030127154914.00a1f6b0@mail.netvision.net.il> I wholeheartedly endorse Hermann's comments. Jorgen's attack is not only=20 uncalled for and unjustified; it is also insulting to those of us who view= =20 BLML as a medium for the exchange of views and ideas on the laws of bridge= =20 and not as a vehicle for personal attacks and innuendoes. If anything could= =20 get me out of my "lurking mode" it was this diatribe against one of our top= =20 administrators who is doing what he considers best for the game we all=20 devote so much time to. This mail list can do without the mail fist of Jorgen. Eitan Levy this At 13:25 27/01/03 +0100, you wrote: >J=FCrgen, this is totally uncaaled for, and completely out of line. >Please refrain in future from contributions of this nature. >Sarcasm has its time and place, but not to address personal attacks on=20 >good willing administrators who you have never met. > >I am referring to: > >J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: > >>Of course, I understand that a squarehead of any nationality would >>take Ton's contribution as a joke and admire its >>subtlety; but I will take it seriously, and admire its subtlety, >>just in case it was meant for roundheads. > > >>Clearly an oversight, but an excusable one. What was it that you did >>discuss at these meetings? And was the dinner satisfactory? > > >>There was a man by the name of Dijkstra who became well known for >>grattling on about formal proofs of the correctness of programs. >>Of course, these theories, when they apply, apply not only to programs >>but to any logical construct. Dijkstra is probably retired now, >>but no doubt he has followers who could be enticed to join you for >>dinner at the LC meetings and, in return, prove the consistency of >>corpus juris pontis. In fact, for a suitable honorarium, I can >>do this for you. For a small additional fee I can also certify the >>coherence of form and content. Unfortunately, completeness proofs are >>still out of range, I think - but perhaps progress was made while >>I was distracted. > > >>(x) select a law at random. >> > > >-- >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 karel@esatclear.ie Mon Jan 27 15:06:01 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:06:01 GMT Subject: [blml] Online UI Message-ID: <3e354ad9.917.0@esatclear.ie> >>It probably would be better if a player can't start playing a board for the second time. +++ My experience from OKB is that you can't play the same board twice - infact - not sure about this but you cant observe a board and then play it either ... Or is this a too complicated condition for the software? +++ Pretty easy to implement >>I don't think we addressed this specific situation when we discussed the online rules. +++ Shouldn't ever occur - software should deal with it Also on the alerting procedure on-line, self alerting seems to work far better than pd alerting. On OkB you can ask both opps for an explanation which probably needs to be looked at. Then again the opps know you have asked them both and the pd of the self alerter can exercise the right not to answer. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jan 27 15:54:51 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:54:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Online UI Message-ID: <200301271554.KAA08500@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > But I don't see a real problem here, why not applying L15C? > Which means that the auction is not the same and the board has to be > cancelled. Ton has, of course, given the legally correct answer. It would apply in all normal cases. However, in the specific case given, I don't see that there would be any harm in letting play continue. The content of the UI (leaving the table on seeing the alert) is that second hand has a club suit, but that is also the content of the 3C bid. There isn't any extra information as far as I can tell. However, a ruling that play continues looks to me like a "practical expedient," not strictly conforming to the Laws. Like Ton, I am surprised that the software allows this to happen. And like several others, I was offended by Jurgen's remarks. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Jan 27 16:06:10 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:06:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory Message-ID: <200301271606.LAA08513@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "David Martin" > IMO, from a mathematical perspective of competition, there is virtually no > difference and Tony's approach is fine. Is everyone converging on the same opinion? Let me see if I understand. A fair competition requires everyone to play opponents of the same strength. This means either play a complete movement or seed the field as evenly as possible. If a complete movement is impossible, and fair seeding is also impossible (as in Tony's case, where strong and weak pairs tend to separate into two sections), there is no way to have a fair competition. In that case, the two movements he suggests are equally unfair. Each one gives advantages and disadvantages to different pairs, but there is no mathematical reason to prefer one over the other. Is this an accurate summary? From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 27 16:33:23 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:33:23 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory References: <200301271606.LAA08513@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003501c2c621$d010fd70$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Steve Willner" > > From: "David Martin" > > IMO, from a mathematical perspective of competition, there is virtually no > > difference and Tony's approach is fine. > > Is everyone converging on the same opinion? Let me see if I understand. > > A fair competition requires everyone to play opponents of the same > strength. This means either play a complete movement or seed the field > as evenly as possible. > > If a complete movement is impossible, and fair seeding is also > impossible (as in Tony's case, where strong and weak pairs tend to > separate into two sections), there is no way to have a fair > competition. In that case, the two movements he suggests are equally > unfair. Each one gives advantages and disadvantages to different > pairs, but there is no mathematical reason to prefer one over the > other. > > Is this an accurate summary? I believe yes, and from a mathematical point of view there is every reason to return to fundamental Mitchell principles and have four ranking lists for groups NS/A, NS/B, EW/A and EW/B considered completely independent of each other. (I do not know of any place in Norway they use Mitchell movements except when they keep the different "groups" strictly separated all the way. We have better ways of handling huge fields when we need to). Sven From gester@lineone.net Mon Jan 27 16:31:05 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 16:31:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Online UI References: <3E352553.4030103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003501c2c621$9e7b5b20$65182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 12:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Online UI Jürgen, this is totally uncaaled for, and completely out of line. Please refrain in future from contributions of this nature. Sarcasm has its time and place, but not to address personal attacks on good willing administrators who you have never met > +=+ Well, maybe, Herman, maybe ...... For my part I think you give too much heed to someone who blusters out of an ignorant and uncivilised state of mind. I am suspicious too .... Rennen - racing or running kampf - battle or fight So rennenkampff - a running fight? Too aptly named, I think, to be real. Let's look on him as unreal and turn deaf ears to each zornesausbruch. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Mon Jan 27 16:03:32 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 16:03:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Online UI References: <3e354ad9.917.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <003401c2c621$9da127c0$65182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Online UI > >>It probably would be better if a player > > >can't start playing a board for the > > >second time. > > +++ My experience from OKB is that you > can't play the same board twice - infact - not > sure about this but you cant observe a board > and then play it either ... > > > Or is this a too complicated condition for the > software? > > +++ Pretty easy to implement > #################################### +=+ I quote from the final report (29 Oct 01) of the WBF Laws Committee to the WBF President and Executive on the drafting of On-line Laws: "The following Laws are encompassed within or rendered moot by normal software design and are assumed to apply but need not be listed in a Summary of the Laws of On-line Bridge: L1-8, L13-15, .................etc." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ #################################### From henk@ripe.net Mon Jan 27 16:45:23 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:45:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] First and final warning Message-ID: Juergen, I've been getting complaints both online and offline about the tone of voice that you used in recent contributions in the "Online-UI". Please note that this list is intended to discuss the laws of Bridge, and not a place for personal attacks on people. Please limit yourself to the laws of bridge in any future postings. If this behaviour continues, your posting priviledges will be revoked. Kind regards, Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk@rtflb.org BLML List Moderator WWW: http://www.rtflb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <004e01c2c640$d52bf6b0$2f2e6651@annescomputer> I consider that we are indeed blessed in that someone like me can address a problem like this to a mailing list, and get a personal opinion to a question like this from no less a person than Ton Kooijman within 12 hours. I appreciate the comments that such an incomplete board may no longer be available to any of the players if the original configuration of the table has changed. But why not - it can happen in the f2f situation - Law 15C expects it. Maybe the paucity of TDs online make this undesirable, but the fact is that within the constraints of the current software in certain online clubs - it can and does happen. If players are ethical there is no reason why it shouldn't. Thank you Ton, and indeed Grattan, for making yourselves so available :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 3:54 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Online UI > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > But I don't see a real problem here, why not applying L15C? > > Which means that the auction is not the same and the board has to be > > cancelled. > > Ton has, of course, given the legally correct answer. It would apply > in all normal cases. > > However, in the specific case given, I don't see that there would be > any harm in letting play continue. The content of the UI (leaving the > table on seeing the alert) is that second hand has a club suit, but > that is also the content of the 3C bid. There isn't any extra > information as far as I can tell. However, a ruling that play > continues looks to me like a "practical expedient," not strictly > conforming to the Laws. > > Like Ton, I am surprised that the software allows this to happen. And > like several others, I was offended by Jurgen's remarks. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/2003 From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jan 27 21:06:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:06 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Online UI In-Reply-To: <3e354ad9.917.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote: > >>It probably would be better if a player can't start playing a board > for the second time. > > +++ My experience from OKB is that you can't play the same board twice This came up on EBU-Online. While one can't play a board one has observed or completed it does allow restarting of incomplete boards. This is necessary in on-line bridge as crashes interrupt the game now and again. Obviously the software could (perhaps should) prevent the board being played by other than the original foursome but then you get unplayed boards just because someone had to leave after the first couple of calls. In the meantime the club relies on players to manage the situation themselves. > Also on the alerting procedure on-line, self alerting seems to work far > better than pd alerting. In what way? With one you have problems with people describing their hands rather than their agreements, inability to correct misexplanations, and people getting cross when a player deviates/psyches but explains correctly (apart from the ask both cheat). With the other you get UI problems as with face-to-face. At least in the latter case the problems are familiar from f2f experience. Tim From john@asimere.com Mon Jan 27 21:14:15 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:14:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] Online UI In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.1.20030127154914.00a1f6b0@mail.netvision.net.il> References: <3E352553.4030103@skynet.be> <5.1.1.6.1.20030127154914.00a1f6b0@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: In article <5.1.1.6.1.20030127154914.00a1f6b0@mail.netvision.net.il>, Eitan Levy writes >I wholeheartedly endorse Hermann's comments. Jorgen's attack is not only >uncalled for and unjustified; it is also insulting to those of us who view >BLML as a medium for the exchange of views and ideas on the laws of bridge >and not as a vehicle for personal attacks and innuendoes. If anything could >get me out of my "lurking mode" it was this diatribe against one of our top >administrators who is doing what he considers best for the game we all >devote so much time to. >This mail list can do without the mail fist of Jorgen. >Eitan Levy > Agreed. -- 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 Jan 27 21:15:53 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:15:53 +0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory In-Reply-To: <200301271606.LAA08513@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200301271606.LAA08513@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article <200301271606.LAA08513@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "David Martin" >> IMO, from a mathematical perspective of competition, there is virtually no >> difference and Tony's approach is fine. > >Is everyone converging on the same opinion? Let me see if I understand. > >A fair competition requires everyone to play opponents of the same >strength. This means either play a complete movement or seed the field >as evenly as possible. > >If a complete movement is impossible, and fair seeding is also >impossible (as in Tony's case, where strong and weak pairs tend to >separate into two sections), there is no way to have a fair >competition. In that case, the two movements he suggests are equally >unfair. Each one gives advantages and disadvantages to different >pairs, but there is no mathematical reason to prefer one over the >other. > >Is this an accurate summary? > In view of David Martin's earlier reply and my understanding, Yes. The inaccuracies just get transferred around. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Mon Jan 27 21:16:56 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:16:56 +0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory In-Reply-To: <003501c2c621$d010fd70$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <200301271606.LAA08513@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <003501c2c621$d010fd70$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <003501c2c621$d010fd70$70d8fea9@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Steve Willner" >> > From: "David Martin" >> > IMO, from a mathematical perspective of competition, there is virtually >no >> > difference and Tony's approach is fine. >> >> Is everyone converging on the same opinion? Let me see if I understand. >> >> A fair competition requires everyone to play opponents of the same >> strength. This means either play a complete movement or seed the field >> as evenly as possible. >> >> If a complete movement is impossible, and fair seeding is also >> impossible (as in Tony's case, where strong and weak pairs tend to >> separate into two sections), there is no way to have a fair >> competition. In that case, the two movements he suggests are equally >> unfair. Each one gives advantages and disadvantages to different >> pairs, but there is no mathematical reason to prefer one over the >> other. >> >> Is this an accurate summary? > >I believe yes, and from a mathematical point of view there is every >reason to return to fundamental Mitchell principles and have four >ranking lists for groups NS/A, NS/B, EW/A and EW/B considered >completely independent of each other. This certainly provides four winners. Any other movement will be a terrible compromise. -- 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 siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Jan 27 21:39:09 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:39:09 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Online UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: We have now some confirmation of a claim made some months ago, last time we discussed online laws: different sites ARE going to have varying degrees of automatic protection from irregularities. On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Tim West-Meads wrote: > This came up on EBU-Online. While one can't play a board one has observed > or completed it does allow restarting of incomplete boards. This is > necessary in on-line bridge as crashes interrupt the game now and again. An interesting idea. I am reminded a bit of playing backgammon on FIBS: if you are interrupted beefore completion of a match, the match is saved by the server, and if you and the same opponent ever (well - within some few months, I forget exactly how long) sit down to play again, it will tell you "you have an unfinished match, shall we resume it now?" I've never heard of someone doing the same with bridge - probably since it is uncommon for the same *4* players to sit down again together at the same table unless it's just a quick interruption of the game and someone logs back in withing a few minutes. > Obviously the software could (perhaps should) prevent the board being > played by other than the original foursome but then you get unplayed > boards just because someone had to leave after the first couple of calls. This is what most sites I've played at do. Yes, it leads to some unfinished hands, that either get skipped, or completed with substitutes. The Swan Games software is very strict about this: if you have seen the cards - either by having played the board before, or kibitzed it - you aren't allowed to sit down, nor are you allowed to send private messages to any of the 4 players who do sit. It seems to work reasonably well, though it is sometimes hard to find a player able to fill in to finish a hand, if the deal is about to be retired and most club members have already seen it. In the event this situation occurs despite the software precautions, I see no reason not to use L15C just as you would in a face to face game. I have had to use it a few times in online tournaments before. (If 1W and 2E both get disconnected, and table 3 is not finished playing when the software moves people for the next round, 1E gets moved to table 2 and a new hand accidentally gets faced. Usually the players notice; but if they start bidding, you deal with it.) In the case that started this thread, 3C alerted and 3C not alerted meet the "differs in any way" test and we cancel it, barring some very convincing reason why we think the two 3C-bidders were intending to pass exactly the same message. GRB From david-martin@talk21.com Mon Jan 27 22:29:14 2003 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 22:29:14 -0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] Competition theory Message-ID: <000201c2c655$a6f9be20$3f188351@davicaltd> Steve Wrote: > > From: "David Martin" > > IMO, from a mathematical perspective of competition, there is virtually no > > difference and Tony's approach is fine. > > Is everyone converging on the same opinion? Let me see if I understand. > > A fair competition requires everyone to play opponents of the same > strength. This means either play a complete movement or seed the field > as evenly as possible. > > If a complete movement is impossible, and fair seeding is also > impossible (as in Tony's case, where strong and weak pairs tend to > separate into two sections), there is no way to have a fair > competition. In that case, the two movements he suggests are equally > unfair. Each one gives advantages and disadvantages to different > pairs, but there is no mathematical reason to prefer one over the > other. > > Is this an accurate summary? ########## Steve's summary accurately reflects my view but there is one small twist. IMO a 'perfect' competition is one in which each pair has an equal degree of influence over the final score of each opposing pair. A 'fair' competition is usually a close approximation to this theoretical ideal. A perfect competition not only requires every pair to play opponents of the same average standard but also imposes an additional requirement with respect to the timing or dynamics of opponents' orientations. For example, if you had a matchpointed four table Howell with one pair of experts who always score tops and seven other pairs of equal but non-expert ability then the final ranking list will show the experts in 1st place and everyone else in equal 2nd-8th place. So far so good. Introduce a second pair of experts into this movement and the final ranking list now shows both expert pairs tying for 1st/2nd place, two pairs tying for equal 3rd/4th, two pairs tying for equal 5th/6th and two unlucky pairs tying for joint 7th/8th. This dispersion of the non-experts is caused by the relative orientation of one expert pair when the non-experts are playing the other expert pair. Two non-expert pairs are lucky in that *both* of their encounters with experts only result in *joint* bottoms because the other expert pair is sitting in the same direction as their expert opponents. Two non-expert pairs are unlucky in that *both* of their encounters with experts result in *absolute* bottoms because the other expert pair is sitting in the opposite direction to their expert opponents. The final two non-expert pairs are neutral in that *one* of their encounters with an expert pair results in a *joint* bottom whilst the other results in an *absolute* bottom. Truly perfect movements are virtually impossible to construct in the real world and a 'fair' movement is therefore one that minimises the competition error between pairs. Thus, the four table Howell is still the best that can be done with 8 pairs in the real world. Likewise, in the case of Tony's movement, a fair *two session* competition could be held even if the weaker players all started in one section. All one needs to do is keep the same NS & EW lines in session two but swap the subsections of one line so that each pair eventually plays the whole of the opposing line. If we are limited by a single session to an incomplete movement and two sections then there will always be competition imbalances and we are merely left with deciding where to spread them. David Martin ########### From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 27 23:43:10 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:43:10 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory References: <000201c2c655$a6f9be20$3f188351@davicaltd> Message-ID: <004301c2c65d$db252ce0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "David Martin" ....... > Steve's summary accurately reflects my view but there is one small twist. > > IMO a 'perfect' competition is one in which each pair has an equal degree of > influence over the final score of each opposing pair. A 'fair' competition > is usually a close approximation to this theoretical ideal. A perfect > competition not only requires every pair to play opponents of the same > average standard but also imposes an additional requirement with respect to > the timing or dynamics of opponents' orientations. > > For example, if you had a matchpointed four table Howell with one pair of > experts who always score tops and seven other pairs of equal but non-expert > ability then the final ranking list will show the experts in 1st place and > everyone else in equal 2nd-8th place. So far so good. Introduce a second > pair of experts into this movement and the final ranking list now shows both > expert pairs tying for 1st/2nd place, two pairs tying for equal 3rd/4th, two > pairs tying for equal 5th/6th and two unlucky pairs tying for joint 7th/8th. > This dispersion of the non-experts is caused by the relative orientation of > one expert pair when the non-experts are playing the other expert pair. Two > non-expert pairs are lucky in that *both* of their encounters with experts > only result in *joint* bottoms because the other expert pair is sitting in > the same direction as their expert opponents. Two non-expert pairs are > unlucky in that *both* of their encounters with experts result in *absolute* > bottoms because the other expert pair is sitting in the opposite direction > to their expert opponents. The final two non-expert pairs are neutral in > that *one* of their encounters with an expert pair results in a *joint* > bottom whilst the other results in an *absolute* bottom. > > Truly perfect movements are virtually impossible to construct in the real > world and a 'fair' movement is therefore one that minimises the competition > error between pairs. Thus, the four table Howell is still the best that can > be done with 8 pairs in the real world. Likewise, in the case of Tony's > movement, a fair *two session* competition could be held even if the weaker > players all started in one section. All one needs to do is keep the same NS > & EW lines in session two but swap the subsections of one line so that each > pair eventually plays the whole of the opposing line. If we are limited by > a single session to an incomplete movement and two sections then there will > always be competition imbalances and we are merely left with deciding where > to spread them. Let us look at a perfectly balanced complete movement with two pairs (X and Y) equally strong and the rest of the field equally weak: According to their positions: ("A" is short for 50% score) X and Y will each score: A when they meet at the same table Top when they sit in opposite directions at different tables Top less one point when they sit in the same direction. X and Y will certainly end up competing for the first two places. Each weak pair Z will score: A when X and Y meet A when they meet another weak pair while X and Y sit in opposite directions at different tables A+2 when they meet another weak pair while X and Y both sit in the opposite direction of Z A-2 when they meet another weak pair while X and Y both sit in the same direction as Z nul points when they meet X or Y while X and Y sit in opposite direction of each other one point when they meet X or Y while X and Y sit in the same direction of each other. All the weak pairs will thus compete on equal terms for the remaining places because with a perfect schedule they will all have their same share of the 6 different conditions listed above. So there is no foundation for claiming that a full schedule cannot be made "fair" because there are two participating pairs of a much different class than the rest of the field. What is true is that not all number of tables allow perfectly balanced schedules, but many do, and those who do not can most of the time be made perfect by having half the number of boards in each round shifted 90 degrees at one (or maybe more) tables. regards Sven From toddz@att.net Mon Jan 27 23:52:43 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:52:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Online UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Bower > Subject: Re: [blml] Online UI > > [saving games for later play] With backgammon, unlike bridge, you don't need to remember the history of previous moves to play normally from any arbitrary position. I wouldn't personally want to play out a hand I started more than an hour ago, but the average bridge player's got a better memory than I have. -Todd From tsvecfob@iol.ie Tue Jan 28 00:14:51 2003 From: tsvecfob@iol.ie (Fearghal O'Boyle) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:14:51 GMT Subject: [blml] Online UI Message-ID: <3e35cb7b.199.0@iol.ie> Anne wrote: Thank you Ton, and indeed Grattan, for making yourselves so available :-) Anne Here! Here! Fearghal O'Boyle http://www.iol.ie From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jan 28 00:12:22 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 16:12:22 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory References: <000201c2c655$a6f9be20$3f188351@davicaltd> Message-ID: <001101c2c661$f3a80f40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Martin" > > Truly perfect movements are virtually impossible to construct in the real > world and a 'fair' movement is therefore one that minimises the competition > error between pairs. Thus, the four table Howell is still the best that can > be done with 8 pairs in the real world. May I suggest that a "truly perfect movement" could be achieved by putting the 8 pairs in one direction of a Mitchell, facing another 8 pairs who are ranked separately. Each field has bid and played the same hands, has faced the same opponents, and has compared with all others in the field on every board. Provided that the 8 pairs faced are both fairly competent and of nearly equal ability, this is as perfect as you can get. Such an arrangement is a part of my suggested KO pairs event, in which 40-50% of pairs are knocked out after each qualifying session. In the final(s) the top n qualifiers play in one direction of a Mitchell, facing an equal number of next-higher qualifiers. The former are playing for rankings 1 to n in the event, the latter for rankings n+1 to 2n. This not only provides the "perfect movement" but also reduces the size of finals, which are often too large.. I have seen two objections to the idea. One is that players will scream about being out after just one session. I don't hear KO teams screaming about that. The other objection is that the second tier of qualifiers will not be highly motivated to do well, because they are out of contention. Well, in my experience contestants continue playing their hearts out to maxmimize their ranking even when they are out of contention. