From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Sat Feb 1 00:38:49 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 00:38:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] redress/discipline References: <000201c2c96c$12409af0$f42d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001901c2c98a$49dfaaa0$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> Is it perhaps possible that Henk could build in a filter that would bar any message mentioning cricket googlie full toss or Chinaman ? mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 9:02 PM Subject: RE: [blml] redress/discipline > > > > -----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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john@asimere.com Sat Feb 1 03:20:05 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 03:20:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Maddog absence Message-ID: Maxine and I will be travelling (round the world) for the next six weeks, starting Feb 3rd. I have arranged for emails to john@asimere.com to be delivered to GLChienFou@hotmail.com which will be my e-address for the next 6 weeks. We will be at the last two days of the NEC, and the Gold Coast congress. We also expect to turn up in odd bridge clubs in foreign parts too. Have fun and don't come to blows in my absence :) regards 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Feb 1 04:07:43 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 04:07:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case) References: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <00da01c2c9a7$78a20280$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> Nobody wrote anything. But when I tried to send this message some time ago, I was told that it had a "suspicious header". Here it is again. 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 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Feb 1 05:01:43 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:01:43 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory References: <00ba01c2c8b4$eb02e860$50a18351@davicaltd> Message-ID: <002b01c2c9af$0a6d7300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> David Martin wrote: > 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. The ACBL seeds Mitchells by placing seeded pairs at certain tables. That used to be 3, 6, 9, and sometimes 12, but it seems to have changed to something else now. The arrangement ensures that a seeded pair will meet all seeds in the other line, at least for up to 16 tables. It also ensures that seeds will be distributed evenly among the sections, and evenly in each direction. With 3, 6, 9, a sharp unseeded pair will ask for table 2 N-S or table 7 E-W, to minimize the number of seeds met in our typical 15, 16, 17, and even 18-table sections. Such requests should be denied. Other pairs are randomly seated. The C&C committee discussed the possibility of "anti-seeding" in the future, but did not get into the details of how the non-seeds would be assigned. Weak pairs would presumably be placed so as to meet all seeds in the other line, although they won't like that. The simplest way to do anti-seeding is to seed the top group, as is done now, anti-seed pairs below a masterpoint threshold, and seat the others randomly. This is actually done locally in our stratified pair games, in which A players are seeded, Cs are anti-seeded, and Bs are randomly seated. Now, assuming across-the-field matchpointing in a straight Mitchell, are you saying, David, that all seating assignments should be random across matchpointed fields? Or merely random within lines? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From jatkinson@xtra.co.nz Sat Feb 1 05:31:54 2003 From: jatkinson@xtra.co.nz (Julie Atkinson) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 18:31:54 +1300 Subject: [blml] redress/discipline References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030131140305.00de33c0@MDWEXMB1> <3E3A784D.5030808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003101c2c9b3$3b498c80$334556d2@mshome.net> What about New Zealand? :)))))))))) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 2:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] redress/discipline > Howzat? > > A cricket question is posed by an American, and answered by a Belgian > and a Dutchman. > > Only one of those countries is present at this months world cup - I > expect all members of blml (minus the Canadians) to root for Holland now. > > Simon Kuipers wrote: > > > At 13:33 31/01/2003, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > >> What is the current state of affairs for bowling directly at the > >> batter in cricket and does it matter whether there was intent? > > > > > > This is called a full toss. It is allowed, as it gives the *batsman* an > > advantage when hitting the ball. So the supposed intention by the bowler > > is irrelevant. > > > > Simon > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From david-martin@talk21.com Sat Feb 1 20:07:47 2003 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 20:07:47 -0000 Subject: Fw: Fw: [blml] Competition theory Message-ID: <002501c2ca2d$b513ada0$9bf98351@davicaltd> Marvin wrote: > > Now, assuming across-the-field matchpointing in a straight Mitchell, are you > saying, David, that all seating assignments should be random across > matchpointed fields? Or merely random within lines? > ######## I am saying that you should seed to ensure that all lines are of approximately equal average strength (and, ideally, equal standard deviation of strength) but that seating *within* each line should be entirely random. To put all of the top seeds at table 1 in each line for example will create favourable and unfavourable starting positions elsewhere in the movement. ######### David Martin From ehaa@starpower.net Sat Feb 1 23:35:50 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 18:35:50 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] Competition theory In-Reply-To: <002b01c2c9af$0a6d7300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <00ba01c2c8b4$eb02e860$50a18351@davicaltd> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030201181511.022b4640@pop.starpower.net> At 