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jan 28 00:21:14 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 16:21:14 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory References: <200301271606.LAA08513@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001a01c2c663$2cf65bc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > Is everyone converging on the same opinion? Let me see if I understand. > > A fair competition requires everyone to play opponents of the same > strength. That is just one of three requirements for a fair competition. The other two are: 2. Competing pairs play the same hands (hands, not boards) 3. Competing pairs compare with all others on every deal. It is interesting that the lowly club non-championship Mitchell, with separate N-S and E-W rankings, comes closer to the ideal than do the finals of a big NABC+ pairs championship. The latter ranks together pairs in two fields who have played entirely different hands, and have compared only with pairs in their field. That's two separate events, not one, making overall ranking absurd. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From john@asimere.com Tue Jan 28 01:03:55 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 01:03:55 +0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory In-Reply-To: <001101c2c661$f3a80f40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000201c2c655$a6f9be20$3f188351@davicaltd> <001101c2c661$f3a80f40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <001101c2c661$f3a80f40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com>, Marvin French writes > >From: "David Martin" > >> >> Truly perfect movements are virtually impossible to construct in the real >> world and a 'fair' movement is therefore one that minimises the >competition >> error between pairs. Thus, the four table Howell is still the best that >can >> be done with 8 pairs in the real world. > >May I suggest that a "truly perfect movement" could be achieved by putting >the 8 pairs in one direction of a Mitchell, facing another 8 pairs who are >ranked separately. Each field has bid and played the same hands, has faced >the same opponents, and has compared with all others in the field on every >board. Provided that the 8 pairs faced are both fairly competent and of >nearly equal ability, this is as perfect as you can get. Whilst I agree with you marv, can we stick to the concept of perfection in all play all, which is where Sven, David and myself are up to the neck in alligators. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Jan 28 02:38:10 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 02:38:10 +0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory In-Reply-To: <004301c2c65d$db252ce0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <000201c2c655$a6f9be20$3f188351@davicaltd> <004301c2c65d$db252ce0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <004301c2c65d$db252ce0$70d8fea9@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >From: "David Martin" >....... snip, Sven I think your argument is slightly flawed > >Let us look at a perfectly balanced complete movement with two pairs (X and >Y) >equally strong and the rest of the field equally weak: > >According to their positions: ("A" is short for 50% score) > >X and Y will each score: >A when they meet at the same table >Top when they sit in opposite directions at different tables >Top less one point when they sit in the same direction. > >X and Y will certainly end up competing for the first two places. > >Each weak pair Z will score: >A when X and Y meet >A when they meet another weak pair while X and Y sit in opposite directions >at different tables >A+2 when they meet another weak pair while X and Y both sit in the opposite >direction of Z >A-2 when they meet another weak pair while X and Y both sit in the same >direction as Z >nul points when they meet X or Y while X and Y sit in opposite direction of >each other >one point when they meet X or Y while X and Y sit in the same direction of >each other. > But it isn't necessarily that these will balance out. take the 4 table Howell, which David and I believe is a 'perfect' movement, as I'm sure you do. 1) Plays all boards 2) All-play-all 3) Complete equality of comparisons. I think you agree too that this is perfect. ... and if we have one 'expert' pair he will score 100% and all the others will tie for 2nd (Bah! I have to issue master points to them all!) When pair 1 and pair 2 sit the same way (say EW) pairs sitting the same way have a reduced expectation. Some will sit EW on 2 occasions, 2 will sit NS and 2 will sit one way each. The pairs who twice sit NS will gain an advantage over the pairs who twice sit EW, and so of the 6 weak pairs 2 will do better, two will score the theoretical, and two will do worse. Table 1 Table 2 Rd NS EW Boards Rd NS EW Boards 1 3 6 1- 3 1 7 2 7- 9 2 4 7 4- 6 2 1 3 10-12 3 5 1 7- 9 3 2 4 13-15 4 6 2 10-12 4 3 5 16-18 5 7 3 13-15 5 4 6 19-21 6 1 4 16-18 6 5 7 1- 3 7 2 5 19-21 7 6 1 4- 6 Table 3 Table 4 Rd NS EW Boards Rd NS EW Boards 1 5 4 10-12 1 8 1 13-15 2 6 5 13-15 2 8 2 16-18 3 7 6 16-18 3 8 3 19-21 4 1 7 19-21 4 8 4 1- 3 5 2 1 1- 3 5 8 5 4- 6 6 3 2 4- 6 6 8 6 7- 9 7 4 3 7- 9 7 8 7 10-12 travellers (one board round) N E mp 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 6 3 4 7 5 7 2 1 5 4 3 8 1 0 8 2 0 8 3 1 8 4 3 8 5 5 5 1 1 1 3 6 6 5 3 7 6 3 1 7 5 2 1 3 3 2 1 8 6 5 6 2 0 2 4 6 3 5 3 4 6 1 5 7 3 6 1 1 4 3 5 8 7 3 7 3 3 1 4 6 2 5 5 Scores Pr Match-points Tot/42 1 3 5 5 6 6 6 5 36 2 3 5 5 6 6 6 5 36 3 3 1 1 0 3 3 5 16 4 3 5 5 3 0 0 1 17 5 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 15 6 3 1 1 0 3 3 5 16 7 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 15 8 3 5 5 3 0 0 1 17 Check Total 168 This clearly shows that the other seats are not "perfect" >All the weak pairs will thus compete on equal terms for the remaining places >because >with a perfect schedule they will all have their same share of the 6 >different conditions >listed above. but it can't be achieved. > >So there is no foundation for claiming that a full schedule cannot be made >"fair" because >there are two participating pairs of a much different class than the rest of >the field. > here I think you're wrong, I find the example above very compelling >What is true is that not all number of tables allow perfectly balanced >schedules, but >many do, and those who do not can most of the time be made perfect by having >half the >number of boards in each round shifted 90 degrees at one (or maybe more) >tables. We already know the movement is perfect. Any arrow switch will unbalance it ( think about only one expert). cheers john > >regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >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 svenpran@online.no Tue Jan 28 09:24:49 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:24:49 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory References: <000201c2c655$a6f9be20$3f188351@davicaltd> <004301c2c65d$db252ce0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <001801c2c6af$1bca3b90$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > snip, > > Sven I think your argument is slightly flawed Your comment is well taken, but I think we can all agree that inaccurancies resulting in systematical variations of +/- one point in the results due to schedule alone are insignificant. I tried to show that regardless of the number of tables, if you have a perfectly balanced schedule then the introduction of two expert pairs rather than just one will not as such change the balancing. (Well, OK, say "not more than marginally") The only case I know where arrow-switching (nice term!) is relevant is with three tables and barometer schedule. That happens in one small club I join. regards Sven > > > >Let us look at a perfectly balanced complete movement with two pairs (X and > >Y) > >equally strong and the rest of the field equally weak: > > > >According to their positions: ("A" is short for 50% score) > > > >X and Y will each score: > >A when they meet at the same table > >Top when they sit in opposite directions at different tables > >Top less one point when they sit in the same direction. > > > >X and Y will certainly end up competing for the first two places. > > > >Each weak pair Z will score: > >A when X and Y meet > >A when they meet another weak pair while X and Y sit in opposite directions > >at different tables > >A+2 when they meet another weak pair while X and Y both sit in the opposite > >direction of Z > >A-2 when they meet another weak pair while X and Y both sit in the same > >direction as Z > >nul points when they meet X or Y while X and Y sit in opposite direction of > >each other > >one point when they meet X or Y while X and Y sit in the same direction of > >each other. > > > But it isn't necessarily that these will balance out. take the 4 table > Howell, which David and I believe is a 'perfect' movement, as I'm sure > you do. > > 1) Plays all boards > 2) All-play-all > 3) Complete equality of comparisons. > > I think you agree too that this is perfect. ... and if we have one > 'expert' pair he will score 100% and all the others will tie for 2nd > (Bah! I have to issue master points to them all!) > > When pair 1 and pair 2 sit the same way (say EW) pairs sitting the same > way have a reduced expectation. Some will sit EW on 2 occasions, 2 will > sit NS and 2 will sit one way each. > > The pairs who twice sit NS will gain an advantage over the pairs who > twice sit EW, and so of the 6 weak pairs 2 will do better, two will > score the theoretical, and two will do worse. > > Table 1 Table 2 > Rd NS EW Boards Rd NS EW Boards > 1 3 6 1- 3 1 7 2 7- 9 > 2 4 7 4- 6 2 1 3 10-12 > 3 5 1 7- 9 3 2 4 13-15 > 4 6 2 10-12 4 3 5 16-18 > 5 7 3 13-15 5 4 6 19-21 > 6 1 4 16-18 6 5 7 1- 3 > 7 2 5 19-21 7 6 1 4- 6 > > Table 3 Table 4 > Rd NS EW Boards Rd NS EW Boards > 1 5 4 10-12 1 8 1 13-15 > 2 6 5 13-15 2 8 2 16-18 > 3 7 6 16-18 3 8 3 19-21 > 4 1 7 19-21 4 8 4 1- 3 > 5 2 1 1- 3 5 8 5 4- 6 > 6 3 2 4- 6 6 8 6 7- 9 > 7 4 3 7- 9 7 8 7 10-12 > > travellers (one board round) > N E mp > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > 3 6 3 4 7 5 7 2 1 5 4 3 8 1 0 8 2 0 8 3 1 > 8 4 3 8 5 5 5 1 1 1 3 6 6 5 3 7 6 3 1 7 5 > 2 1 3 3 2 1 8 6 5 6 2 0 2 4 6 3 5 3 4 6 1 > 5 7 3 6 1 1 4 3 5 8 7 3 7 3 3 1 4 6 2 5 5 > > Scores > Pr Match-points Tot/42 > 1 3 5 5 6 6 6 5 36 > 2 3 5 5 6 6 6 5 36 > 3 3 1 1 0 3 3 5 16 > 4 3 5 5 3 0 0 1 17 > 5 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 15 > 6 3 1 1 0 3 3 5 16 > 7 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 15 > 8 3 5 5 3 0 0 1 17 > > Check Total 168 > > This clearly shows that the other seats are not "perfect" > > >All the weak pairs will thus compete on equal terms for the remaining places > >because > >with a perfect schedule they will all have their same share of the 6 > >different conditions > >listed above. > > but it can't be achieved. > > > >So there is no foundation for claiming that a full schedule cannot be made > >"fair" because > >there are two participating pairs of a much different class than the rest of > >the field. > > > here I think you're wrong, I find the example above very compelling > > >What is true is that not all number of tables allow perfectly balanced > >schedules, but > >many do, and those who do not can most of the time be made perfect by having > >half the > >number of boards in each round shifted 90 degrees at one (or maybe more) > >tables. > > We already know the movement is perfect. Any arrow switch will unbalance > it ( think about only one expert). > > cheers john > > > >regards Sven > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jan 28 16:11:33 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:11:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <200301281611.LAA16820@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Just catching up on old messages.... > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > the EBU interpretation of a call being made is: > > "... call withdrawn from the box with apparent intent ..", so if you > pull the wrong bid out the call has *NOT* yet been made. While I'm not the best one to interpret EBU regulations, it looks to me as though the call_has_ been made. The words say "apparent intent," which must exclude things such as arranging the bidding cards or knocking the box over, but if someone just grabs the wrong card, the _appearance_ would be that there was intent to make a call. Of course in normal cases, L25A would apply, but if it wasn't that player's turn to call, it would seem that the call is still "made." This could make for an interesting ruling if a player calls out of turn but insists he has grabbed the wrong bidding card. I think the ruling is that L25A still applies, so the player corrects the call to his intended one, and then the usual COOT rule takes over. I don't envy the TD who has to judge whether a pause for thought has taken place, though. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Jan 28 16:54:51 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:54:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <3170932.1043772891061.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Steve wrote: > While I'm not the best one to interpret EBU regulations Neither am I. But unlike Steve, I am supposed to be. >it looks to me as though the call_has_ been made. The words say "apparent intent," which must exclude things such as arranging the bidding cards or knocking the box over, but if someone just grabs the wrong card, the _appearance_ would be that there was intent to make a call. Quite so. When this point came up a while ago, I said that someone does something with "apparent intent" if it looks to an external observer as though he means to do it. This seemed to me at any rate an uncontroversial interpretation of the rules. But Grattan raised an interesting point. Suppose you, the external observer, can see that a man who is removing a pass card as dealer has a twenty count. Now you know that he doesn't mean to do what he's doing, even though it looks as though he does. In other words, to an external observer in front of the player, the bidding card is being removed with "apparent intent", while to an observer behind him, it is not. Even Einstein never thought that "intent" could be a relative phenomenon. Of course, the problem is the usual one. Look after the rabbits, even if it means that tournament directors have to be telepaths (which is impossible) or give grossly unfair rulings (which is inevitable). If a tennis player misses the ball because he slips on the grass, he is not given the point because he obviously intended to hit it. If a bridge player reaches an absurd contract because he makes some slip while removing a card from a bidding box, he should suffer the consequences. The bidding box regulations should say that a call is made as soon as the words comprising the call have been uttered, or as soon as a bidding card bearing that call is faced on the table. The rules should say that a call once made may not be changed. Then, we could play a game called "Bridge" instead of a game called "The Laws of Bridge". You never know - it might even catch on. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 28 17:40:06 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:40:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <3170932.1043772891061.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030128183012.00a6f830@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:54 28/01/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >Of course, the problem is the usual one. Look after the rabbits, even if >it means that tournament directors have to be telepaths (which is >impossible) or give grossly unfair rulings (which is inevitable). If a >tennis player misses the ball because he slips on the grass, he is not >given the point because he obviously intended to hit it. AG : however, if a soccer player hits another's leg, the intent (was he after the ball, or the leg ?) is taken into account. In some sports, only results of moves are taken into account (eg basket-ball, tennis, figure skating- I'm not sure about the latter). In others, the intent is of some importance when an irregular move occurs (eg football, hockey, cricket). David, you are allowed to state that bridge should pertain to the 1st class. Others are allowed to disagree and prefer the second one. But no one, not even DAB, is allowed to use as examples only one class and pretend the other one doesn't exist. >The bidding box regulations should say that a call is made as soon as the >words comprising the call have been uttered, or as soon as a bidding card >bearing that call is faced on the table. AG : okay then. I want to alert partner's bid. I shall do it as quick as possible. For some reason, I pull the RD card (the design of bidding boxes makes this possible). I realize quickly, replace the card hastily and pull the Alert card. According to DAB, the RD has been made, and I get penalized for impossible & OOT bid. David, you are alone in calling this "bridge". Most of us would call this lawyering of the worst kind. Regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Jan 28 17:56:06 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:56:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <3920283.1043776566504.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote: > AG : however, if a soccer player hits another's leg, the intent (was he after the ball, or the leg ?) is taken into account. Well, this is not the Association Football Laws Mailing List. But I quote from the rules of that game: "A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences: tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball" Now, this says nothing about intending to kick the player and not the ball. It says that if the tackler kicks the man before the ball, he has committed a foul, and there shall be a free kick. That is a good rule, because it does not take intent or state of mind into account. What baffles me is why Alain thinks that it does. There is another offence in which intent does play a major role: "A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences: [...] handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)" The word "deliberately" has to be there to prevent people winning free kicks by kicking the ball against an opponent's hand. This is a less good rule, but you can see why they have it. Because intent is not mentioned in conjunction with the first of the offences I have quoted above, but is explicitly mentioned in conjunction with the second, it is reasonable to assume that it does not actually apply in the case of the first. Now, a lot of people have told me that... > In other [sports], the intent is of some importance when an irregular move occurs (eg football, hockey, cricket). ...but it is simply not true. Or at least, it is true to a very minor and very limited extent in a very small set of particular circumstances. >David, you are allowed to state that bridge should pertain to the 1st class. Others are allowed to disagree and prefer the second one. But no one, not even DAB, is allowed to use as examples only one class and pretend the other one doesn't exist. But the other one does not exist. Here you tell me that the laws of football take into account the intent of a player who kicks another player during a tackle. So I go and look up the laws of football, and I find that what you tell me is not true. This is not a very convicing case at all for the division of games into two classes. Rather, the vast majority of the rules of the vast majority of games do not require officials to read minds. Only bridge does this, and bridge is very much the worse for it. The "second class" of games you cite above it does not exist for practical purposes. And there is no reason whatsoever why it should exist in bridge for any purposes at all. > AG : okay then. I want to alert partner's bid. I shall do it as quick as possible. For some reason, I pull the RD card (the design of bidding boxes makes this possible). Then put the alert card on the table beside the bidding box, like a normal person. If you are clumsy, you must take steps to prevent your clumsiness from affecting your results. You are a rabbit, and I am not going to look after you any more. You see, I would like to play a game. David Burn London, England From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jan 28 18:55:39 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:55:39 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory References: <000201c2c655$a6f9be20$3f188351@davicaltd> <001101c2c661$f3a80f40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000a01c2c6fe$e0d455c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > Whilst I agree with you marv, can we stick to the concept of perfection > in all play all, which is where Sven, David and myself are up to the > neck in alligators. > But there is no possibility of perfection in all play all, you guys are chasing a chimera. Duplicate matchpoint bridge for pairs is a contest of comparisons, not one of face-to-face results. It is much more important to compare with one's rivals on every board than to meet them once and compare on only half. Why all this bother with arrow switches and other complicated one-winner movements that can never be fair? A straight Mitchell, with two winners and two rankings, is a perfect game. If there must be a single winner, then go to my two-tiered Mitchell for the final(s). For a single-session game, accept the two-winner concept of a straight Mitchell, the fairest game possible for a single session. Don't mix apples and oranges. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From david-martin@talk21.com Tue Jan 28 19:08:15 2003 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:08:15 -0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] Competition theory Message-ID: <008601c2c700$b6d476e0$59657ad5@davicaltd> Marvin wrote: > > From: "David Martin" > > > > > Truly perfect movements are virtually impossible to construct in the real > > world and a 'fair' movement is therefore one that minimises the > competition > > error between pairs. Thus, the four table Howell is still the best that > can > > be done with 8 pairs in the real world. > > May I suggest that a "truly perfect movement" could be achieved by putting > the 8 pairs in one direction of a Mitchell, facing another 8 pairs who are > ranked separately. Each field has bid and played the same hands, has faced > the same opponents, and has compared with all others in the field on every > board. Provided that the 8 pairs faced are both fairly competent and of > nearly equal ability, this is as perfect as you can get. > ######### You may suggest it but with all due respect you are wrong and so is John Probst. The movement that you suggest is still not truly perfect as the dynamics effect still applies. Try scoring an example with two experts in each line. Clearly an 8 table skip Mitchell would be badly balanced as each pair misses out one opponent and gets a revenge round against another so assume a relay & share. With two experts in each line and everyone else average, you will still get dispersion of the average pairs. I have pasted in an example result below. 8 TABLE R+S North-South Pr. Max Act Pos No. Names Sco Sco % =1. ( 1) Expert & Expert 112 94 83.93 =1. ( 2) Expert & Expert 112 94 83.93 =3. ( 3) Average & Average 112 44 39.29 =3. ( 4) Average & Average 112 44 39.29 =3. ( 7) Average & Average 112 44 39.29 =6. ( 6) Average & Average 112 43 38.39 =6. ( 8) Average & Average 112 43 38.39 8. ( 5) Average & Average 112 42 37.50 East-West =1. ( 9) Expert & Expert 112 94 83.93 =1. (10) Expert & Expert 112 94 83.93 =3. (13) Average & Average 112 44 39.29 =3. (14) Average & Average 112 44 39.29 =5. (11) Average & Average 112 43 38.39 =5. (12) Average & Average 112 43 38.39 =5. (15) Average & Average 112 43 38.39 =5. (16) Average & Average 112 43 38.39 What is really interesting is that the NS and EW dispersions are different because the effect of the share is different on each line. ########### From rwilley@sloan.mit.edu Tue Jan 28 19:37:25 2003 From: rwilley@sloan.mit.edu (richard willey) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:37:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Request for Comment: Online Convention Cards (yet again) Message-ID: <000101c2c704$af2c2e20$0b05ba12@Herot> As many people know, I have long advocated that the various online bridge sites migrate to the use of hypertext based convention cards. Traditionally, online bridge sites have used "graphical" convention cards - digital versions of the existing ACBL or WBF convention cards. In some cases, online sites also allow end users to input "flat" text files. I believe that hypertext based systems provide a much better format to organize the information that is presented to the opponents. Hypertext systems to provide much more information while avoiding many of the information overload problems intrinsic to a flat file format. I have taken the liberty to prepare a short web page providing a summary description of a bidding system called MOSCITO. The web page is available at http://web.mit.edu/~rwilley/www/Moscito%20HTML%20Summary.htm I was hoping the members of this mailing list would consider providing comments regarding this convention card. I'm especially interesting in any criticism that people might have regarding the organization of the information. [I have no problem if people want to argue about the specifics of the various defenses that I have recommend or even about the details of the constructive response structure]. However, at this point in time, I'm most interesting in knowing whether people would find this type of file to a useful tool to consult if you were playing against a pair employing an unfamiliar bidding system. If not, are there any specific changes that you would recommend that would improve your user experience? Regards Richard From john@asimere.com Tue Jan 28 19:35:15 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:35:15 +0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory In-Reply-To: <000a01c2c6fe$e0d455c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000201c2c655$a6f9be20$3f188351@davicaltd> <001101c2c661$f3a80f40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000a01c2c6fe$e0d455c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <+hteEPEzttN+Ewc4@asimere.com> In article <000a01c2c6fe$e0d455c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com>, Marvin French writes > >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >> >> Whilst I agree with you marv, can we stick to the concept of perfection >> in all play all, which is where Sven, David and myself are up to the >> neck in alligators. >> >But there is no possibility of perfection in all play all, I agree :) > you guys are >chasing a chimera. nonetheless one can get close. > Duplicate matchpoint bridge for pairs is a contest of >comparisons, not one of face-to-face results. It is much more important to >compare with one's rivals on every board than to meet them once and compare >on only half. agreed > Why all this bother with arrow switches and other complicated >one-winner movements that can never be fair? the customers *think* it's fairer :) > >A straight Mitchell, with two winners and two rankings, is a perfect game. >If there must be a single winner, then go to my two-tiered Mitchell for the >final(s). For a single-session game, accept the two-winner concept of a >straight Mitchell, the fairest game possible for a single session. Don't mix >apples and oranges. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Jan 28 19:52:00 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:52:00 +0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] Competition theory In-Reply-To: <008601c2c700$b6d476e0$59657ad5@davicaltd> References: <008601c2c700$b6d476e0$59657ad5@davicaltd> Message-ID: In article <008601c2c700$b6d476e0$59657ad5@davicaltd>, David Martin writes >Marvin wrote: > >> >> From: "David Martin" >> >> > >> > Truly perfect movements are virtually impossible to construct in the >real >> > world and a 'fair' movement is therefore one that minimises the >> competition >> > error between pairs. Thus, the four table Howell is still the best that >> can >> > be done with 8 pairs in the real world. >> >> May I suggest that a "truly perfect movement" could be achieved by putting >> the 8 pairs in one direction of a Mitchell, facing another 8 pairs who are >> ranked separately. Each field has bid and played the same hands, has faced >> the same opponents, and has compared with all others in the field on every >> board. Provided that the 8 pairs faced are both fairly competent and of >> nearly equal ability, this is as perfect as you can get. >> > >######### > >You may suggest it but with all due respect you are wrong and so is John >Probst. The movement that you suggest is still not truly perfect as the >dynamics effect still applies. Try scoring an example with two experts in >each line. Clearly an 8 table skip Mitchell would be badly balanced as each >pair misses out one opponent and gets a revenge round against another so >assume a relay & share. This introduces a bias I think (albeit a small one) > With two experts in each line and everyone else >average, you will still get dispersion of the average pairs. I have pasted >in an example result below. > Can you get rid of this by playing a double weave? ... or what happens in the 9-table Mitchell? Is there *any* perfect movement? marv gets closest I think. where do we go from here? > > 8 TABLE R+S snip example > >What is really interesting is that the NS and EW dispersions are different >because the effect of the share is different on each line. > > >########### > > >_______________________________________________ >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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jan 28 20:14:40 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:14:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] Competition theory Message-ID: <200301282014.PAA17010@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Is there *any* perfect movement? marv gets closest I think. Any complete Mitchell (with two winners) played as barometer? Or an odd-number Mitchell where each pair plays all the boards and meets all pairs in the opposite line (no skips, e.g., 9 or 13 tables with pre- duplicated boards)? I don't think a mathematically perfect all-play-all movement exists, but one can come close enough for practical purposes. From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Wed Jan 29 01:53:30 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:53:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Request for Comment: Online Convention Cards (yet again) In-Reply-To: <000101c2c704$af2c2e20$0b05ba12@Herot> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030128204902.02765e60@mail.fscv.net> At 02:37 PM 28/01/2003, richard willey wrote: >... interest[ed] in knowing whether people would find >this type of file to [be] a useful tool to consult if you were playing >against a pair employing an unfamiliar bidding system. Richard It's a fantastic improvement over anything that is "out there" now. I just took a quick look at it, but the ability to have everything on one screen and to "drill down" to the details is fantastic. Walt From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Wed Jan 29 02:01:31 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:01:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <3170932.1043772891061.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030128205723.027688b0@mail.fscv.net> At 11:54 AM 28/01/2003, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >Suppose you, the external observer, can see that a man who is removing a >pass card as dealer has a twenty count. Now you know that he doesn't mean >to do what he's doing, even though it looks as though he does. In other >words, to an external observer in front of the player, the bidding card is >being removed with "apparent intent", while to an observer behind him, it >is not. Even Einstein never thought that "intent" could be a relative >phenomenon. David Over here the informal reference would be to "a senior moment". Perhaps it was utterly illogical to pass BUT he intended to do so because he wasn't thinking logically? That would make his actual intent that of passing and if I were watching what you are describing (even from behind him) what I would see would be an "apparent intent" to pass. Walt From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jan 29 07:26:49 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 23:26:49 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory References: <008601c2c700$b6d476e0$59657ad5@davicaltd> Message-ID: <005601c2c767$cc385d00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Martin" > Marvin wrote: > > > > > From: "David Martin" > > > > May I suggest that a "truly perfect movement" could be achieved by putting > > the 8 pairs in one direction of a Mitchell, facing another 8 pairs who are > > ranked separately. Each field has bid and played the same hands, has faced > > the same opponents, and has compared with all others in the field on every > > board. Provided that the 8 pairs faced are both fairly competent and of > > nearly equal ability, this is as perfect as you can get. > > > > ######### > > You may suggest it but with all due respect you are wrong and so is John > Probst. The movement that you suggest is still not truly perfect as the > dynamics effect still applies. Try scoring an example with two experts in > each line. Clearly an 8 table skip Mitchell would be badly balanced as each > pair misses out one opponent and gets a revenge round against another so > assume a relay & share. With two experts in each line and everyone else > average, you will still get dispersion of the average pairs. I have pasted > in an example result below. Yes, always relay and share with an odd number of tables. I'll have to look at your "dispersion" tomorrow, because I don't understand it this late in the evening. I didn't say my suggested movement was perfect, only "as perfect as you can get." ("As near to perfect" would have been better English, since "perfect" is not comparable.) I did not mean to imply that the approach to perfection was very close. The nearly perfect game must have competitors facing a line of pairs who are of roughly equal strength, only possible in the finals of a long event. Ideally, competing pairs must play the same hands and face the same opponents. These criteria are rarely achievable, but are goals worth pursuing. Arrow switches aimed at either balancing the strength of opponents faced, or balancing the number of comparisons among pairs, two worthwhile but incompatible goals, have the same overriding deficiency, which is too few shared comparisons among the competing pairs. As I wrote before, this is a game of comparisons, not of face to face results. Our children can perhaps look forward to the day when all pairs (any number) play against a computer program that can emulate a strong pair. Besides facing identical opposition on every board, pairs will encounter the same methods and conventions. That will be the perfect game. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 29 11:05:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory In-Reply-To: <005601c2c767$cc385d00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > > Our children can perhaps look forward to the day when all pairs (any > number) play against a computer program that can emulate a strong pair. > Besides facing identical opposition on every board, pairs will encounter > the same methods and conventions. That will be the perfect game. No - that will be hell on earth. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 29 11:05:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <3920283.1043776566504.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: David Burn wrote: > But the other one does not exist. Here you tell me that the laws of > football take into account the intent of a player who kicks another > player during a tackle. So I go and look up the laws of football, and I > find that what you tell me is not true. A little disingenuous David. While a free kick is awarded regardless of intent an additional penalty (red/yellow card) may, IIRC, be imposed if the referee deems the action intentional. In the last world cup referees were told to penalise "diving", while tripping over remained legal. Again this was largely a matter of judgement as to intent. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Jan 29 12:21:08 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:21:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <1517047.1043842868480.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> TWM wrote: > > But the other one does not exist. Here you tell me that the laws of football take into account the intent of a player who kicks another player during a tackle. So I go and look up the laws of football, and I find that what you tell me is not true. > A little disingenuous David. A little pompous, Tim, not to say wholly asinine. It would benefit you to look up the word "disingenuous" in a dictionary to find out what it means, then consider whether it is an insult you actually want to perpetrate. >While a free kick is awarded regardless of intent an additional penalty (red/yellow card) may, IIRC, be imposed if the referee deems the action intentional. So what? I have said that the intent of a player who plays foul should not be a factor in determining whether redress for damage is given, and the extent of that redress. I have said that this applies to all games that I know of. Alain has concocted a second "class" of games to which he claims that this does not apply. Knowing little about the rules of those games, I have attempted to verify his claim in respect of one of his examples, and I have discovered that his claim is in fact not accurate. A free kick is awarded regardless of intent when a physical event precedes (or occurs instead of) another physical event. Splendid. A call should be considered made when a set of physical actions is complete, regardless of intent. Wherein, apart from the rabbits, lies the difficulty? David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 29 12:37:59 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:37:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <3920283.1043776566504.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030129132846.00a70ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:56 28/01/2003 +0000, you wrote: >The word "deliberately" has to be there to prevent people winning free >kicks by kicking the ball against an opponent's hand. AG :and there is also the "protection" rule : placing your hand in front of you to protect your face against a violent free kick leads only to an indirect kick. > > In other [sports], the intent is of some importance when an irregular > move occurs (eg football, hockey, cricket). > >...but it is simply not true. Or at least, it is true to a very minor and >very limited extent in a very small set of particular circumstances. AG : please re-read the lbw rules. > >David, you are allowed to state that bridge should pertain to the 1st > class. Others are allowed to disagree and prefer the second one. But no > one, not even DAB, is allowed to use as examples only one class and > pretend the other one doesn't exist. > >But the other one does not exist. Here you tell me that the laws of >football take into account the intent of a player who kicks another player >during a tackle. So I go and look up the laws of football, and I find that >what you tell me is not true. AG : perhaps you looked for the wrong distinction. When a player inadvertently hits his opponent's leg because he was after the ball, there will indeed be a free kick. But when he wasn't after the ball, he is simply sent off. Try telling me there is no difference. > > AG : okay then. I want to alert partner's bid. I shall do it as quick > as possible. For some reason, I pull the RD card (the design of bidding > boxes makes this possible). > >Then put the alert card on the table beside the bidding box, like a normal >person. If you are clumsy, you must take steps to prevent your clumsiness >from affecting your results. AG : I wonder if impaired persons are allowed to play your game. BTW, I didn't say that *I* made such an error; I said that *if* I (or anybody else) did it, penalizing him would be ridiculous. And I will say it again. The case happened in Deauville three (?) years ago. I don't know whether the player was a rabbit, but rabbits surely are allowed to play tournaments. The AC was quite harsh on the player who demanded a penalty against his opponent who pulled out Double instead of Stop. The case was even transmitted to the French Federation for noticing that the player lawyered. And in my opinion they were right. Once again, I state that lawyering can kill bridge, and that we shouldn't encourage it. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Jan 29 12:55:49 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:55:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <3565851.1043844949732.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote: > AG : please re-read the lbw rules. I have done so. I presume you allude to this passage: "or (ii) is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat" Well, an attempt to play a ball with a bat is a physical action or set of actions that can be judged irrespective of the state of mind of the person performing them. One could imagine umpires being given guidance to the effect that the bat must at some point have been in front of the pad, or at any rate nearer to the ball than the part of the leg that was struck. > AG : perhaps you looked for the wrong distinction. > When a player inadvertently hits his opponent's leg because he was after the ball, there will indeed be a free kick. But when he wasn't after the ball, he is simply sent off. Try telling me there is no difference. Of course there is no difference. The player is sent off as a disciplinary penalty. More often than not, this makes precisely no difference to the result of the match. But the opponents are given the same free kick as they would have been given had the player stayed on the field. I am quite happy with the notion that disciplinary, or as we now call them "procedural", penalties should be given if it is determined that someone has deliberately played foul. But I assert that, in determining what constitutes a foul (or indeed what constitutes correct procedure), intent is not taken into account in other games, nor should it be. A foul is when you kick the opponent before the ball. A call is when you put a bidding card on the table. >AG : I wonder if impaired persons are allowed to play your game. Of course they are. But they are not allowed to draw inferences from unauthorised information, they must follow suit when able, and if they make a call, then it is made. >Once again, I state that lawyering can kill bridge, and that we shouldn't encourage it. And I state that the absence of clearly defined laws has done the game immeasurable harm, and must be remedied. What you call "lawyering" would become impossible if, and only if, it were impossible to interpret any law in more than one way. I wonder whence has derived the notion that if a person inadvertently breaks a law, it is the law and not the offender that is at fault? It seems to be pretty much all-pervading nowadays. David Burn London, England From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 29 13:19:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:19 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <1517047.1043842868480.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: >=20 > TWM wrote: >=20 > > > But the other one does not exist. Here you tell me that the laws of= =20 > > > football take into account the intent of a player who kicks another= =20 > player during a tackle. So I go and look up the laws of football, and I= =20 > find that what you tell me is not true. >=20 > > A little disingenuous David. >=20 > A little pompous, Tim, not to say wholly asinine. It would benefit you=20 > to look up the word "disingenuous" in a dictionary to find out what it=20 > means, then consider whether it is an insult you actually want to=20 > perpetrate. Main Entry: dis=B7in=B7gen=B7u=B7ous=20 Pronunciation: "di-s&n-'jen-y&-w&s Function: adjective Date: 1655 : lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness= =20 : CALCULATING Since you asked so nicely - here is the first one I found. To me it look= s=20 just perfect. You pretend ignorance of the fact that the "extent of redress" for a=20 simple foul varies with the referees' determination of intent because it=20 suits your case so to do. =20 > So what? I have said that the intent of a player who plays foul should=20 > not be a factor in determining whether redress for damage is given, and= =20 > the extent of that redress. I have said that this applies to all games=20 > that I know of.=20 Whilst others believe that in many games officials apply judgement to the= =20 facts rather than making purely mechanical rulings. Such judgements ofte= n=20 require the official to make a judgement as to intent. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Jan 29 13:28:14 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:28:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: References: <3920283.1043776566504.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030129081601.023c0ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:05 AM 1/29/03, twm wrote: >David Burn wrote: > > > But the other one does not exist. Here you tell me that the laws of > > football take into account the intent of a player who kicks another > > player during a tackle. So I go and look up the laws of football, > and I > > find that what you tell me is not true. > >A little disingenuous David. While a free kick is awarded regardless of >intent an additional penalty (red/yellow card) may, IIRC, be imposed if >the referee deems the action intentional. In the last world cup referees >were told to penalise "diving", while tripping over remained >legal. Again >this was largely a matter of judgement as to intent. In American football, when a defender's early contact with a receiver prevents the receiver from catching a thrown ball, the referee must determine whether the defender was just attempting to prevent the receiver from catching the ball or trying to catch the ball himself. If he judges the former, he calls "pass interference" (major penalty); if the latter he calls "incidental contact" (no penalty). The action on the field may give no apparent indication as to which the defender was trying to do, in which case the call is entirely a judgment as to his intention. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 29 15:11:45 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:11:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <3565851.1043844949732.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030129160241.00a672a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:55 29/01/2003 +0000, you wrote: >But the opponents are given the same free kick as they would have been >given had the player stayed on the field. I am quite happy with the notion >that disciplinary, or as we now call them "procedural", penalties should >be given if it is determined that someone has deliberately played foul. >But I assert that, in determining what constitutes a foul (or indeed what >constitutes correct procedure), intent is not taken into account in other >games, nor should it be. A foul is when you kick the opponent before the >ball. A call is when you put a bidding card on the table. AG : aha ! You admit that the card has to be put on the table for the call to have been made. *Now* we can discuss sensibly. Up to now, you asserted that when the card wat pulled from the box, the call was made. Glad you reverted to reasonable principles. BTW, your definition is not complete. Say that one places the "1S" bidding card on the table in such a way that the "1H" card is clearly visible too. Is the player deemed to have made two bids ? Do snakes make pushups ? >And I state that the absence of clearly defined laws has done the game >immeasurable harm, and must be remedied. What you call "lawyering" would >become impossible if, and only if, it were impossible to interpret any law >in more than one way. I wonder whence has derived the notion that if a >person inadvertently breaks a law, it is the law and not the offender that >is at fault? AG : I took the principle that when one inadvertently breaks a law, one should not be punished, from the Napoleonic Code, which defines the concept of "insuperable error" (sorry if the translation is wrong : "erreur invincible") : if the situation is such that the person had all reasons to think one wasn't breaching the laws, even in full knowledge of them, and it is plausible that any person in the same set in circumstances would have acted the same, then there is no infraction. Example : say that a tagger has modified a road sign so that it appears like another one. Then not taking the original sign into account is still breach of the law, but not sanctionable because of "insuperable error". EOT from my side. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jan 29 18:53:26 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:53:26 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory References: <000201c2c655$a6f9be20$3f188351@davicaltd> <001101c2c661$f3a80f40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000a01c2c6fe$e0d455c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <+hteEPEzttN+Ewc4@asimere.com> Message-ID: <002501c2c7c7$b71c4de0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > > Why all this bother with arrow switches and other complicated > >one-winner movements that can never be fair? > > the customers *think* it's fairer :) > > Fairness is not a popularity contest. :-)) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jan 29 19:04:19 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:04:19 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory References: Message-ID: <002d01c2c7c9$50e47aa0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" > Marv wrote: > > > > Our children can perhaps look forward to the day when all pairs (any > > number) play against a computer program that can emulate a strong pair. > > Besides facing identical opposition on every board, pairs will encounter > > the same methods and conventions. That will be the perfect game. Make that great-grandchildren. To clarify, I didn't mean the same "methods and conventions" on every board, as these would be randomized. However, they will be the same for every pair on a given board. > > No - that will be hell on earth. > Internet bridge seems to be popular. Whether the opponents are real people or a computer shouldn't matter much, should it? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From david-martin@talk21.com Wed Jan 29 20:20:08 2003 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:20:08 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory Message-ID: <007101c2c7d4$017c1b20$438e01d5@davicaltd> Marvin wrote: > A straight Mitchell, with two winners and two rankings, is a perfect game. ######## Hopefully we all agree that even this is not really true. ########### John wrote: >Can you get rid of this by playing a double weave? >... or what happens in the 9-table Mitchell? >Is there *any* perfect movement? marv gets closest I think. >where do we go from here? ######### The double weave will still have the same problem, as will the 9 table Mitchell. The short answer to your third question is that it is almost certain that *no* perfect movement exists that would be practical in the real world. What really matters though is to ensure that whenever possible we minimise the movement errors down to a level where they are not significant compared to the other random events that affect players' scores such as a revoke penalty at another table. If you accept this as a definition of a 'fair' movement then it is my opinion that, whilst it is easier to run fair two winner events, it is still perfectly possible to run fair single winner events as well. ########## Steve wrote: >Any complete Mitchell (with two winners) played as barometer? Or an >odd-number Mitchell where each pair plays all the boards and meets all >pairs in the opposite line (no skips, e.g., 9 or 13 tables with pre- >duplicated boards)? ######## These will still have the dynamics problem. ######### Steve also wrote: >I don't think a mathematically perfect all-play-all movement exists, >but one can come close enough for practical purposes. ###### Hear hear! ######## From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Jan 29 22:20:01 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:20:01 -0800 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <007101c2c7d4$017c1b20$438e01d5@davicaltd> Message-ID: <003b01c2c7e4$94ec9a00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Martin" < > Marvin wrote:> > > > A straight Mitchell, with two winners and two rankings, is a perfect game. > > ######## Hopefully we all agree that even this is not really true. > ########### Yes, only near-perfect. I checked the dispersion business with a 13-table game, two equally expert top-scoring pairs in each direction, the other pairs equally "average," bottom-scoring, and of course David M was right. The average pairs did not have the same scores. However, the "dispersion" is rather small even for such extreme examples. In real life it would be minuscule, would it not? > > Steve also wrote: > > >I don't think a mathematically perfect all-play-all movement exists, > >but one can come close enough for practical purposes. > > ###### Hear hear! ######## "Perfect" in one sense, yes. "Close enough for practical purposes" is, I suppose, e.g., a completed Howell with an even number of tables. All play all, pairs play all the boards, and all compare with all an equal number of times. As perfect as you can get in real life, but is it fair? When all is done, pairs are ranked together who: -- Have played different hands -- Have compared results with different subsets of other pairs. When we learned about duplicate matchpoint pairs, we were told that comparisons are what count. You compare your result on a deal with those in the same line, as does every other pair in the line, who hold the same hands, face the same opponents, and compare with the same pairs on every board. In a Howell, matchpoints as N-S on board 1 cannot be equated with matchpoints won by those sitting E-W on the same board, or those also sitting N-S but comparing with different pairs. It's apples and oranges, and it is not fair. Lew Mathe told me he preferred a straight Mitchell to a one-winner movement, because his line meets the same opponents, compares with the same pairs on every board, and plays the same hands. He would rather take his chances with that, putting himself on a par with half the contestants, than to play a one-winner movement in which he might have to play a unique set of hands mostly "the wrong way." He should also have realized that he was espousing a two-winner game, not a one-winner game. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jan 30 00:45:23 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:45:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030129160241.00a672a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002a01c2c7f8$dfb20d40$301f27d9@pbncomputer> Alain wrote: > AG : aha ! You admit that the card has to be put on the table for the call > to have been made. Quite so. I have never asserted otherwise. > *Now* we can discuss sensibly. I very much doubt it. > Up to now, you asserted > that when the card wat pulled from the box, the call was made. Glad you > reverted to reasonable principles. Well, what I said less than forty eight hours ago was this: "The bidding box regulations should say that a call is made as soon as the words comprising the call have been uttered, or as soon as a bidding card bearing that call is faced on the table." The EBU bidding box regulations say something about "leaving the bidding box". I make no such foolish assertion, nor have I ever done. Let us, perhaps, revert to reading what people actually say before discussing "reasonable principles". If you take a card from the bidding box, some other card may stick to it, or you may drop the card you intend to place on the table back into the box, or some other accident may occur. Before you actually put the card face up on the table, you have a chance to see whether or not something unfortunate has happened. If you neglect that chance, you are stuck with the call that you face on the table. > BTW, your definition is not complete. Say that one places the "1S" bidding > card on the table in such a way that the "1H" card is clearly visible too. > Is the player deemed to have made two bids ? Do snakes make pushups ? As I have said many times before, what is really required is a patent lawyer. The truth is that when you open one spade, the one spade card never actually touches the table, for it is supported by the 1C, 1D and 1H cards in that order. Moreover, enough of those cards are visible for them clearly to be identified for what they are, and thus they are "visible" in the sense that a playing card is "visible" for legal purposes even if only its index can be seen. What is actually meant is this: a call is made when a stack of bidding cards is deposited on the table such that there is a topmost card; the symbols on that card denote the call made. But a degree of shorthand is possible. I quote from the Laws of Bridge according to Omar Khayyam: The Moving Finger writes, and having writ Moves on; nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall call it back to cancel half a Line, Not even if you then exclaim "Oh, shit!" > AG : I took the principle that when one inadvertently breaks a law, one > should not be punished, from the Napoleonic Code, which defines the concept > of "insuperable error" (sorry if the translation is wrong : "erreur > invincible") : if the situation is such that the person had all reasons to > think one wasn't breaching the laws, even in full knowledge of them, and it > is plausible that any person in the same set in circumstances would have > acted the same, then there is no infraction. There is a principle older than Napoleon that has been adopted by many countries as an integral part of their legal code. It says: "ignorentia legis neminem excusat" [ignorance of the law excuses nobody]. Neither does clumsiness, or inattention. The alternative principle, "ignorentia legis neminem excusat praeter cuniculum" [ignorance of the law excuses nobody except a rabbit] has not yet been adopted by anyone, apart from the WBF. David Burn London, England From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 30 02:10:13 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:10:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Online UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 1/27/03, Kooijman, A. wrote: >Still I am starting to understand David Stevenson better and better, >the atmosphere in blml is changing a lot last months. May be my >contributions are an explanation, though I didn't change much during >the years I am a member now. Anyway I have decided to decrease my >contributions drastically, there are too many more clever people >around these days. Good luck. We will need it. When *the* forum for discussion of the laws, how to apply them, and indeed how to improve them, begins to lose its best and most knowledgeable contributors because of an inconsiderate few, it is not, I think, a good sign for the forum or the game. :( From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 30 01:51:18 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:51:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 20F: whom should you ask? In-Reply-To: <002001c2c4bf$270a9dc0$9201a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 1/25/03, Marvin French wrote: >Once in a blue moon I respond 1D to 1C with xxx diamonds. Often the >opening leader, on my left, will start asking questions about our >one-over-one responses, and I do not want to say "We avoid bidding >very weak suits," which is our partnership agreement. It's legal, of >course, for me to say that, but most opponents are never going to be >trained to respect that legality. To protect my reputation in the eyes >of such opponents, I want partner to explain my calls. We seem to be focused on different things. Here you are concerned with who explains which call. In my earlier post, I was concerned with the idea that opponents might object to an explanation of a partnership agreement that doesn't match what the bidder had in his hand, whoever makes the explanation. I grant you that if the bidder and the explainer are the same person, such objections are more likely than if explainer is bidder's partner. And you may be right that is impossible to educate players that the explanation and the hand need not match - but I doubt it. Might take some time. (In his 1985 book "Bid to Win, Play for Pleasure", George Rosenkranz makes the comment that Kickback isn't very useful in the context of Romex. By 1997's "Godfrey's Angels" it's part of the system. And the average player takes *much* longer IME, to accept change.) From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jan 30 07:32:56 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:32:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <3920283.1043776566504.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <006001c2c834$4f87ce30$9643e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) > > Then put the alert card on the table beside the bidding > box, like a normal person. > +=+ (After first reading carefully the regulations as to the manner in which an alert is made.) +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jan 30 07:43:25 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:43:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <1517047.1043842868480.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <006101c2c834$50951f80$9643e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) > TWM wrote: > > A little disingenuous David. > > A little pompous, Tim, not to say wholly asinine. It > would benefit you to look up the word "disingenuous" > in a dictionary to find out what it means, then > consider whether it is an insult you actually want >to perpetrate. > +=+ It looks as though TWM meant 'naive'. The word 'disingenuous' is not apt to what he is saying since David's pretension - if it be such - is to know rather than not to know what he is talking about. I am with those who interpret the football law as deeming an act intentional if the player could foresee the risk and went through with the action anyway. He does not have to specifically intend (except for the self-protection mitigation) to make the wrong connection. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jan 30 07:50:04 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:50:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Online UI References: Message-ID: <006201c2c834$52104dd0$9643e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:10 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Online UI > > When *the* forum for discussion of the > laws, how to apply them, and indeed how to > improve them, begins to lose its best and > most knowledgeable contributors because > of an inconsiderate few, it is not, I think, a > good sign for the forum or the game. :( > +=+ Nor, I suggest, for the game in general. +=+ From Steve Wright Thu Jan 30 08:42:29 2003 From: Steve Wright (Steve Wright) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:42:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] L44 & Playing in a clockwise manner Message-ID: Last night somebody was about to bid when it was his partners turn to all. Fortunately the other players stopped him before he managed to give any UI. He joked that "it would be much more fun if players could decide which direction the auction could proceed in" and then asked me "if there was anything in the Law that said his partner had to bid after the dealer". I referred him to L17C. I then took to trying to find a law that says we must play the cards in a clockwise manner. L44B states: "After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitutes a trick. (For the method of playing cards and arranging tricks see Law 65.)" It does not specify what "in turn" actually means. I did have a look at L65. This refers to the arrangement of tricks, but there is nothing about "the method of playing cards". Was the method of playing cards in earlier versions of the law and the dropped from L65, but the cross reference left? If not, what are the methods of playing cards referred to in L65? Is there anything in the laws that forces me to play the trick in a clockwise manner? -- Steve Wright County Bridge Club, Leicester, England From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 30 09:21:33 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:21:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030129160241.00a672a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002a01c2c7f8$dfb20d40$301f27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E38EE9D.6010902@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Alain wrote: > > >>AG : aha ! You admit that the card has to be put on the table for the >> > call > >>to have been made. >> > > Quite so. I have never asserted otherwise. > > > > >>Up to now, you asserted >>that when the card wat pulled from the box, the call was made. Glad >> > you > >>reverted to reasonable principles. >> > > Well, what I said less than forty eight hours ago was this: > > "The bidding box regulations should say that a call is made as soon as > the words comprising the call have been uttered, or as soon as a bidding > card bearing that call is faced on the table." > > The EBU bidding box regulations say something about "leaving the bidding > box". I make no such foolish assertion, nor have I ever done. Let us, > perhaps, revert to reading what people actually say before discussing > "reasonable principles". > > If you take a card from the bidding box, some other card may stick to > it, or you may drop the card you intend to place on the table back into > the box, or some other accident may occur. Before you actually put the > card face up on the table, you have a chance to see whether or not > something unfortunate has happened. If you neglect that chance, you are > stuck with the call that you face on the table. > David, you should realize that you are talking about two different things here. There ought to be a moment at which a call is deemed "made". That moment should really be when the bidder starts speaking "two ..." or when he takes a number of bidding cards out of the bidding box. Any thinking after that point should be impossible. But there must also be a moment at which a call is deemed "complete". That should be when bidder finishes ".. spades" or when the correct bidding card is left visible on the table. Perhaps the reason for your discussion is the failure to see that there are really two moments at which a call is "made". And no set of rules, with or without the use of intent, shall be able to be satisfactory without this distinction. What do you do David, with the player who says "two ... ehm ... pass"? What do you do with the player who starts pulling a two bid, puts it back and pulls out a pass? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 30 09:25:43 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:25:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] L44 & Playing in a clockwise manner References: Message-ID: <001b01c2c841$90aea7f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Look up "Rotation" in Definitions! regards Sven From: "Steve Wright" To: Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:42 AM Subject: [blml] L44 & Playing in a clockwise manner > Last night somebody was about to bid when it was his partners turn to > all. Fortunately the other players stopped him before he managed to give > any UI. He joked that "it would be much more fun if players could decide > which direction the auction could proceed in" and then asked me "if > there was anything in the Law that said his partner had to bid after the > dealer". I referred him to L17C. > > I then took to trying to find a law that says we must play the cards in > a clockwise manner. > > L44B states: > > "After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four > cards so played constitutes a trick. (For the method of playing cards > and arranging tricks see Law 65.)" > > It does not specify what "in turn" actually means. > > I did have a look at L65. This refers to the arrangement of tricks, but > there is nothing about "the method of playing cards". Was the method of > playing cards in earlier versions of the law and the dropped from L65, > but the cross reference left? If not, what are the methods of playing > cards referred to in L65? > > Is there anything in the laws that forces me to play the trick in a > clockwise manner? > -- > Steve Wright > County Bridge Club, Leicester, England > From Martin@SPASE.NL Thu Jan 30 09:33:26 2003 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:33:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] L44 & Playing in a clockwise manner Message-ID: <90A058367F88D611986700500454691503FFD3@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Well, I can't find a law saying that the play must be clockwise. However, I found in the definitions: Rotation: The clockwise order in which the deal and the right to call or play progresses I guess that settles that the play must be clockwise too. Regards, -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Wright [mailto:usenet@wrightnet.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:42 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] L44 & Playing in a clockwise manner > > > Last night somebody was about to bid when it was his partners turn to > all. Fortunately the other players stopped him before he > managed to give > any UI. He joked that "it would be much more fun if players > could decide > which direction the auction could proceed in" and then asked me "if > there was anything in the Law that said his partner had to > bid after the > dealer". I referred him to L17C. > > I then took to trying to find a law that says we must play > the cards in > a clockwise manner. > > L44B states: > > "After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four > cards so played constitutes a trick. (For the method of playing cards > and arranging tricks see Law 65.)" > > It does not specify what "in turn" actually means. > > I did have a look at L65. This refers to the arrangement of > tricks, but > there is nothing about "the method of playing cards". Was the > method of > playing cards in earlier versions of the law and the dropped > from L65, > but the cross reference left? If not, what are the methods of playing > cards referred to in L65? > > Is there anything in the laws that forces me to play the trick in a > clockwise manner? > -- > Steve Wright > County Bridge Club, Leicester, England > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 30 09:50:51 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:50:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030129160241.00a672a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002a01c2c7f8$dfb20d40$301f27d9@pbncomputer> <3E38EE9D.6010902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002901c2c845$1367e5f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ............. > David, you should realize that you are talking about two different > things here. > There ought to be a moment at which a call is deemed "made". That > moment should really be when the bidder starts speaking "two ..." or > when he takes a number of bidding cards out of the bidding box. Any > thinking after that point should be impossible. > But there must also be a moment at which a call is deemed "complete". > That should be when bidder finishes ".. spades" or when the correct > bidding card is left visible on the table. > > Perhaps the reason for your discussion is the failure to see that > there are really two moments at which a call is "made". And no set of > rules, with or without the use of intent, shall be able to be > satisfactory without this distinction. > > What do you do David, with the player who says "two ... ehm ... pass"? > What do you do with the player who starts pulling a two bid, puts it > back and pulls out a pass? And while either of you are at this discussion yuu might include what to do if a player starts pulling a stop card and maybe even places it on the table before putting it back ending up with whatever call not requiring a stop? Is the Stop part of a call? I tend to say no, but under Herman's logic it could very well be considered as the initiation of a call. I believe the general rule in Norway (and certainly how I rule) is that until a call is "completed" it has not been "made". Whatever has happened in its progress is nothing but UI (to partner of course). regards Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 30 10:17:12 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:17:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <3E38EE9D.6010902@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030129160241.00a672a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002a01c2c7f8$dfb20d40$301f27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030130111530.00a6f670@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:21 30/01/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >What do you do David, with the player who says "two ... ehm ... pass"? AG : what do you do with the player who is quite quick of mind and says "two ... down, are you sure it was two down ? Anyway, I pass." It might well be correction after thought. (or it might be : "two .. coffes, please. I pass.") From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jan 30 10:24:18 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:24:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <2205060.1043922258685.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > David, you should realize that you are talking about two different things here. Why should I realise any such thing? It is not true. > There ought to be a moment at which a call is deemed "made". That moment should really be when the bidder starts speaking "two ..." or when he takes a number of bidding cards out of the bidding box. I have never heard such complete... that is to say, I do not entirely agree with you. One might as well say that there ought to be a moment when a loaf of bread is deemed "made", and that this moment should really be when the baker puts some flour into a bowl. > But there must also be a moment at which a call is deemed "complete". Why? For what purpose? What Law requires this? What procedure requires it? A call is both "made" and "complete" when a player has named a number from one to seven and a denomination, by means of the spoken word or otherwise. What motive you can have for the nonsensical assertion that there is a difference between a call "made" and a call "completed" I cannot imagine. But it has no foundation in reality whatever, nor does it serve any purpose as an abstraction. > That should be when bidder finishes ".. spades" or when the correct bidding card is left visible on the table. That indeed should be the moment at which a call is deemed both "made" and "complete". > Perhaps the reason for your discussion is the failure to see that there are really two moments at which a call is "made". There are not. This is pure gibberish. > What do you do David, with the player who says "two ... ehm ... pass"? Why should I do anything with him? If his actions have communicated unauthorised information, there is a Law to deal with that. If his actions constitute some other form of illegal communication, there is a Law to deal with that also. If I consider that he is paying insufficient attention to the game, then I may fine him under the appropriate Law. But he has not made a call, nor should he be treated in any way as if he had. What conceivable difficulties can arise from this? >What do you do with the player who starts pulling a two bid, puts it back and pulls out a pass? Nothing. If his actions have communicated unauthorised information, there is a Law to deal with that. If his actions constitute some other form of illegal communication, there is a Law to deal with that also. If I consider that he is paying insufficient attention to the game, then I may fine him under the appropriate Law. But he has not made a call, nor should he be treated in any way as if he had. What conceivable difficulties can arise from this? David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jan 30 10:28:16 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:28:16 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <2309574.1043922496998.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote: > AG : what do you do with the player who is quite quick of mind and says "two ... down, are you sure it was two down ? Anyway, I pass." It might well be correction after thought. Correction of what? He has not made a call. There is nothing to correct. He may have transmitted UI - very well, we can deal with that. He may have communicated illegally with partner - we can deal with that also. But he *has not made a call* - read the Definitions if you don't believe me. Some form of madness appears to have seized the minds of this mailing list. Is there any cure? David Burn London, England From THOURETELGA@aol.com Wed Jan 29 14:09:30 2003 From: THOURETELGA@aol.com (THOURETELGA@aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:09:30 EST Subject: Fwd: [BLML] competition theory Message-ID: <3c.2b2e9d53.2b693a9a@aol.com> --part1_3c.2b2e9d53.2b693a9a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_3c.2b2e9d53.2b693a9a_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: From: HauffHJ@aol.com Full-name: Hauff HJ Message-ID: <129.2175b173.2b68afe4@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 23:17:40 EST Subject: [BLML] competition theory To: blml@rtflb CC: THOURETELGA@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part2_3c.2b2e9d53.2b68afe4_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows DE sub 10501 --part2_3c.2b2e9d53.2b68afe4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Competition theory Considerung several opinions expressed in the BLML and the books of the national organisations (i.e.the EBU Manual of duplicate Bridge movements), it seems to me: a) a fair competition is one in which each person (bridge: pair) has an equal degree of influence over the final score (bridge scores conf .Law77,78). b) It is the conditions of the contest which will establish this degree of influence, and the realy important factor is "equal". c) in Bridge it is the factor of 1) randomness of opponent 2) fortuitousness (good or bad cards) 3) the methods of evaluation which must be excluded or observed to get a fair competition. R a n d o m n e s s of opponent can not be excluded. This goes not only for bridge, but any kind of sport. It is possible to eliminate less capacitated players from competition by "selection tournaments", but within the set list of participants randomness of opponent remains, as a board can be played only once against an indicated opponent but not against the next opponent. The aproximated solution is to play all boards against all opponents. F o r t u i t o u s n e s s is excluded when pairs do not change direction. This will not work for events with less than 7 tables, because the number of compared result is considered to be insufficient for a fair average. But we can go new ways in Howell events: to play boards from both sides, and fortuitousness is excluded. I recomend to the estimated readers of this BLMLposting, to experiment this way to play at their home club. You will be surprised by the outcome ! Comments to this method have been made in other places and I want to touch only one item: if you remember the EW-distribution of a hand you played one hour ago and 16 boards earlier, then you are a great player ( your opponents have the same chance !) Play 16 Boards from both sides. MP or IMP tournaments is the first choice to be made, and it is a question of taste (not right or wrong) which one is choosen. But within these methods you must care not to employ the reciprok method for evaluatimg non-scorers. The zero-score method for non scorers, which is the classical method, will give fair results.Reciprok includes gifts/presents and is unfair. There are of course other requirements to have equal conditions. I consider a Howell ( or scrambled Mitchell) competition which uses the reciprok method a necessary and usefull method to give the players an interesting pastime. Albeith everybody knows that luck is necessary to win, players like presents (dont you?) and the chance to top the ranking list once in a while. To play from both sides is not a new idea, it goes back to the first half of the last century. Rather new is the idea to play a deal and then later the inversed form of the same deal (spade changes to heart und diamond to club; and vice versa). This excludes almost perfect fortuitousness. But in practical life, it needs to duplicate the computermade deals. Paul Hauff 28.01.03 www.bridgeassistant.com --part2_3c.2b2e9d53.2b68afe4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Competition theory
Considerung several opinions expressed in the BLML and the books
of the national organisations (i.e.the EBU Manual of duplicate Bridge
movements), it seems to me:

a) a fair competition is one in which each person (bridge: pair) has
an equal degree of influence over the final score (bridge scores conf.Law77,78).
b) It is the conditions of the contest which will establish this degree of
influence, and the realy important factor is "equal".
c) in Bridge it is the factor of
                 1) randomness of opponent
              2) fortuitousness (good or bad cards)
      3) the methods of evaluation
which must be excluded or observed to get a fair competition.