12:01 AM 2/1/03, Marvin wrote: >David Martin wrote: > > > 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. > >The ACBL seeds Mitchells by placing seeded pairs at certain tables. That >used to be 3, 6, 9, and sometimes 12, but it seems to have changed to >something else now. The arrangement ensures that a seeded pair will >meet all >seeds in the other line, at least for up to 16 tables. It also ensures >that >seeds will be distributed evenly among the sections, and evenly in each >direction. > >With 3, 6, 9, a sharp unseeded pair will ask for table 2 N-S or table >7 E-W, >to minimize the number of seeds met in our typical 15, 16, 17, and even >18-table sections. Such requests should be denied. > >Other pairs are randomly seated. The C&C committee discussed the >possibility >of "anti-seeding" in the future, but did not get into the details of >how the >non-seeds would be assigned. Weak pairs would presumably be placed so >as to >meet all seeds in the other line, although they won't like that. > >The simplest way to do anti-seeding is to seed the top group, as is done >now, anti-seed pairs below a masterpoint threshold, and seat the others >randomly. This is actually done locally in our stratified pair games, in >which A players are seeded, Cs are anti-seeded, and Bs are randomly >seated. > >Now, assuming across-the-field matchpointing in a straight Mitchell, >are you >saying, David, that all seating assignments should be random across >matchpointed fields? Or merely random within lines? From a mathematical perspective, any non-randomness will distort the probabilistic result. If we define "fairness" as producing outcomes that lie on a probability curve that comes as close as possible to its mathematical expectation (not a priority, but rather given the determinative facts, so that we maximize the chance that the winner will be the pair that played the best, not the "best" pair in the sense of the usual favorite on the form chart), we should randomize all of it, i.e. make no attempt to seed or assign seats at all. But we shouldn't do that. Because what we'd be making more fair isn't the bridge contest, it's a combination contest that combines our favorite game of skill with a game of chance played at the entry desk, and produces its high finishers from those who did well in both sub-games. That game may be entirely fair, but it's not what our players want. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Feb 1 21:12:27 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:12:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] First and final warning References: Message-ID: <009501c2ca56$75845440$07bd193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott > 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. > > Another: > > Uncivilised maybe but only a fool will call Jurgen > > ignorant. He is not. Then Grattan starts making fun out > > of Jurgens name. > +=+ I was serious. I could not conceive that such an abusive personal attack could be anything but a tasteless practical joke. Of course it put an end to my attention to anything over that signature. And ignorant he showed himself to be - ignorant of the civilities. Since I have been deleting his messages unread I may not have seen his apology, which if it were appropriately grovelling could influence my opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Feb 2 00:57:07 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 00:57:07 -0000 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass References: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00da01c2c9a7$78a20280$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <009601c2ca56$76555fe0$07bd193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 4:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass . > > 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. > +=+ Now it does not surprise me to learn that the view is 'obvious' - I find frequently that what is generally 'obvious' is lost upon me. Here it seems to me that the view expressed is only evident when associated with a particular understanding of the nature of 'sport'. Indeed it is commonly argued that a sport is in essence a physical activity in which the competitors match their physical prowess in one or more trials of strength, endurance, and/or dexterity. In such trials I can well accept that the rules might seek to impose mechanical criteria. I am not convinced that the essence of bridge lies in dexterity of actions and of speech. It seems to me that competition in bridge tests qualities of judgement and of intellectual capacities. I make so bold as to believe that in significant respects the rules governing bridge must attach, therefore, to abstract or conjectural determinants. There may often be clues to these in the actions of players but I am sceptical that these can provide a complete basis for assessment of the players' observance of the parameters of the game. In my view the gladiators do battle in a judgemental arena and this frequently dictates the judgemental nature of arbitrations that must be made. Certainly the arbitrators are thus peciliarly vulnerable to opinion as to their skills in identifying abstract truths. So what? There are few, if any, forms of competition in which arbitrations are not criticized, where bias or preconception or mistake is never alleged. Competitors at large find it hard to accept unfavourable rulings,. When we play mind games our reality is all in the mind. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Feb 2 01:35:04 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 17:35:04 -0800 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: <003801c2ca5b$53410540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > A good example is how the French go about it. They always play EW up, boards > down (sorry if I mix up the two). That's standard in ACBL-land. .