R a n d o m n e s s   of opponent can not be excluded. This goes not only for bridge,
but any kind of sport. It is possible to eliminate  less capacitated players from
competition by "selection tournaments", but within the set list of participants
randomness of opponent remains, as a board can be played only once against
an indicated opponent but not against the next opponent.
The aproximated solution is to play all boards against all opponents.

F o r t u i t o u s n e s s   is excluded when pairs do not change direction.
This will not work for events with less than 7 tables, because the number of
compared result is considered to be insufficient for a fair average.

But we can go new ways in Howell events: to play boards from both sides,
and fortuitousness is excluded. I recomend to the estimated readers of this
BLMLposting, to experiment this way to play at their home club. You will be
surprised by the outcome ! Comments to this method have been made in
other places and I want to touch only one item: if you remember the
EW-distribution of a hand you played one hour ago and 16 boards earlier,
then you are a great player (  your opponents have the same chance !)
Play 16 Boards from both sides.

MP or IMP tournaments is the first choice to be made, and it is a question
of taste (not right or wrong) which one is choosen. But within these methods
you must care not to employ the reciprok method for evaluatimg non-scorers.
The zero-score method for non scorers, which is the classical method, will give
fair results.Reciprok includes gifts/presents and is unfair.

There are of course other requirements to have equal conditions.

I consider a Howell ( or scrambled Mitchell) competition which uses the reciprok
method a necessary and usefull method to give the players an interesting pastime.
Albeith everybody knows that luck is necessary to win, players like
presents (dont you?) and the chance to top the ranking list once in a while.


To play from both sides is not a new idea, it goes back to the first half of the
last century. Rather new is the idea to play a deal and then later the inversed
form of the same deal (spade changes to heart und diamond to club; and vice versa).
This excludes almost perfect fortuitousness. But in practical life, it needs to
duplicate the computermade deals.

Paul Hauff  
28.01.03
www.bridgeassistant.com --part2_3c.2b2e9d53.2b68afe4_boundary-- --part1_3c.2b2e9d53.2b693a9a_boundary-- From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jan 30 11:18:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <006101c2c834$50951f80$9643e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > TWM wrote: > > > A little disingenuous David. > > > > A little pompous, Tim, not to say wholly asinine. It > > would benefit you to look up the word "disingenuous" > > in a dictionary to find out what it means, then > > consider whether it is an insult you actually want > >to perpetrate. > > > +=+ It looks as though TWM meant 'naive'. The > word 'disingenuous' is not apt to what he is saying > since David's pretension - if it be such - is to > know rather than not to know what he is talking > about. Grattan, if I mean naive I will say naive. If I mean disingenuous than I will say disingenuous. David is a fine adversarial advocate who willingly omits facts which are inconvenient to his argument of the moment. > I am with those who interpret the football law > as deeming an act intentional if the player could > foresee the risk and went through with the action > anyway. He does not have to specifically intend > (except for the self-protection mitigation) to > make the wrong connection. ~ G ~ +=+ OK, so it will be deemed intentional if the player didn't care whether he played man or ball as well as cases where he deliberately played the man. This, at least to me, requires a level of referee telepathy that David maintained was limited to bridge. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 30 11:58:55 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:58:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: References: <006101c2c834$50951f80$9643e150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030130124905.00a66250@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:18 30/01/2003 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > I am with those who interpret the football law > > as deeming an act intentional if the player could > > foresee the risk and went through with the action > > anyway. He does not have to specifically intend > > (except for the self-protection mitigation) to > > make the wrong connection. ~ G ~ +=+ > >OK, so it will be deemed intentional if the player didn't care whether he >played man or ball as well as cases where he deliberately played the man. >This, at least to me, requires a level of referee telepathy that David >maintained was limited to bridge. AG : we thus have three cases : played the ball and didn't succeed / played the ball and didn't care about the player (late tackle) / played the player. This is not different from the gradation manslaughter / manslaughter through imprudence / homicide. Sometimes, distinguishing between the three needs some telepathy too We have such a case right now pending before a Belgian courtmartial. Several evidence items have been put in front of the court, and they point towards homicide. If the Jury was to decide in favor of homicide, however, they wouldn't be 100% sure that it was the truth. Sometimes, at bridge, the problem is the same. One decides with the help of any existing evidence. One doesn't *know* what happened. So what ? As Ernst Mach said, the important thing is not that the scientist find the true Law ; it is that he describe the outside world accurately. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 30 11:58:58 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:58:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <2205060.1043922258685.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E391382.3020307@skynet.be> Sorry all, again I do not seem to have made myself absolutely clear. dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>David, you should realize that you are talking about two different things here. >> > > Why should I realise any such thing? It is not true. > yes it is. > >>There ought to be a moment at which a call is deemed "made". That moment should really be when the bidder starts speaking "two ..." or when he takes a number of bidding cards out of the bidding box. >> > > I have never heard such complete... that is to say, I do not entirely agree with you. One might as well say that there ought to be a moment when a loaf of bread is deemed "made", and that this moment should really be when the baker puts some flour into a bowl. > It's alright to not agree - so please listen to my clarification. > >>But there must also be a moment at which a call is deemed "complete". >> > > Why? For what purpose? What Law requires this? What procedure requires it? > > A call is both "made" and "complete" when a player has named a number from one to seven and a denomination, by means of the spoken word or otherwise. What motive you can have for the nonsensical assertion that there is a difference between a call "made" and a call "completed" I cannot imagine. But it has no foundation in reality whatever, nor does it serve any purpose as an abstraction. > Because there has to be a point at which we consider that a contestant has finished his thought processes and started making his decision known to the outside world. He should not be allowed to rethink after that moment. > >>That should be when bidder finishes ".. spades" or when the correct bidding card is left visible on the table. >> > > That indeed should be the moment at which a call is deemed both "made" and "complete". > But that instant can be minutes further than some point at which we would like him to be deemed call made. > >>Perhaps the reason for your discussion is the failure to see that there are really two moments at which a call is "made". >> > > There are not. This is pure gibberish. > > >>What do you do David, with the player who says "two ... ehm ... pass"? >> > > Why should I do anything with him? If his actions have communicated unauthorised information, there is a Law to deal with that. If his actions constitute some other form of illegal communication, there is a Law to deal with that also. If I consider that he is paying insufficient attention to the game, then I may fine him under the appropriate Law. But he has not made a call, nor should he be treated in any way as if he had. What conceivable difficulties can arise from this? > Because you might want a rule that says that his opponents can start considering his call made. It's not gibberish - you just don't want to consider this long period as anything else than UI. Some people want to make it the start of L25. > >>What do you do with the player who starts pulling a two bid, puts it back and pulls out a pass? >> > > Nothing. If his actions have communicated unauthorised information, there is a Law to deal with that. If his actions constitute some other form of illegal communication, there is a Law to deal with that also. If I consider that he is paying insufficient attention to the game, then I may fine him under the appropriate Law. But he has not made a call, nor should he be treated in any way as if he had. What conceivable difficulties can arise from this? > But that is just your opinion, David, that the call is only made when the action is finished. Some of us don't agree with that. > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jan 30 12:09:36 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:09:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <5441616.1043928576275.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > Sorry all, again I do not seem to have made myself absolutely clear. Perhaps. I should have more patience, and try to be more understanding. For clarification, do you assert that someone who says "two...erm..." has made a call? If so, which call (in the sense required by the Definitions)? David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jan 30 12:14:10 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:14:10 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <3757448.1043928850519.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> TWm wrote: > Grattan, if I mean naive I will say naive. If I mean disingenuous than I will say disingenuous. David is a fine adversarial advocate who willingly omits facts which are inconvenient to his argument of the moment. This, like most of the rest of what has been uttered in this thread so far, is not true. If I am presented with facts, I do not omit them from any argument. If I am presented with fictions, I point out that they are fictions, and do not consider them part of any argument. An argument based entirely on fictions is thus no argument at all. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 30 12:59:41 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:59:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <3E391382.3020307@skynet.be> References: <2205060.1043922258685.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030130133936.00a0e950@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:58 30/01/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Because there has to be a point at which we consider that a contestant has >finished his thought processes and started making his decision known to >the outside world. He should not be allowed to rethink after that moment. > > >> >>>That should be when bidder finishes ".. spades" or when the correct >>>bidding card is left visible on the table. >>That indeed should be the moment at which a call is deemed both "made" >>and "complete". > > >But that instant can be minutes further than some point at which we would >like him to be deemed call made. AG : you decided you will bid 2S. You reach for your BB, but it spills on the floor. While you are in the process of picking your cards, you recieve an urgent phone call. After the call, you come back and say "my turn, right ? Two spades". It happened before. I must confess to having utterly taken advantage of such circumstances in a match last year. I was caught in a problematic and undiscussed sequence : (1H) 1S (4H) 4NT(presumably minors) pass and had an unexpectedly strong hand. Then somebody informed the room that cars parked at such-and-such places were to be displaced *immediately*. While I thought mine was not concerned, I excused myself and went down to check - and about a dozen other people did the same. Some of them had better reasons to do so. When I came back (about 4 minutes), I hade made my mind that 5NT was the right bid. I retook my place and placed 5NT on the tray. Nobody could tell at which moment the thought process was done (eg before or after leaving the table). As L74C8 says "without" reason, there wasn't any infraction ... SMOn. Yes, there is a time when the thought process is closed, but when the bis has not been made. Body language and other factors will help us deciding whether the retraction took place during this period. Alas, the TD wasn't there, and this gives us the impression that some mind-reading has to be done. To avoid this as much as possible, it was decided that this intermediate period would be covered by UI rules, which don't take intention into account. One consequence is that pulling a card out, without letting see which it is, then putting it back, and taking another one, is considered a very minor offence although there could indeed have been "pause for thought". Anybody can decide one's position about this. One thing is sure : under this principle, by putting the BB in a place where one can't know what your bid is until you've pulled it and made a substantial move, you avoid most UI and L25 problems. That would be 'protecting oneself against one's own clumsiness' as advocated by David. I wonder why so many players consider it sharp practice. Best regards, Alain. >>>Perhaps the reason for your discussion is the failure to see that there >>>are really two moments at which a call is "made". >>There are not. This is pure gibberish. >> >>>What do you do David, with the player who says "two ... ehm ... pass"? >>Why should I do anything with him? If his actions have communicated >>unauthorised information, there is a Law to deal with that. If his >>actions constitute some other form of illegal communication, there is a >>Law to deal with that also. If I consider that he is paying insufficient >>attention to the game, then I may fine him under the appropriate Law. But >>he has not made a call, nor should he be treated in any way as if he had. >>What conceivable difficulties can arise from this? > > >Because you might want a rule that says that his opponents can start >considering his call made. >It's not gibberish - you just don't want to consider this long period as >anything else than UI. Some people want to make it the start of L25. > > >> >>>What do you do with the player who starts pulling a two bid, puts it >>>back and pulls out a pass? >>Nothing. If his actions have communicated unauthorised information, there >>is a Law to deal with that. If his actions constitute some other form of >>illegal communication, there is a Law to deal with that also. If I >>consider that he is paying insufficient attention to the game, then I may >>fine him under the appropriate Law. But he has not made a call, nor >>should he be treated in any way as if he had. What conceivable >>difficulties can arise from this? > >But that is just your opinion, David, that the call is only made when the >action is finished. Some of us don't agree with that. > >>David Burn >>London, England >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 30 12:48:34 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:48:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <5441616.1043928576275.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E391F22.4040201@skynet.be> Hello David, all dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > > >>Sorry all, again I do not seem to have made myself absolutely clear. >> > > Perhaps. I should have more patience, and try to be more understanding. Indeed you should. You should not call an argument gibberish if all you mean is that you don't agree with it. For clarification, do you assert that someone who says "two...erm..." has made a call? No, but the moment at which he has made his call has just passed. That is what the laws are currently interpreted as. For the purposes of L25A, he shall not be allowed to change his two into three. If so, which call (in the sense required by the Definitions)? I believe he should not be asked to complete his call, but his change from "two ehm" to "pass" could be dealt with under L25B. I (and I believe the general interpretation as well) would rule that a person who drags a number of bidding cards out of his bidding box has made a call, and L25A applies until such instant as he puts them before him on the table and is satisfied that the top one relects the bid he intended to make. I actually agree with you that a better law would be that anything up to a very precise moment is considered not a call (but UI) and that it would be good if the whole world knew about that precise instant. This may be one of the times where mechanical laws would be better than the ones we have. But at present, that is not the law as we know it. Note to Grattan : would it not be better if some of the implements that are very common in use (bidding boxes, screens) find their ways into the laws, and that the laws, not some regulation, stipulate clearly when a call is made? > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john@asimere.com Thu Jan 30 12:22:08 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:22:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <3E391382.3020307@skynet.be> References: <2205060.1043922258685.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3E391382.3020307@skynet.be> Message-ID: In article <3E391382.3020307@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Sorry all, again I do not seem to have made myself absolutely clear. > >dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > >> Herman wrote: >> >> >>>David, you should realize that you are talking about two different things >here. >>> >> >> Why should I realise any such thing? It is not true. >> > > >yes it is. > > >> >>>There ought to be a moment at which a call is deemed "made". That moment >should really be when the bidder starts speaking "two ..." or when he takes a >number of bidding cards out of the bidding box. >>> >> >> I have never heard such complete... that is to say, I do not entirely agree >with you. One might as well say that there ought to be a moment when a loaf of >bread is deemed "made", and that this moment should really be when the baker >puts some flour into a bowl. >> > > >It's alright to not agree - so please listen to my clarification. > Hmm. If a record player is playing in the middle of the Nejev desert is there any sound? Never mind the thought process, until it has been communicated it is not relevant. Once it has been communicated then, and only then, does a change of mind become an infraction. Hence if my attempt to communicate fails I'm still allowed to continue thinking - but when it succeeds then I'm stuck with it. -- 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jan 30 12:56:23 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:56:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <1126978.1043931383340.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > For clarification, do you assert that someone who says "two...erm..." has made a call? > No, but the moment at which he has made his call has just passed. Herman, this is to say that X has not happened, but the point at which X has happened has just passed. I do not know what you are trying to argue here. But I know gibberish when I see it. David Burn London, England From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jan 30 12:57:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:57 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <3E38EE9D.6010902@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > David, you should realize that you are talking about two different > things here. There ought to be a moment at which a call is deemed > "made". That moment should really be when the bidder starts speaking > "two ..." or when he takes a number of bidding cards out of the bidding > box. Any thinking after that point should be impossible. > But there must also be a moment at which a call is deemed "complete". > That should be when bidder finishes ".. spades" or when the correct > bidding card is left visible on the table. This seems both overly complex and undesirable. While I may disagree with David's football analogies I am with him all the way (I think) on this one. Make it like Chess, once the bidding card is released (could be stack touches table, but some physically observable moment and no earlier) without verbal reservation that's it! No more changes. Anything prior to that (switching bids, stop cards, fumbled alerts) is UI (which may, or may not, suggest anything). I believe the bit about verbal reservation is necessary due to imperfections in the equipment. Sticky bidding cards, box left in a mess, etc, etc. This would be similar to "J'adoube" at chess. In spoken bidding I have, on occasions bid e.g. "One Spade" after starting to open "One No Trump". As far as I am concerned the laws fully permit such a change of mind (the UI may vary if the bids have different genders). Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 30 13:32:32 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:32:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: References: <3E38EE9D.6010902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030130142439.00a6fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:57 30/01/2003 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Herman wrote: > > > David, you should realize that you are talking about two different > > things here. There ought to be a moment at which a call is deemed > > "made". That moment should really be when the bidder starts speaking > > "two ..." or when he takes a number of bidding cards out of the bidding > > box. Any thinking after that point should be impossible. > > But there must also be a moment at which a call is deemed "complete". > > That should be when bidder finishes ".. spades" or when the correct > > bidding card is left visible on the table. > >This seems both overly complex and undesirable. While I may disagree with >David's football analogies I am with him all the way (I think) on this >one. Make it like Chess, once the bidding card is released (could be >stack touches table, but some physically observable moment and no earlier) >without verbal reservation that's it! No more changes. AG : sorry, not the right example. At chess, once you touch a piece you have to play it. The analog at bridge would be "once you have touched a bidding card you have to make this bid". That's not the actual rule. And it shouldn't be. >I believe the bit about verbal reservation is necessary due to >imperfections in the equipment. Sticky bidding cards, box left in a mess, >etc, etc. This would be similar to "J'adoube" at chess. AG : at chess, if you've taken the wrong piece in your hand, you have to play it if it can move at all, whatever the reasons (including imperfect equipment), and whatever the consequences. As a matter of fact, saying 'j'adoube' after the contact with the piece doesn't help you. You are only allowed to say it for purposes of rearranging pieces on the board, before you touched any. >In spoken bidding I have, on occasions bid e.g. "One Spade" after starting >to open "One No Trump". As far as I am concerned the laws fully permit >such a change of mind (the UI may vary if the bids have different >genders). AG : I would very much like to read an explanation about problems posed by the gender of a bid. Isn't "one" (or "two" BTW) genderless ? Or is it because numerals are gender-marked in some languages, eg Russian ? Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jan 30 13:08:15 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:08:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Competition theory In-Reply-To: <003b01c2c7e4$94ec9a00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <007101c2c7d4$017c1b20$438e01d5@davicaltd> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030130075845.00a1b740@pop.starpower.net> At 05:20 PM 1/29/03, Marvin wrote: >From: "David Martin" < > > > ######## Hopefully we all agree that even this is not really true. > > ########### > >Yes, only near-perfect. I checked the dispersion business with a 13-table >game, two equally expert top-scoring pairs in each direction, the other >pairs equally "average," bottom-scoring, and of course David M was right. >The average pairs did not have the same scores. > >However, the "dispersion" is rather small even for such extreme >examples. In >real life it would be minuscule, would it not? In almost every "real life" contest, it would be swamped by the variation in the level of play of each pair from one table to the next. As would the dispersion of movements the purists would consider far less "fair". ISTM that the threshhold of "acceptable fairness" of a movement, in the sense that it has very little effect on the outcome compared the variability of play of each contentant, is rather low. Which makes this entire discussion, while of theoretical interest, of little practical import. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Jan 30 14:12:22 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:12:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <1126978.1043931383340.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E3932C6.3090502@skynet.be> dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>For clarification, do you assert that someone who says "two...erm..." has made a call? >> > > >>No, but the moment at which he has made his call has just passed. >> > > Herman, this is to say that X has not happened, but the point at which X has happened has just passed. I do not know what you are trying to argue here. But I know gibberish when I see it. > NO gibberish at all. X has happened. We don't know what X is, and it is not "two ehm", but it has happened. The moment he has made his call has passed. His call is not "two ... ehm". In fact, we don't yet know what his call was. But we still say that he has made it. If he wants to complete it to "two spades" that's all-right. If he wants to call "pass" instead, that's a change of call. If he intended to say spades and now corrects to hearts, that is an infraction that we won't know of. I'm actually not very much in favour of this interpretation, but it seems to be the one currently in majoritary use. > 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 gester@lineone.net Thu Jan 30 14:30:26 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:30:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <3757448.1043928850519.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <003a01c2c86c$8246dae0$46242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) > TWm wrote: > > > Grattan, if I mean naive I will say naive. If I > > mean disingenuous than I will say disingenuous. > > David is a fine adversarial advocate who > > willingly omits facts which are inconvenient to > > his argument of the moment. +=+ And, as Herman will explain, if I write "Bal...." it is a statement made, viz. "Balderdash". But I won't say this; my rejoinder, gentle and reprovingly uttered, will be that it is not apparent that David has omitted any facts - as distinct from any opinions that might be held about the facts, that it should not be held his duty willy-nilly to repeat. +=+ > > DB: > This, like most of the rest of what has been > uttered in this thread so far, is not true. If I am > presented with facts, I do not omit them from > any argument. If I am presented with fictions, I > point out that they are fictions, and do not > consider them part of any argument. An > argument based entirely on fictions is thus no > argument at all. > +=+ We stand in awesome disbelief on a crumbling mountain, its slide gathering pace as, one by one, the rocks that have sustained it migrate. Lamentations would be Reppertitious. +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jan 30 15:38:50 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:38:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <4133285.1043941130424.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > NO gibberish at all. > X has happened. We don't know what X is, and it is not "two ehm", but it has happened. Yes, but it isn't a call. He hasn't made a call, so... > The moment he has made his call has passed. ...this hasn't happened. >His call is not "two ... ehm". In fact, we don't yet know what his call was. We do. It wasn't anything. He hasn't made a call. >But we still say that he has made it. Why? How? By what deranged process of non-reason? If someone has made something, then there is a thing X that the person has made. If there is no answer to the question: "what is the thing X that the person has made?" then the person has not made the thing X. This is not Wittgenstein. This is not even Oscar Hammerstein. This is simply so obvious that it cannot be gainsaid, not even by a tournament director. >If he wants to complete it to "two spades" that's all-right. If he wants to call "pass" instead, that's a change of call. Why? How? Because some "interpretation" says so? Then that interpretation is wrong. It is demonstrably wrong, for it is based on a logical impossibility. For there to be a change of call, from call X into call Y, there must first be a call X. If there is no call X to change, then there can be no change of call. > I'm actually not very much in favour of this interpretation Well done, that man >but it seems to be the one currently in majoritary use. Then the majority must cease to use it. It is absurd, it is irrational beyond belief, it has no basis in fact or logic. This is obvious, if nothing else, from the fact that in order to justify it, one has to write nonsense. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 30 16:43:36 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:43:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <003a01c2c86c$8246dae0$46242850@pacific> References: <3757448.1043928850519.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030130174232.0249d810@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:30 30/01/2003 +0000, gester@lineone.net wrote: >Grattan Endicott^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >"All the physicians and authors in the >world could not give a clear account of >his madness. He is mad in patches, >full of lucid intervals." [Miguel Cervantes] >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:14 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) > > > > TWm wrote: > > > > > Grattan, if I mean naive I will say naive. If I > > > mean disingenuous than I will say disingenuous. > > > David is a fine adversarial advocate who > > > willingly omits facts which are inconvenient to > > > his argument of the moment. > +=+ And, as Herman will explain, if I write "Bal...." >it is a statement made, viz. "Balderdash". AG : not at all absurd. If somebody writes "bulls***", won't we all understantd ? From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jan 30 16:51:16 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:51:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030130174232.0249d810@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0C2F4EDD-3473-11D7-B4AA-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 04:43 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : not at all absurd. If somebody writes "bulls***", won't we all > understantd ? Surely that is to do with darts, not bridge? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 30 17:41:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:41:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <007101c2c7d4$017c1b20$438e01d5@davicaltd> <5.2.0.9.0.20030130075845.00a1b740@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002901c2c886$dc712290$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Eric Landau" > Marvin wrote: ......... > >However, the "dispersion" is rather small even for such extreme > >examples. In > >real life it would be minuscule, would it not? > > In almost every "real life" contest, it would be swamped by the > variation in the level of play of each pair from one table to the > next. As would the dispersion of movements the purists would consider > far less "fair". > > ISTM that the threshhold of "acceptable fairness" of a movement, in the > sense that it has very little effect on the outcome compared the > variability of play of each contentant, is rather low. Which makes > this entire discussion, while of theoretical interest, of little > practical import. In most cases when using schedules the way they are meant to be used one will find that the "dispersion" due to the balance not being absolutely perfect is in the order of +/- a single point. This is definitely tolerable as it is comparable to the variations due to ordinary plain luck at the table. But when you try to merge the two directions of a Mitchell movement or two different Howell or Mitchell groups into a single ranking list then you will suddenly have a "dispersion" in the order of one point per board played (somewhat depending upon the quality of the players involved). So look up the results from any reasonable tournament and see for yourself how much "damage" a difference in individual results either way equal to the number of boards played could do. I believe you will pretty often find that it can mean turning the entire resulting list upside down! While balancing is not to be overdone it is certainly not to be overlooked. Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 30 17:44:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:44:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <0C2F4EDD-3473-11D7-B4AA-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <003901c2c887$4e6a3a80$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Gordon Rainsford" ....... > > AG : not at all absurd. If somebody writes "bulls***", won't we all > > understantd ? > > Surely that is to do with darts, not bridge? "Bulls Eye" - isn't it? Or ..... (a four letter word written with eight letters?) Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 30 18:09:41 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:09:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <0C2F4EDD-3473-11D7-B4AA-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk > References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030130174232.0249d810@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030130190513.024a3820@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:51 30/01/2003 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 04:43 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>AG : not at all absurd. If somebody writes "bulls***", won't we all=20 >>understantd ? > >Surely that is to do with darts, not bridge? AG : there are some other important differences. At bridge, scoring=20 *oneh=FBndredaneeeeeiightyyy* won't get you very far if 3NT is cold. Even=20 finishing on 170 won't help you. You aren't allowed to make a sudden dart=20 towards your double. And bridge players usually drink _after_ the match. Best wishes, Alain. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jan 30 18:01:40 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:01:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <200301301801.NAA00484@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> There seems to be some confusion in this thread between what the rules say now and what they ought to say. > From: Herman De Wael > Because there has to be a point at which we consider that a contestant > has finished his thought processes and started making his decision > known to the outside world. He should not be allowed to rethink after > that moment. That last sentence is the point under dispute in the "what the rules should be" branch of the thread. David and others are saying that up until the call is made, rethinking is just fine. And after the call is made, no change should be allowed for any reason. >> For clarification, do you assert that someone who says "two...erm..." >> has made a call? > No, but the moment at which he has made his call has just passed. Here we are in the "what the rules are now" branch, but I don't think Herman can be correct. "Two...erm..." is not a call. It seems the equivalent of pulling the stop card or the alert card. While either may convey UI, they wouldn't cause COOT rules to be invoked, for example. > I actually agree with you that a better law would be that anything up > to a very precise moment is considered not a call (but UI) and that it > would be good if the whole world knew about that precise instant. > This may be one of the times where mechanical laws would be better > than the ones we have. But at present, that is not the law as we know it. Back to "what the rules should be." I am pleased to see that David B. and Herman agree. So do I, for whatever that's worth. The key point is to have some moment that an external observer can determine. Of course, as Alain says, there has to be allowance for accidents and for rearranging when necessary, but it should be possible to write rules that allow for those things. Jesper commented that in Denmark, the bidding boxes are arranged so that partner can identify a bidding card as soon as it is lifted from the box. That is not the case with the usual bidding boxes used here in North America. Especially if mechanical rules are adopted, the latter design seems preferable. From: Alain Gottcheiner > I would very much like to read an explanation about problems posed by > the gender of a bid. Isn't "one" (or "two" BTW) genderless ? In English, yes, but what about French 'un' and 'une'? Or Spanish 'un', 'una'? I confess, though, I don't know the genders of the five denominations (although it's "un coeur," isn't it?). Anyway, if the new approach is adopted, some languages may be more subject to UI from partial bids than others, but the principles wouldn't have to change. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jan 30 18:02:10 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:02:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030130190513.024a3820@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 06:09 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 16:51 30/01/2003 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 04:43 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> AG : not at all absurd. If somebody writes "bulls***", won't we all=20= >>> understantd ? >> >> Surely that is to do with darts, not bridge? > > AG : there are some other important differences. At bridge, scoring=20 > *oneh=FBndredaneeeeeiightyyy* won't get you very far if 3NT is cold. But it's a pretty good pairs score from 1NTx > Even finishing on 170 won't help you. You aren't allowed to make a=20 > sudden dart towards your double. And bridge players usually drink=20 > _after_ the match. There are several on this mailing list who don't wait till then! -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Jan 30 18:09:26 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:09:26 -0800 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <007101c2c7d4$017c1b20$438e01d5@davicaltd> <5.2.0.9.0.20030130075845.00a1b740@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001d01c2c88a$c026b740$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > ISTM that the threshhold of "acceptable fairness" of a movement, in the > sense that it has very little effect on the outcome compared to the > variability of play of each contentant, is rather low. Which makes > this entire discussion, while of theoretical interest, of little > practical import. > Then we can stop bothering with duplication of hands, across-the-field matchpointing, seeding, arrow switches, field mixing, and any other procedures aimed at fairness, since they have little effect on the outcome. However, the "little effect" can seem very large to anyone who fails to win a championship because of unfair conditions of contest. Or fails to qualify. Marginal qualifiers are dismissed as unimportant when qualifying criteria are up for discussion, but there are a great many pairs to whom qualifying is extremely important to their enjoyment of the game. Of course they (we) deserve no consideration, since they aren't winners. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jan 30 18:11:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:11 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030130142439.00a6fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > At 12:57 30/01/2003 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >Herman wrote: > > > > > David, you should realize that you are talking about two different > > > things here. There ought to be a moment at which a call is deemed > > > "made". That moment should really be when the bidder starts speaking > > > "two ..." or when he takes a number of bidding cards out of the > > > bidding > > > box. Any thinking after that point should be impossible. > > > But there must also be a moment at which a call is deemed > > > "complete". > > > That should be when bidder finishes ".. spades" or when the correct > > > bidding card is left visible on the table. > > > >This seems both overly complex and undesirable. While I may disagree > with > >David's football analogies I am with him all the way (I think) on this > >one. Make it like Chess, once the bidding card is released (could be > >stack touches table, but some physically observable moment and no > earlier) without verbal reservation that's it! No more changes. > > AG : sorry, not the right example. At chess, once you touch a piece you > have to play it. The analog at bridge would be "once you have touched a > bidding card you have to make this bid". That's not the actual rule. > And it shouldn't be. Agreed. Chess has a two part rule, there is a degree of flexibility after touching but none after releasing. Bridge needs only the latter part. > >I believe the bit about verbal reservation is necessary due to > >imperfections in the equipment. Sticky bidding cards, box left in a > mess,etc, etc. This would be similar to "J'adoube" at chess. > > AG : at chess, if you've taken the wrong piece in your hand, you have > to play it if it can move at all, whatever the reasons (including > imperfect equipment), and whatever the consequences. As a matter of > fact, saying 'j'adoube' after the contact with the piece doesn't help > you. You are only allowed to say it for purposes of rearranging pieces > on the board, before you touched any. As I said, similar - not identical. In bridge it is, IMO, desirable to allow "J'adoube" after touching the wrong card. > >In spoken bidding I have, on occasions bid e.g. "One Spade" after > starting to open "One No Trump". As far as I am concerned the laws > >fully permit such a change of mind (the UI may vary if the bids have > >different genders). > > AG : I would very much like to read an explanation about problems posed > by the gender of a bid. Isn't "one" (or "two" BTW) genderless ? Or is > it because numerals are gender-marked in some languages, eg Russian ? I don't know enough languages. But suppose it is "Un Pique, Une Coeur" then a bid of "Une Pique" conveys a degree of UI (indicating late change of mind) that would not occur in English (Of course Un and Une may be pronounced the same in Belgium/Marseilles but in parts of France they sound different). Tim From twm@CIX.CO.UK Thu Jan 30 19:40:00 2003 From: twm@CIX.CO.UK (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <003a01c2c86c$8246dae0$46242850@pacific> Message-ID: OK Grattan what do you want me to say? David is a woeful advocate who researches his points poorly. Alain wrote: > AG : however, if a soccer player hits another's leg, the intent (was he > after the ball, or the leg ?) is taken into account. David then quoted lots of stuff from the rules of football as an apparent counter to this statement - omitting the fact that the referee's judgement as to intent is indeed taken into account (it affects the severity of the penalty, as he subsequently acknowledged). He has, in the past, admitted to not raising a point of which he was aware because it undermined his theme. He calls on insult and misdirection when his ground weakens. >From this one may draw the conclusion that David can, at times, be a bloody-minded argumentative SOB. Now while he might object to the slightly tautological nature of that description I think he will recognise the truth of it. If not I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused. Best wishes, Tim From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Jan 30 22:28:52 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:28:52 -0600 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <5441616.1043928576275.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3E391F22.4040201@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) > Hello David, all > > dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > > Herman wrote: > > > > > > > >>Sorry all, again I do not seem to have made myself absolutely clear. > >> > > > > Perhaps. I should have more patience, and try to be more understanding. > > > Indeed you should. You should not call an argument gibberish if all > you mean is that you don't agree with it. > > For clarification, do you assert that someone who says "two...erm..." has made a call? > > > No, but the moment at which he has made his call has just passed. > That is what the laws are currently interpreted as. > For the purposes of L25A, he shall not be allowed to change his two > into three. > > If so, which call (in the sense required by the Definitions)? > > > I believe he should not be asked to complete his call, but his change > from "two ehm" to "pass" could be dealt with under L25B. > > I (and I believe the general interpretation as well) would rule that a > person who drags a number of bidding cards out of his bidding box has > made a call, and L25A applies until such instant as he puts them > before him on the table and is satisfied that the top one relects the > bid he intended to make. > I actually agree with you that a better law would be that anything up > to a very precise moment is considered not a call (but UI) I think that if a player takes cards from the box he ought to put them on the table forthwith and they will constitute his turn. However, if the 'top' card is not the one he intends he is to, if at all, immediately say so, put the card on the table and then correct the card immediately; it being too late to say so once the card touches the table [that is, dispensing with L25B]. What this means is that a call is not made until it reaches the table, and, when the bidding card is taken from the box it will become a call, and soon. This encourages players to do their thinking before reaching, makes it possible for corrections to be spontaneous [non-spontaneous corrections not permitted], speeds up the correction if any, and avoids a lot of hunting around the bidding box for 20 or 30 seconds. regards roger pewick > and that it > would be good if the whole world knew about that precise instant. > This may be one of the times where mechanical laws would be better > than the ones we have. But at present, that is not the law as we know it. > > Note to Grattan : would it not be better if some of the implements > that are very common in use (bidding boxes, screens) find their ways > into the laws, and that the laws, not some regulation, stipulate > clearly when a call is made? > Herman DE WAEL From david-martin@talk21.com Thu Jan 30 22:54:03 2003 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 22:54:03 -0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] Competition theory Message-ID: <00ba01c2c8b4$eb02e860$50a18351@davicaltd> Steve wrote: > > >Any complete Mitchell (with two winners) played as barometer? Or an > > >odd-number Mitchell where each pair plays all the boards and meets all > > >pairs in the opposite line (no skips, e.g., 9 or 13 tables with pre- > > >duplicated boards)? > > > > ######## These will still have the dynamics problem. ######### > > Hi, David. Which is the "dynamics problem?" > ####### The 'dynamics' problem is my term for the effect that causes the dispersion of the average players' scores when more than one expert is present. I tend to think of it as being analogous to gravity and planetary orbits. A lone planet orbiting a single sun is mathematically very easy to understand. A whole solar system is much more complex because the gravitational fields of the various planets interact and affect each others' motions in complex ways. Likewise with movements, the effect of a single expert pair is easy to understand. However, this only reveals the *total* amount of competition between the expert pair and each other pair because all of the other pairs in the field are of equal ability thus masking the more complex underlying interactions that are really taking place. Introducing multiple expert pairs means that the field is no longer homogenous thus making visible these more complex interactions. As the interactions change in each round of the movement and do not uniformly affect all pairs (and boards), the whole effect is a bit like a complexly varying vector field and, hence, the term 'movement dynamics' seemed appropriate. ######## Marvin wrote: >Yes, only near-perfect. I checked the dispersion business with a 13-table >game, two equally expert top-scoring pairs in each direction, the other >pairs equally "average," bottom-scoring, and of course David M was right. >The average pairs did not have the same scores. > >However, the "dispersion" is rather small even for such extreme examples. In >real life it would be minuscule, would it not? ######### In real life, the effect is likely to be quite small which is a good job as there is nothing that we can do to totally prevent it. As far as possible we should seek to ensure that very strong *and* very weak pairs are *randomly* distributed throughout the lines. I deliberately say randomly and *not evenly* distributed because these effects are cumulative and by deliberately placing strong and weak pairs in regular patterns, one can easily produce very extreme distortions. I have an example somewhere in which I can make an average pair finish either first or last by simply making one change in the movement's starting line-up. ######### David Martin From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Jan 30 23:45:27 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 23:45:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: Message-ID: <001001c2c8b9$aae78600$301f27d9@pbncomputer> TWM wrote: > David is a woeful advocate who researches his points poorly. Very possibly. > David then quoted lots of stuff from the rules of football as an apparent > counter to this statement - omitting the fact that the referee's judgement > as to intent is indeed taken into account (it affects the severity of the > penalty, as he subsequently acknowledged). I acknowledged no such thing, for it is not true. The referee's judgement does not affect the extent of the redress given for damage - a free kick, or a penalty, is awarded regardless of the (apparent) intent of the offender. What it affects is the severity of the disciplinary sanction - the player is booked or sent off (or nothing is done if his intent is judged innocent). I am personally of the opinion that if a player commits an offence currently deemed worthy of his being sent off, the player should remain on the field and the opponents should simply be awarded a goal. But that is beside the point. The sending off of a player may of course damage the prospects of his team (as may a booking - the player will have to be rather less committal in terms of future challenges). But that is not relevant; the booking or sending off is not a penalty awarded to provide redress for damage. It is important, in football and especially in bridge, to keep this distinction clearly in mind. The point I was trying to make is that the same free kick is awarded regardless of any judgement as to intent. Disingenuous though you may believe me to have been, I did not actually know this. I had formed the impression from the assertions of Alain and others that apparent intent would have some effect on the extent to which redress for damage was given. It is possible that I had misread those assertions, though I do not think so. > He has, in the past, admitted > to not raising a point of which he was aware because it undermined his > theme. I have said in the past that some of the points I have made are arguable because of considerations that I do not wish at the time to address because they will cloud the issue. This is not an "admission" of anything very much, other than a desire to focus on one question at a time. >He calls on insult and misdirection when his ground weakens. No, no. I use those all the time, regardless of how strong my case may be. > From this one may draw the conclusion that David can, at times, be a > bloody-minded argumentative SOB. Now while he might object to the > slightly tautological nature of that description I think he will recognise > the truth of it. If not I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused. Oh, that's all right. If you can't take it, as they say, you shouldn't dish it out. David Burn London, England From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jan 31 05:11:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:11 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <001001c2c8b9$aae78600$301f27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David wrote: > > David then quoted lots of stuff from the rules of football as an > > apparent counter to this statement - omitting the fact that the > > referee's judgement as to intent is indeed taken into account (it > > affects the severity of the penalty, as he subsequently acknowledged). > > I acknowledged no such thing, for it is not true. The referee's > judgement does not affect the extent of the redress given for damage - a > free kick, or a penalty, is awarded regardless of the (apparent) intent > of the offender. What it affects is the severity of the disciplinary > sanction - the player is booked or sent off (or nothing is done if his > intent is judged innocent). David, when I say you acknowledged that it affected "the severity of the penalty" and you claim I am wrong because it affects "the severity of the disciplinary sanction" I think quibbling has gone a bit too far. The key point is that many games, including football and bridge, require referees to make judgements on intent. It doesn't matter a damn if they are doing so for disciplinary reasons or for redress. If such judgement is deemed possible then it can be done in either context as appropriate. > The point I was trying to make is that the same free kick is awarded > regardless of any judgement as to intent. Disingenuous though you may > believe me to have been, I did not actually know this. I had formed the > impression from the assertions of Alain and others that apparent intent > would have some effect on the extent to which redress for damage was > given. It is possible that I had misread those assertions, though I do > not think so. I'm pretty sure that Alain's assertion was that judgements based on intent were not only possible but commonplace in many games. Redress/punishment wasn't an issue in that context. Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Jan 31 08:40:45 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:40:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: Message-ID: <004b01c2c905$14d380a0$4e1ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 5:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) > > I'm pretty sure that Alain's assertion was > that judgements based on intent were not > only possible but commonplace in many games. > +=+ In football certainly, and perhaps also in bridge, much time is spent in training the referee (TD) to recognize intent from the mechanics of the action. Steven Gerrard claims that he tried to pull out of the reckless tackle of Naysmith that he had started on. Video evidence may or may not support his contention; it is likely that the existence or not of visible corroboration of it will determine the severity of his punishment. In football the referee has no time for any two-stage thought process; he has to see and act on what he sees. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Jan 31 08:42:10 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:42:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <200301301801.NAA00484@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004c01c2c905$16023ca0$4e1ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) > From: Alain Gottcheiner > In English, yes, but what about French 'un' and 'une'? Or Spanish > 'un', 'una'? I confess, though, I don't know the genders of the five > denominations (although it's "un coeur," isn't it?). > +=+ pique, coeur, carreau, trefle, tous m. +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Jan 31 09:21:11 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:21:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: Message-ID: <002501c2c90a$187b87c0$b42e27d9@pbncomputer> TWM wrote: > David, when I say you acknowledged that it affected "the severity of the > penalty" and you claim I am wrong because it affects "the severity of the > disciplinary sanction" I think quibbling has gone a bit too far. You are, of course, at liberty to think what you like. But as I have tried to say, it is important to distinguish carefully between what is done as redress and what is given as punishment. If you believe this to be a "quibble" - well, as I have said, you can believe anything you wish, regardless of whether or not it is true. > The key point is that many games, including football and bridge, require > referees to make judgements on intent. It doesn't matter a damn if they > are doing so for disciplinary reasons or for redress. If such judgement > is deemed possible then it can be done in either context as appropriate. Nonsense. It matters a great deal what is done for redress and what is done for disciplinary reasons. In the former case (except in bridge), judgement in terms of intent *cannot* be done in any but a very small number of "contexts", nor should it be. In the latter, judgement in terms of intent is obviously an important part of the process. But we do not discipline a player for pulling the wrong bid out of the box, a context in which judgement in terms of intent should in my view simply not apply. > I'm pretty sure that Alain's assertion was that judgements based on intent > were not only possible but commonplace in many games. Redress/punishment > wasn't an issue in that context. Well, my assertion is that they are "commonplace" only insofar as they affect punishment (though Eric's example from American football is a counter-indication, one would hardly say that this single instance is enough to justify the use of a word such as "commonplace"). Such judgements are not at all "commonplace" insofar as they affect restitution. Obviously, if one punishes a player, his opponent may gain an advantage - but that is not the primary objective, or indeed much of an objective at all (a disciplined player may be suspended from games against future opponents, which has nothing to do with redress for the current opponents). David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jan 31 11:02:15 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:02:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <002501c2c90a$187b87c0$b42e27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E3A57B7.1080504@skynet.be> David, allow me to intercede. This discussion is totally futile. You were found to say that Bridge is the only sport which requires mind-reading from the director. Alain cited a number of examples from other sports to contradict you. You picked on one sport, and read one law from that sport. You said this did not require mind-reading. You have been told even that is not true, and since then we've been discussing whether a yellow card is redress or disciplinary action. You have not addressed the other laws in that one sport that Alain cited (as in intentional or not hand-ball). You have not addressed any of the other sports that Alain cited (except for the lbw-law, which you also dismissed). Please accept that it is true that certain other sports ask the director to rule on the intent of a competitor. And even if they would not - what's the point? Bridge has, for decades, relied on TD decisions that need a certain amount of mind-reading. You may not agree with this, but don't try winning a sub-sub-sub-sub-argument in order to prove a point. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From toddz@att.net Fri Jan 31 12:27:55 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:27:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] redress/discipline Message-ID: Baseball makes a similar distinction. Beaning a player is an automatic base. Beaning a player intentionally will get you thrown out of the game. What is the current state of affairs for bowling directly at the batter in cricket and does it matter whether there was intent? -Todd From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 31 12:52:39 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:52:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: <200301301801.NAA00484@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030131134735.00a6cdd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:01 30/01/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >In English, yes, but what about French 'un' and 'une'? Or Spanish >'un', 'una'? I confess, though, I don't know the genders of the five >denominations (although it's "un coeur," isn't it?). AG : although "pique" (lance, pike) is feminine, the suit name is masculine. All denominations are. French has a tendency to give genders according to the gender of the generic thing. Car brand names are feminine, even if the common name isn't (eg jaguar), because 'voiture' (car) is. "Un pique" might been seen as a short form for "un trick en pique". In Liege, all denominations are masculine, but cards are feminine (je joue une pique - I play a spade card vs je joue un pique - I play a one spade contract). From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 31 13:06:44 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:06:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: References: <001001c2c8b9$aae78600$301f27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030131140415.00a6c0d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 05:11 31/01/2003 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: >David wrote: > > > > David then quoted lots of stuff from the rules of football as an > > > apparent counter to this statement - omitting the fact that the > > > referee's judgement as to intent is indeed taken into account (it > > > affects the severity of the penalty, as he subsequently acknowledged). > > > > I acknowledged no such thing, for it is not true. The referee's > > judgement does not affect the extent of the redress given for damage - a > > free kick, or a penalty, is awarded regardless of the (apparent) intent > > of the offender. What it affects is the severity of the disciplinary > > sanction - the player is booked or sent off (or nothing is done if his > > intent is judged innocent). > >David, when I say you acknowledged that it affected "the severity of the >penalty" and you claim I am wrong because it affects "the severity of the >disciplinary sanction" I think quibbling has gone a bit too far. > >The key point is that many games, including football and bridge, require >referees to make judgements on intent. It doesn't matter a damn if they >are doing so for disciplinary reasons or for redress. If such judgement >is deemed possible then it can be done in either context as appropriate. > > > The point I was trying to make is that the same free kick is awarded > > regardless of any judgement as to intent. Disingenuous though you may > > believe me to have been, I did not actually know this. I had formed the > > impression from the assertions of Alain and others that apparent intent > > would have some effect on the extent to which redress for damage was > > given. It is possible that I had misread those assertions, though I do > > not think so. > >I'm pretty sure that Alain's assertion was that judgements based on intent >were not only possible but commonplace in many games. Redress/punishment >wasn't an issue in that context. AG : it might. In lawn hockey, tripping an opponent will be penalized all the time ; but the form of the sanction (PC vs stroke) will vary according to whether the intention was to trip him or not. Referees claim they can usually determine that from the tempo and the exact movement, but they admit they sometimes have to use personal opinion. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 31 13:12:31 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:12:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] redress/discipline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030131141017.00a6e100@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:27 31/01/2003 -0500, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > Baseball makes a similar distinction. Beaning a player is an >automatic base. Beaning a player intentionally will get you >thrown out of the game. > > What is the current state of affairs for bowling directly at the >batter in cricket and does it matter whether there was intent? > >- AG : I don't think intent makes a difference there ; but at least two laws distinguish according to intent : a) interferring with the runner's path b) lbw, even if David doesn't agree : umpires are much more severe when no try at hitting with the pad has been made. Others are mechanical , eg throwing the ball. From s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl Fri Jan 31 13:04:18 2003 From: s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl (Simon Kuipers) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:04:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] redress/discipline In-Reply-To: <3E35C33F001A2984@ocpmta3.freegates.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20030131140305.00de33c0@MDWEXMB1> At 13:33 31/01/2003, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > What is the current state of affairs for bowling directly at the >batter in cricket and does it matter whether there was intent? This is called a full toss. It is allowed, as it gives the *batsman* an advantage when hitting the ball. So the supposed intention by the bowler is irrelevant. Simon From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Jan 31 13:14:12 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:14:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote: > AG : it might. In lawn hockey, tripping an opponent will be penalized all the time ; but the form of the sanction (PC vs stroke) will vary according to whether the intention was to trip him or not. Referees claim they can usually determine that from the tempo and the exact movement, but they admit they sometimes have to use personal opinion. Curious. I have just finished a lengthy post in which I introduced the laws of field hockey, but this is awaiting Henk's attention because it had a "suspicious header". Perhaps you will see it, perhaps not - but it is an interesting coincidence that Alain's message arrived while I was composing mine. Interesting also that referees in hockey "admit that they sometimes have to use personal opinion", as if that were something of which they should be ashamed, and tried to avoid doing whenever possible. Indeed, they appear to do it only as an absolute last resort. This is all as it should be, of course. Can it be that these referees are in agreement with the principle that: to the extent to which the result of a game depends upon the subjective judgement of officials, that game is flawed? David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jan 31 13:21:17 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:21:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] redress/discipline References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030131140305.00de33c0@MDWEXMB1> Message-ID: <3E3A784D.5030808@skynet.be> Howzat? A cricket question is posed by an American, and answered by a Belgian and a Dutchman. Only one of those countries is present at this months world cup - I expect all members of blml (minus the Canadians) to root for Holland now. Simon Kuipers wrote: > At 13:33 31/01/2003, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >> What is the current state of affairs for bowling directly at the >> batter in cricket and does it matter whether there was intent? > > > This is called a full toss. It is allowed, as it gives the *batsman* an > advantage when hitting the ball. So the supposed intention by the bowler > is irrelevant. > > Simon > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Jan 31 13:24:11 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:24:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] redress/discipline Message-ID: <895551.1044019451065.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Simon wrote: >What is the current state of affairs for bowling directly at the batter in cricket and does it matter whether there was intent? > This is called a full toss. Well, it depends. A full toss is a ball that arrives at the batsman without striking the ground, but the term is normally applied only to balls below or around waist height, which the batsman can readily hit with the bat. A full toss aimed at the head or upper body of the batsman is called a "beamer", and falls within the category of dangerous and unfair bowling. Law 42 says: Any delivery, other than a slow paced one, which passes or would have passed on the full above waist height of the striker standing upright at the crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker. Any such ball is a "no ball"; the bowler is cautioned for a first instance, given a final warning for a second, and barred from bowling for the rest of the innings for a third. It is fair to say that practically no beamers are intentional; such a delivery is the result of the ball being slippery, or temporary loss of co-ordination on the bowler's part. But intention is not taken into account in the relevant sections of Law 42. David Burn London, England From s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl Fri Jan 31 13:32:28 2003 From: s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl (Simon Kuipers) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:32:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] redress/discipline In-Reply-To: <3E35C33F001A9053@ocpmta3.freegates.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20030131142934.075c58e0@MDWEXMB1> At 14:21 31/01/2003, Herman De Wael wrote: >Howzat? > >A cricket question is posed by an American, and answered by a Belgian >and a Dutchman. > >Only one of those countries is present at this months world cup Next month, to be precise, Herman ;-) After all, being exact is an essential part of this list, isn't it? >I expect all members of blml (minus the Canadians) to root for Holland now. Hear, hear! Simon From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Jan 31 13:34:28 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:34:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] redress/discipline Message-ID: <1432750.1044020068221.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> More on Law 42: If the umpire considers that a high full pitch which is deemed to be dangerous and unfair, as defined in 6(b) above, was deliberately bowled, then the caution and warning prescribed in 7 above shall be dispensed with. The umpire shall (a) call and signal No ball. (b) direct the captain, when the ball is dead, to take the bowler off forthwith. I know of no instance where this has happened, but the CricInfo stats guru is a bridge player and an old friend, so I shall ask him. But when I said that the laws did not take intention into account, this was an error; as in football, intent is taken into account for the purposes of discipline, though does not affect the extent of redress. A case of RTFLB if ever there was one. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Jan 31 14:48:20 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:48:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] redress/discipline References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030131142934.075c58e0@MDWEXMB1> Message-ID: <3E3A8CB4.6070509@skynet.be> Simon Kuipers wrote: > At 14:21 31/01/2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Howzat? >> >> A cricket question is posed by an American, and answered by a Belgian >> and a Dutchman. >> >> Only one of those countries is present at this months world cup > > > Next month, to be precise, Herman ;-) After all, being exact is an > essential part of this list, isn't it? > In two competing countries it's already this month. If you're going to be pedantic, I'll switch my support back to New Zealand. >> I expect all members of blml (minus the Canadians) to root for Holland >> now. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Jan 31 17:21:34 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:21:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <007101c2c7d4$017c1b20$438e01d5@davicaltd> <5.2.0.9.0.20030130075845.00a1b740@pop.starpower.net> <001d01c2c88a$c026b740$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004201c2c94d$357acbe0$25b54351@noos.fr> Competition theory ? This is a very nice discussion but for specialists only. But you guys overlook maybe the psychological aspects of a movement. Most players will never understand mathematical concepts like the balance of a movement. But they do notice certain things. Like the number of good pairs they get to play (yes I know it is about comparisions but however often you tell them that they won't buy). And whether or not they played the same boards as their friends did. So when making trade-offs it is maybe a good idea to take the 'visible parameters' (seeding, everybody plays all boards) a little bit more serious than the 'invisible' ones. In the end fairness is a subjective thing. And your clients are not going to be (un)happy over the mathematical correctness of your movement. Personally I think that any reasonable solution is fine because there is so much randomness in a pairs tournament. It makes a real difference whether you get 'flat easy boards' against a good rather than a weak pair. Or suppose everybody makes on average three weird mistakes a session. Some sessions you get ten presents like that, other sessions none (or the opposite, do you get your share of opps good actions tonight). This is not an argument you should give up on trying to use fair movements. This is an argument that after a certain level of fairness other considerations probably become more important. A good example is how the French go about it. They always play EW up, boards down (sorry if I mix up the two). The clients are drilled like that and there is never any mix-up like people playing at the wrong table. So of course never an arrowswitch, you must be joking. The price is well known. The balance is terrible (after 2 or 3 sessions). Security is hopeless, with a little snooping NS can learn a lot from the table next to them about the next 2 boards. There are often more boards than you play, so comparing with your friends can be no fun. With unequal session-size the 'extra set' gets played much less often than the other boards. The seeding rules are fixed so certain non-seeded tables are much better than others (the movement is often incomplete). One might guess who gets those good tables. Still nobody ever complains and yes their tournaments always run smootly (even the dumbest TD can handle this in his sleep). Anyway, this is real life so the last percent of mathematical balance in a movement really doesn't matter. But those puzzles can be great fun. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Competition theory > > From: "Eric Landau" > > > ISTM that the threshhold of "acceptable fairness" of a movement, in the > > sense that it has very little effect on the outcome compared to the > > variability of play of each contentant, is rather low. Which makes > > this entire discussion, while of theoretical interest, of little > > practical import. > > > Then we can stop bothering with duplication of hands, across-the-field > matchpointing, seeding, arrow switches, field mixing, and any other > procedures aimed at fairness, since they have little effect on the outcome. > > However, the "little effect" can seem very large to anyone who fails to win > a championship because of unfair conditions of contest. > > Or fails to qualify. Marginal qualifiers are dismissed as unimportant when > qualifying criteria are up for discussion, but there are a great many pairs > to whom qualifying is extremely important to their enjoyment of the game. Of > course they (we) deserve no consideration, since they aren't winners. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 31 19:30:22 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:30:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Competition theory References: <007101c2c7d4$017c1b20$438e01d5@davicaltd> <5.2.0.9.0.20030130075845.00a1b740@pop.starpower.net> <001d01c2c88a$c026b740$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004201c2c94d$357acbe0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000b01c2c95f$33131580$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Jaap van der Neut" > Competition theory ? > > This is a very nice discussion but for specialists only. But you guys > overlook maybe the psychological aspects of a movement. Most players will > never understand mathematical concepts like the balance of a movement. But > they do notice certain things. Like the number of good pairs they get to > play (yes I know it is about comparisions but however often you tell them > that they won't buy). And whether or not they played the same boards as > their friends did. So when making trade-offs it is maybe a good idea to take > the 'visible parameters' (seeding, everybody plays all boards) a little bit > more serious than the 'invisible' ones. In the end fairness is a subjective > thing. And your clients are not going to be (un)happy over the mathematical > correctness of your movement. > > Personally I think that any reasonable solution is fine because there is so > much randomness in a pairs tournament. It makes a real difference whether > you get 'flat easy boards' against a good rather than a weak pair. Or > suppose everybody makes on average three weird mistakes a session. Some > sessions you get ten presents like that, other sessions none (or the > opposite, do you get your share of opps good actions tonight). This is not > an argument you should give up on trying to use fair movements. This is an > argument that after a certain level of fairness other considerations > probably become more important. > > A good example is how the French go about it. They always play EW up, boards > down (sorry if I mix up the two). The clients are drilled like that and > there is never any mix-up like people playing at the wrong table. So of > course never an arrowswitch, you must be joking. The price is well known. > The balance is terrible (after 2 or 3 sessions). Security is hopeless, with > a little snooping NS can learn a lot from the table next to them about the > next 2 boards. There are often more boards than you play, so comparing wit h > your friends can be no fun. With unequal session-size the 'extra set' gets > played much less often than the other boards. The seeding rules are fixed so > certain non-seeded tables are much better than others (the movement is often > incomplete). One might guess who gets those good tables. Still nobody ever > complains and yes their tournaments always run smootly (even the dumbest TD > can handle this in his sleep). > > Anyway, this is real life so the last percent of mathematical balance in a > movement really doesn't matter. But those puzzles can be great fun. > > Jaap van der Neut Don't try that theory in Scandinavia, most tournament players here already know too much about what faulty balance can do to accept it. Maybe that is why you seldom see Mitchell played (and I daresay never Mitchell with any kind of attempt to merge into a single result list). What you do see is complete Howell movements (small events) and barometer movements (any kind of event). Sven From john@asimere.com Fri Jan 31 19:31:15 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:31:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] redress/discipline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Todd Zimnoch writes > Baseball makes a similar distinction. Beaning a player is an >automatic base. Beaning a player intentionally will get you >thrown out of the game. > > What is the current state of affairs for bowling directly at the >batter in cricket and does it matter whether there was intent? > bowling a 5 1/4 oz cricket ball at 90mph at the batsman's head is ok even if illegal, you'll get a warning for it. In practice it only occurs by accident. Just remember the other side will do it to you later :) >-Todd > > >_______________________________________________ >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 jaapb@noos.fr Fri Jan 31 19:56:10 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:56:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] First and final warning References: Message-ID: <00a301c2c965$2af9f7a0$25b54351@noos.fr> First and Final. Dear Henk, One thing is sure, after your warning things calmed down so you did quite ok. Even I consider Jurgens last mail way over the top. But it is so crude to let a first warning be the final one. If you forget about his style Jurgen actually has some refreshing new ideas to shake up the regulars a little bit. I don't read his writing as personal attacks (although it is easy to do so), just as a well written rant. When David writes 'the rules are made by sheep for chimps' or 'a bunch of idiots' (yes there is a great context) referring to the WBFLC I don't read that as a personal attack. Those lovely rabbits wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. Do they. But I have some rabbits left. --------------------------------------- First we have to honor the dead. Dijkstra is long gone. Let him rest in peace. --------------------------------------- The first reaction was by Herman which made me think that a Belgian Oaf was protecting a Dutch Idiot (if I remember that thread correctly). Come on boys, you use all kind of 'language' yourself. > Jürgen, this is totally uncaaled for, and completely out of line. > Please refrain in future from contributions of this nature. > Sarcasm has its time and place, but not to address personal attacks on > good willing administrators who you have never met. If you participate in discussions and you happen to be chairman of WBFLC it doesn't matter if you are goodwilling or not. Then you are fair game. How else can one react if one thinks the WBFLC is heading in the wrong direction. But I agree that Jurgen overdid. Herman is referring to: > Of course, I understand that a squarehead of any nationality would > take Ton's contribution as a joke and admire its > subtlety; but I will take it seriously, and admire its subtlety, > just in case it was meant for roundheads. I admit that is a little heavy although quite funny if you like language constructs as I do. But is it so much worse as some texts by David. Probably it is but maybe some native speakers can judge that. > Clearly an oversight, but an excusable one. What was it that you did > discuss at these meetings? And was the dinner satisfactory? Oops. The problem here is that Ton of all people is a (hard) worker and not a party goer in the EBL and WBF context. But those organisations have a terrible reputation for that. You might want to read the latest letter and a subsequent interview of the president of the Dutch Federation (one of the big tree) about how money gets 'spend' in the EBL/WBF. So if Ton chooses to be an high official he should realise that people who don't know him might associate him with certain 'common habits' of these organizations. It comes with the job. I know quite a number of people where that dinner sneer makes sense. Ton is not one of them. ----------------------------------------------- Grattan: > For my part I think you give too much heed > to someone who blusters out of an ignorant and > uncivilised state of mind. > I am suspicious too .... > Rennen - racing or running > kampf - battle or fight > So rennenkampff - a running fight? > Too aptly named, I think, to be real. Let's look on him > as unreal and turn deaf ears to each zornesausbruch. Uncivilised maybe but only a fool will call Jurgen ignorant. He is not. Then Grattan starts making fun out of Jurgens name. Jurgen probably doesn't mind neither do I. Lets quote Burn: if you cannot take it you should not dish it out. But for me Grattan loses all moral right to accuse Jurgen of improper language. If you respond in kind you are no better. That said I look forward to the next Zorneausbruch. But it might be better if Jurgen tunes down his language somewhat (a lot). Because like this people like Grattan refuse to listen to him. Which despite my critisism of Grattan I can very well understand. And he won't be the only one. ------------------------------------------ Ton: > And as far as I am in control that will never happen. The nice thing about > this reaction is that while telling the world that I am an idiot, Jurgen > demonstates not to understand a syllable of the problem Anne was describing. Actually Jurgen might understand it much better than you think. He might even understand some dimensions of the problem better than you do. But since 'nobody' wants to read that kind of language, which makes sense, you might well not know what he really was saying after peeling of the layers of sarcasm. > Still I am starting to understand David Stevenson better and better, the > atmosphere in blml is changing a lot last months. May be my contributions > are an explanation, though I didn't change much during the years I am a > member now. Anyway I have decided to decrease my contributions drastically, > there are too many more clever people around these days. Good luck. I don't like you dropping out. That it is not the Ton I know. But I do think you are part of the problem. You have lots of qualities, and a relentless drive, but communication is not your strongest point. From your wording (maybe my contributions ...) and a lot of previous comminications (also off blml) you seem to sense there is something lacking. And there is. You often leave a blunt impression. Misguided arrogance, not taking others seriously, unwilling to admit mistakes, dodging the issue, that kind of stuff. Which is a pity because I know you don't mean it like that and it is not really you. But it sure provokes attacks from time to time. As David says, if you cannot take it you should not dish it out. The problem is that I have the impression that quite often you don't realize you are dishing out. And then the taking appears to be unjustified, cruel, demoralizing. Come on Ton. Whatever your faults (I have probably much more) keep going. There are few people who do so much for bridge as you do. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 5:45 PM Subject: [blml] First and final warning > Juergen, > > I've been getting complaints both online and offline about the tone of > voice that you used in recent contributions in the "Online-UI". Please > note that this list is intended to discuss the laws of Bridge, and not a > place for personal attacks on people. > > Please limit yourself to the laws of bridge in any future postings. If > this behaviour continues, your posting priviledges will be revoked. > > Kind regards, > > Henk > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk@rtflb.org > BLML List Moderator WWW: http://www.rtflb.org > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Jan 31 20:59:46 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 09:59:46 +1300 Subject: [blml] redress/discipline In-Reply-To: <3E3A8CB4.6070509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c2c96b$b2e019f0$f42d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Saturday, 1 February 2003 3:48 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] redress/discipline > > > Simon Kuipers wrote: > > > At 14:21 31/01/2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> Howzat? > >> > >> A cricket question is posed by an American, and answered > by a Belgian > >> and a Dutchman. > >> > >> Only one of those countries is present at this months world cup > > > > > > Next month, to be precise, Herman ;-) After all, being exact is an > > essential part of this list, isn't it? > > > > > In two competing countries it's already this month. > If you're going to be pedantic, I'll switch my support back to New > Zealand. Absolutely I have received the whole thread this month and it is already next month. New Zealand are at a disadvantage (aside from any lack of skill)as last month (well yesterday) the New Zealand Cricket Council announced that they will forfeit their game scheduled to be played in Nairobi for security reasons. The New Zealand cricket team have been involved in near miss bombings in Sri Lanka and Pakistan in recent years. With terrorist threats in many parts of the world international competition in all (or many) sports must be under some threat. As indeed was the case with the 2001 Bermuda Bowl being moved to Paris. Wayne > > > >> I expect all members of blml (minus the Canadians) to root > for Holland > >> now. > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Jan 31 21:01:35 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 10:01:35 +1300 Subject: [blml] redress/discipline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2c96b$f451cb40$f42d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Saturday, 1 February 2003 8:31 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] redress/discipline > > > In article , Todd Zimnoch > writes > > Baseball makes a similar distinction. Beaning a player is an > >automatic base. Beaning a player intentionally will get you > >thrown out of the game. > > > > What is the current state of affairs for bowling > directly at the > >batter in cricket and does it matter whether there was intent? > > > bowling a 5 1/4 oz cricket ball at 90mph at the batsman's head is ok > even if illegal, you'll get a warning for it. In practice it > only occurs > by accident. Just remember the other side will do it to you later :) And what is more the players that have the skills to direct a ball at 90mph at an opponents head typically have much less skill at avoiding such a delivery directed at them. Wayne > > > >-Todd > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Jan 31 21:02:26 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 10:02:26 +1300 Subject: [blml] redress/discipline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c2c96c$12409af0$f42d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Saturday, 1 February 2003 8:31 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] redress/discipline > > > In article , Todd Zimnoch > writes > > Baseball makes a similar distinction. Beaning a player is an > >automatic base. Beaning a player intentionally will get you > >thrown out of the game. > > > > What is the current state of affairs for bowling > directly at the > >batter in cricket and does it matter whether there was intent? > > > bowling a 5 1/4 oz cricket ball at 90mph at the batsman's head is ok > even if illegal, you'll get a warning for it. In practice it > only occurs > by accident. Just remember the other side will do it to you later :) And what is more the players that have the skills to direct a ball at 90mph at an opponents head typically have much less skill at avoiding such a delivery directed at them. Wayne > > > >-Todd > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl Fri Jan 31 22:06:24 2003 From: s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl (Simon Kuipers) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:06:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] redress/discipline In-Reply-To: <000101c2c96b$f451cb40$f42d37d2@Desktop> References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.20030131230128.00be8100@pop3-2.tiscali.nl> Wayne Burrows schreef: >And what is more the players that have the skills to direct a ball at >90mph at an opponents head typically have much less skill at avoiding >such a delivery directed at them. Correct. Only a few all-rounders are apt to both sides of the game: Ian Botham, Imran Khan, Kapil Dev. And of course the greatest of all: Sir Richard Hadlee (sic!) Simon From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Jan 31 22:34:26 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:34:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] redress/discipline References: <4.3.2.20030131230128.00be8100@pop3-2.tiscali.nl> Message-ID: <005f01c2c978$e94b9b60$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> Simon wrote: > And of course the greatest of all: Sir Richard Hadlee (sic!) Fortes ante Agamemnone - there was also a certain Gary Sobers. David Burn London, England From jurgenr@t-online.de Fri Jan 31 23:25:59 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 00:25:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] First and final warning In-Reply-To: <00a301c2c965$2af9f7a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Hi Jaap, I agree with you to a very large extent. Of course, you are right that such a blunt attack cannot have any direct positive effect. Henk's first and final warning is reasonable, because it is both useless and disruptive to repeat such broadsides. I think, however, that it is necessary that somebody occasionally rattles the chain. The work of the LC is insufficient, and has been so for a long time. The vast majority of bridge players, both rabbits and foxes, will agree with this assertion. Very considerable damage has been done to the game. Probably this is now irreversible, it has become the tradition, perhaps it is natural, but this does not mean that we must pretend that it is not so. It is surely not specifically nor primarily Ton's fault; however, Ton is responsible. Ton's original remarks concerned online Bridge. They referred to discussions in the LC and did not do justice to the subject at hand. The LC has published a document with the odd title "Laws for Electronic Bridge", which is remarkable in that it addresses not a single one of the new issues that arise when bridge is played online. How can such a thing happen? The answer I have gotten is 'the software people couldn't agree'. Of course, nobody owes me and answer... It is not an offense to be ignorant of the details of this relatively new subject, nor to be unable to accomplish a task - but it is an offense to pretend to have done something that wasn't done. Regards, Jürgen =========================================================== > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > Sent: Freitag, 31. Januar 2003 20:56 > To: Ton Kooijman; jurgenr@t-online.de; Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) > Cc: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] First and final warning > > > First and Final. > > Dear Henk, > > One thing is sure, after your warning things calmed down so you did quite > ok. Even I consider Jurgens last mail way over the top. > > But it is so crude to let a first warning be the final one. If you forget > about his style Jurgen actually has some refreshing new ideas to shake up > the regulars a little bit. I don't read his writing as personal attacks > (although it is easy to do so), just as a well written rant. > > When David writes 'the rules are made by sheep for chimps' or 'a bunch of > idiots' (yes there is a great context) referring to the WBFLC I don't read > that as a personal attack. Those lovely rabbits wouldn't dream of > doing such > a thing. Do they. > > But I have some rabbits left. > > --------------------------------------- > > First we have to honor the dead. Dijkstra is long gone. Let him rest in > peace. > > --------------------------------------- > > The first reaction was by Herman which made me think that a > Belgian Oaf was > protecting a Dutch Idiot (if I remember that thread correctly). Come on > boys, you use all kind of 'language' yourself. > > > Jürgen, this is totally uncaaled for, and completely out of line. > > Please refrain in future from contributions of this nature. > > Sarcasm has its time and place, but not to address personal attacks on > > good willing administrators who you have never met. > > If you participate in discussions and you happen to be chairman > of WBFLC it > doesn't matter if you are goodwilling or not. Then you are fair game. How > else can one react if one thinks the WBFLC is heading in the wrong > direction. But I agree that Jurgen overdid. > > Herman is referring to: > > > Of course, I understand that a squarehead of any nationality would > > take Ton's contribution as a joke and admire its > > subtlety; but I will take it seriously, and admire its subtlety, > > just in case it was meant for roundheads. > > I admit that is a little heavy although quite funny if you like language > constructs as I do. But is it so much worse as some texts by > David. Probably > it is but maybe some native speakers can judge that. > > > Clearly an oversight, but an excusable one. What was it that you did > > discuss at these meetings? And was the dinner satisfactory? > > Oops. The problem here is that Ton of all people is a (hard) > worker and not > a party goer in the EBL and WBF context. But those organisations have a > terrible reputation for that. You might want to read the latest > letter and a > subsequent interview of the president of the Dutch Federation (one of the > big tree) about how money gets 'spend' in the EBL/WBF. So if Ton > chooses to > be an high official he should realise that people who don't know him might > associate him with certain 'common habits' of these > organizations. It comes > with the job. I know quite a number of people where that dinner > sneer makes > sense. Ton is not one of them. > > ----------------------------------------------- > > Grattan: > > > For my part I think you give too much heed > > to someone who blusters out of an ignorant and > > uncivilised state of mind. > > I am suspicious too .... > > Rennen - racing or running > > kampf - battle or fight > > So rennenkampff - a running fight? > > Too aptly named, I think, to be real. Let's look on him > > as unreal and turn deaf ears to each zornesausbruch. > > Uncivilised maybe but only a fool will call Jurgen ignorant. He > is not. Then > Grattan starts making fun out of Jurgens name. Jurgen probably > doesn't mind > neither do I. Lets quote Burn: if you cannot take it you should > not dish it > out. But for me Grattan loses all moral right to accuse Jurgen of improper > language. If you respond in kind you are no better. > > That said I look forward to the next Zorneausbruch. But it might be better > if Jurgen tunes down his language somewhat (a lot). Because like > this people > like Grattan refuse to listen to him. Which despite my critisism > of Grattan > I can very well understand. And he won't be the only one. > > ------------------------------------------ > > Ton: > > And as far as I am in control that will never happen. The nice > thing about > > this reaction is that while telling the world that I am an idiot, Jurgen > > demonstates not to understand a syllable of the problem Anne was > describing. > > Actually Jurgen might understand it much better than you think. He might > even understand some dimensions of the problem better than you > do. But since > 'nobody' wants to read that kind of language, which makes sense, you might > well not know what he really was saying after peeling of the layers of > sarcasm. > > > Still I am starting to understand David Stevenson better and better, the > > atmosphere in blml is changing a lot last months. May be my > contributions > > are an explanation, though I didn't change much during the years I am a > > member now. Anyway I have decided to decrease my contributions > drastically, > > there are too many more clever people around these days. Good luck. > > I don't like you dropping out. That it is not the Ton I know. But I do > think you are part of the problem. You have lots of qualities, and a > relentless drive, but communication is not your strongest point. From your > wording (maybe my contributions ...) and a lot of previous comminications > (also off blml) you seem to sense there is something lacking. And > there is. > You often leave a blunt impression. Misguided arrogance, not taking others > seriously, unwilling to admit mistakes, dodging the issue, that kind of > stuff. Which is a pity because I know you don't mean it like that > and it is > not really you. But it sure provokes attacks from time to time. As David > says, if you cannot take it you should not dish it out. The > problem is that > I have the impression that quite often you don't realize you are dishing > out. And then the taking appears to be unjustified, cruel, demoralizing. > Come on Ton. Whatever your faults (I have probably much more) keep going. > There are few people who do so much for bridge as you do. > > Jaap van der Neut > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 5:45 PM > Subject: [blml] First and final warning > > > > Juergen, > > > > I've been getting complaints both online and offline about the tone of > > voice that you used in recent contributions in the "Online-UI". Please > > note that this list is intended to discuss the laws of Bridge, and not a > > place for personal attacks on people. > > > > Please limit yourself to the laws of bridge in any future postings. If > > this behaviour continues, your posting priviledges will be revoked. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Henk > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk@rtflb.org > > BLML List Moderator WWW: http://www.rtflb.org > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? > (Big ISP NOC) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Jan 30 22:28:38 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:28:38 -0600 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) In-Reply-To: References: <003a01c2c86c$8246dae0$46242850@pacific> Message-ID: --============_-1168156758==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ACBL: "A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with apparent intent." So what do the other jurisdictions say? I had a letter from EK (years ago) that supported the view that two (followed by no denomination) is not a call. Clearly, fumbling around with the bidding cards and then pulling a pass card can convey UI, but that's what the UI law is for. My preference would be to have a call made when the bidding cards (calling cards?) are released on the table, and not before. However, I like the ACBL's follow-up: "A call may be changed without penalty, under the provisions of Law 25, only if a player has inadvertently taken out the wrong bidding box card, and the player corrects, or attempts to correct, without pause for thought, and LHO has not called. If the Director is reasonably certain that the original call was a mechanical problem, they should be very liberal in judging pause for thought." As for the rest of this thread, I quote my mother: "Children, try to get along!" REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 --============_-1168156758==_ma============ Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" ACBL: "A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with apparent intent." So what do the other jurisdictions say? I had a letter from EK (years ago) that supported the view that two (followed by no denomination) is not a call. Clearly, fumbling around with the bidding cards and then pulling a pass card can convey UI, but that's what the UI law is for. My preference would be to have a call made when the bidding cards (calling cards?) are released on the table, and not before. However, I like the ACBL's follow-up: "A call may be changed without penalty, under the provisions of Law 25, only if a player has inadvertently taken out the wrong bidding box card, and the player corrects, or attempts to correct, without pause for thought, and LHO has not called. If the Director is reasonably certain that the original call was a mechanical problem, they should be very liberal in judging pause for thought." As for the rest of this thread, I quote my mother: "Children, try to get along!" REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 --============_-1168156758==_ma============-- From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Jan 31 12:59:49 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:59:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) Message-ID: <6917147.1044017989244.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> ------=_Part_52817_2587818.1044017989240 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Herman wrote: > David, allow me to intercede. By all means. This is Liberty Hall. > This discussion is totally futile. Conceivably. But the discussion on whether questions might be asked about hypothetical future calls seemed, for a considerable time, to be totally futile. Some interesting and worthwhile conclusions were eventually drawn from it. Who knows what may happen if we continue to explore a question which has this in common with the earlier one: your views were (a) deeply held; (b) shared by a great many people at the outset of the debate; and (c) wrong? >You were found to say that Bridge is the only sport which requires mind-reading from the director. What I have actually said is this: insofar as a sport requires mind-reading from officials, that sport is flawed. This view has, in fact, received general support - understandably, since it is obvious. Insofar as bridge requires considerably more mind-reading than other sports, in positions moreover where the need for mind-reading could easily be avoided by the adoption of simple mechanical principles, bridge is considerably more flawed than other sports. This is also obvious. >Alain cited a number of examples from other sports to contradict you. Well, three is indeed a number. One would expect that, if my assertion were seriously wrong, the number of counter-examples would be overwhelming, and several of them immediately apparent. But that is not so, though I should perhaps mention that the laws of field hockey contain a number of references to what a player "intentionally" does. This means only that field hockey is also a seriously flawed game. > You picked on one sport, and read one law from that sport. No, Herman. I read (for the first time, I may say) the laws of a game to which Alain had specifically referred. I found, contrary to my expectations from Alain's assertions, that in fact the question of intent was not nearly so influential as I had thought. I was surprised at this. But it was not a question of "picking on one sport" - Alain had already done that, for it was he and not I that referred to football and to the particular case of a player who trips another. > You said this did not require mind-reading. Yes, Herman. That is because it is true. I suppose I should not be amazed that a person, who thinks that saying "two...erm" constitutes making a call, cannot construe a relatively simple set of propositions, but I will set them out again. It *does not* require mind reading to determine whether or not to award a free kick (and, from what Alain had said, I had formed the impression that it did). It *does* require mind reading to determine the extent to which a player who trips another should be disciplined. All this is also obvious, and I have never asserted the contrary. But even this "mind reading" is to a large extent no more than the judgement of a set of physical actions; if the actions do not support what the player claims about his state of mind, then his claim is dismissed (I am grateful to Grattan for pointing this out). Eric's example from American football is in the same category; if a defender looks as though he is intending to catch the ball, and it appears that he might consider he had a realistic chance of doing so, then (presumably) he will not be judged in the same way as a defender who simply knocks over an opponent or otherwise prevents him from catching the ball. The same, as I said earlier, applies to a batsman's putative attempt to strike the ball at cricket. What is being judged is not only (or primarily) a state of mind, but a set of physical moments. > You have been told even that is not true Herman, I have been told a great many things in my life. The other day, I was told that a call could be made without a player having made a call; I did not believe this. Many years ago, I was told that Father Christmas would leave me some presents; I did not believe this either. > and since then we've been discussing whether a yellow card is redress or disciplinary action. It is the latter. I am not aware that I have been "discussing" it; there is nothing to discuss. The laws of football refer to it as a "disciplinary sanction". > You have not addressed the other laws in that one sport that Alain cited (as in intentional or not hand-ball). Yes, I have. But you were probably too busy contemplating the futility of it all. I will address it again. There is no such thing as "hand-ball", which is a piece of shorthand concocted by football supporters. It is an infraction at football to handle the ball; it is not an infraction to be struck on the hand by the ball. As with Eric's example from American football, what is judged is a set of physical actions. If the player moved his hand into the path of the ball, then he might be considered deliberately to have handled the ball. If the ball struck the player on the hand, but he then used his hand to control the ball, then he might also be considered deliberately to have handled the ball. I conjecture that if the player did not take reasonable steps to avoid being struck on the hand by the ball, then he might also be considered deliberately to have handled the ball. Only if the ball struck the player on the hand such that: (a) he could not avoid this; and (b) he did not use his hand to control the subsequent path of the ball, is he innocent. I should say that I am not a football referee, so this is speculation on my part. Interestingly, the laws of field hockey say that if a player is struck by the ball on the hand (or other part of the body) "unintentionally", then there is no infraction unless some benefit accrues. This presumably means that if a ball hits a player's foot and bounces off it to a member of the player's own team, this is a foul regardless of the intention of the player or the degree of control she could exercise over the ball. Perhaps there is not as much wrong with field hockey as I thought. > You have not addressed any of the other sports that Alain cited > (except for the lbw-law, which you also dismissed). Again, I expect you were asleep. But I have addressed them now (and introduced one of my own for good measure). > Please accept that it is true that certain other sports ask the > director to rule on the intent of a competitor. I do not deny it. It is true. I say, as I have said before, that this is a flaw. It is a flaw from which bridge suffers more seriously than any other sport, and since most of this suffering is unnecessary, the situation should be remedied. In particular, to return at last to the subject under discussion: whether or not a call is considered "made" should have nothing to do with the intent of the player whose turn it is to call, only with the physical actions of that player. Moreover, of course, whether or not a card is played from dummy should have nothing to do with the intent of declarer, only with his physical actions. And so on, and so forth... I should say that I have no objection to bridge officials doing what other officials do in terms of considering intent for the purpose of determining a sanction. If during a tournament I drop a cup of coffee over your head because I was bumped by a passer by, then nothing should happen to me. But if I throw a cup of coffee over your head because I hate you, then I should be disqualified. > And even if they would not - what's the point? I do not know, Herman. I did not know what the point was in entering into the debate about "Herman questions" either. But it turned out to have a point. This discussion may have one also - or several, or none. > Bridge has, for decades, relied on TD decisions that need a certain amount of mind-reading. Yes, I know. I think it is important not to be as complacent about this as you and others are. I think it is important to point out, given the opportunity, that this is a stupid thing for bridge to do, that it is one of the major contributing factors to the non-acceptance of bridge as a serious sport, that it is a destructive tendency that ought at all costs to be reversed. If you don't think these things are important, you don't have to read what I say. > You may not agree with this, but don't try winning a sub-sub-sub-sub-argument in order to prove a point. Herman, I will write what I like. And you will read what you like. But neither of us will interfere with the freedom of speech of the other. Or at least, I sincerely hope so. David Burn London, England ------=_Part_52817_2587818.1044017989240-- From infodepicted@golfgod.net Sat Jan 18 21:02:23 2003 From: infodepicted@golfgod.net (Pkethelyi) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 19:02:23 -0200 Subject: [blml] Info regarding vigra Message-ID: how Vigra™ works. So you can better understand, what Vigra can do for you. If you are sensible about your health, reflect on what you can do for your seual health, to keep the chances that you will need Vigra as low as possible. diagonal watchful candied, Martinique. Inrease Seks Drive Bost Seual Performance Fuller & Harder Erecions Inrease Stamna & Endurance Quicker Rechages http://www.tibetmeds.com/index.php?pid=pharmaboss waffles stress rancid, asylum. weaknesses inviting expels, tubes. Thanks, Madeleine From jorshoal@intheuk.org Fri Jan 31 19:54:17 2003 From: jorshoal@intheuk.org (Worthid) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:54:17 +0300 Subject: [blml] My last weekend governing Message-ID: frictions, It`s fabuklous! I took the only one pijll of Cialjs and that was such a GREAT weekend! All the girls at the party were just punch-drunk with my potential I have fhcked all of them THREE times but my dhck WAS able to do some more! Chalis - it`s COOL!!! The best weekend stuff I've ever trhied! Haven`t you tried yet? DO IT NkOW at http://www.vow-meds.com/sv/index.php?pid=genviag dreariness virtuoso airliner gorge coiling normally bleach squadrons lures.