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. Also true in ACBL-land, even in the most prestigious pair events. Overall ranking for a two-winner movement, ridiculous. >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. A worse security problem is that E-W will often hear N-S discussing a deal when they arrive at the table. During the early part of the game, E-W if they wish can listen to the discussion of deals they haven't played yet. If N-S is asked to please not discuss a deal, the reply is that it was a general discussion having nothing to do with the deal just played. Yeah, right. In my experience TDs refuse to do anything about this problem. In the old days a pre-game announcement was commonly made that current deals must not be discussed within the hearing of new opponents. I haven't heard such an announcement for 30-40 years. > There are often more boards than you play, so comparing with > your friends can be no fun. The ACBL has sections of up to 18 tables at NABCs. Yes, the comparisons are no fun at all. "What did you do on board twenty?" "Didn't player it." As John Probst says, for a reasonable contest pairs should play at least 80% of the boards. There is rarely a need to have sections of greater than 15 tables in a huge event. Just sell 14-table sections and reassign any leftovers to table 15s. >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. Random seating, no choice, should be enforced. > Still nobody ever > complains and yes their tournaments always run smootly (even the dumbest TD > can handle this in his sleep). Yes, smoothly. Except that slow play isn't penalized generally, making for a jerky movement at times. > > Anyway, this is real life so the last percent of mathematical balance in a > movement really doesn't matter. It's more than a "last percent." We see games over here in which two sections play non-duplicated boards in a straight Mitchell. That's a four-winner game that should have four rankings, but the ranking is overall and there is no rule against it. Even at NABCs we have intra-section matchpointing in many events for which scoring across at least two sections would be easy. This isn't marginally unfair, it's grossly unfair. >But those puzzles can be great fun. I find the subject more frustrating than fun. Interesting, yes; fun, no. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California > From svenpran@online.no Sun Feb 2 20:24:27 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:24:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] No blml for 39 hours??? just testing Message-ID: <003d01c2caf9$15aa8780$6400a8c0@WINXP> 39 hours without any blml message? I cannot remember such a long interval before so I'm just testing that the system is working. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 3 12:24:28 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 13:24:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] First and final warning In-Reply-To: <009501c2ca56$75845440$07bd193e@4nrw70j> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030203131820.00a68c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:12 1/02/2003 +0000, grandeval wrote: >+=+ I was serious. I could not conceive that such an >abusive personal attack could be anything but a tasteless >practical joke. > Of course it put an end to my attention to anything >over that signature. And ignorant he showed himself to be > - ignorant of the civilities. > Since I have been deleting his messages unread >I may not have seen his apology, which if it were >appropriately grovelling could influence my opinion. AG: I would very much appreciate if you, all of you, decided to settle personal matters within personal mails and use blml for bl matters. The person in charge has decided to issue a severe warning. Right so. Now let's concentrate on interesting subjects. From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Feb 3 20:47:32 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:47:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] A language question References: <002501c2ca2d$b513ada0$9bf98351@davicaltd> Message-ID: <00ac01c2cbc5$7fb724e0$25b54351@noos.fr> 70C2 says ... at all likely ..... In the French version of the law this has been translated to the equivalent of very likely. My English is good enough to know that is wrong. But I am not so sure about the Dutch translation. Can native speakers help me to gauge the meaning. My gut feeling says something like 'might be reasonably possible' but please correct. And does it makes a difference between UK and US ? I will write a follow-up of this mail. There is a context. Jaap From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Feb 3 20:37:07 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:37:07 +0100 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass References: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00da01c2c9a7$78a20280$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> <009601c2ca56$76555fe0$07bd193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <00ab01c2cbc5$7ec48780$25b54351@noos.fr> Hail to the endless ping-pong match ! This discussion has gone on for a long time. It will go on forever because till they die David c.s. and Grattan c.s. will never agree. They just recycle their arguments. This can cause frustration with others. And that can cause ........... Actually it is a political question (if this could be brought to some kind of vote I take bets on the outcome). Do we want to eliminate intent judgements and the like as much as possible, or do we like the current situation where everybody can call for an TD/AC ruling on almost anything. And if the case makes any sense it will be a 'random' decision depending on the mood/culture/whatever of the TD/AC members. Don't tell me, I have been making too many of those rulings myself. The way I phrase the above probably shows my own opinion. For all kind of 'obvious' reasons simple 'mechanical' rules should be adopted wherever reasonable possible. I have never heard any good argument against it. Some time ago Ton said 'too extreme' or 'you get unfair results'. One thing is sure. Mechanical rules are fair by definition because they apply to everybody the same way (and your reputation or whatever cannot help you out with TD/AC). Unfortuanately in bridge we have the UI and 'wrong/incomplete/etc explanation' problems. They cannot be mechanized. And mechanizing shouldn't be overdone. It is not a goal in itself. David has said a lot about claiming. Although I think resolving claims should be mechanized, you need IMO judgement when there are problems about stating claims. At that moment it is human beings using ordinairy language (if at all). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 1:57 AM Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass > Grattan Endicott ======================================= > " The mind thinks, not with data but with ideas > whose creation and elaboration cannot be reduced > to a set of predictable values." > (Roszak) > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ======================================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: > Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 4:07 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass > . > > > > 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. > > > +=+ Now it does not surprise me to learn that the view > is 'obvious' - I find frequently that what is generally > 'obvious' is lost upon me. Here it seems to me that the > view expressed is only evident when associated with a > particular understanding of the nature of 'sport'. > Indeed it is commonly argued that a sport is in > essence a physical activity in which the competitors > match their physical prowess in one or more trials of > strength, endurance, and/or dexterity. In such trials I > can well accept that the rules might seek to impose > mechanical criteria. > I am not convinced that the essence of bridge lies > in dexterity of actions and of speech. It seems to me > that competition in bridge tests qualities of judgement > and of intellectual capacities. I make so bold as to > believe that in significant respects the rules governing > bridge must attach, therefore, to abstract or conjectural > determinants. There may often be clues to these in the > actions of players but I am sceptical that these can > provide a complete basis for assessment of the players' > observance of the parameters of the game. In my > view the gladiators do battle in a judgemental arena > and this frequently dictates the judgemental nature of > arbitrations that must be made. > Certainly the arbitrators are thus peciliarly vulnerable > to opinion as to their skills in identifying abstract truths. > So what? There are few, if any, forms of competition > in which arbitrations are not criticized, where bias or > preconception or mistake is never alleged. Competitors > at large find it hard to accept unfavourable rulings,. > When we play mind games our reality is all in the mind. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Feb 3 20:54:30 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:54:30 -0900 (AKST) Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass In-Reply-To: <00ab01c2cbc5$7ec48780$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Hail to the endless ping-pong match ! > > Actually it is a political question (if this could be brought to some kind > of vote I take bets on the outcome). Do we want to eliminate intent > judgements and the like as much as possible, or do we like the current > situation where everybody can call for an TD/AC ruling on almost anything. I think (I should know better, but I will say it anyway) that everyone agrees that everybody should always be able to call for a ruling on anything. > And if the case makes any sense it will be a 'random' decision depending on > the mood/culture/whatever of the TD/AC members. The desire for fewer judgment-call rulings has to do with this sentence, not the one before it. I'm generally in agreement with the rest of Jaap's post - liking to mechanize where we can instead of "equity for everything", but accepting that we will always need to use judgment in areas like UI. GRB From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Feb 3 22:17:13 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 22:17:13 -0000 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass References: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00da01c2c9a7$78a20280$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> <009601c2ca56$76555fe0$07bd193e@4nrw70j> <00ab01c2cbc5$7ec48780$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <009101c2cbd2$5d5027a0$e44487d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" ; Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 8:37 PM Subject: Re: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass > Hail to the endless ping-pong match ! > > This discussion has gone on for a long time. It will go on forever > because till they die David c.s. and Grattan c.s. will never agree. > They just recycle their arguments. This can cause frustration with > others. And that can cause ........... > +=+ You have me at a disadvantage, Jaap, since you recall when, and in what context, I last said anything on this question. It is my impression that, in this, I passively observe what David says and the responses he receives. We do not debate it between us. It was kind of you to let me have two copies of your opinion. :-) ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 4 01:41:14 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 01:41:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] First and final warning References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030203131820.00a68c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002801c2cbef$962dc740$4de7193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:24 PM > > AG: I would very much appreciate if you, all of you, > decided to settle personal matters within personal mails > and use blml for bl matters. > +=+ You do not allow that, being publicly attacked, one may reply publicly? - with fact and courtesy? +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 4 08:16:52 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:16:52 +0100 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass References: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00da01c2c9a7$78a20280$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> <009601c2ca56$76555fe0$07bd193e@4nrw70j> <00ab01c2cbc5$7ec48780$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E3F76F4.30903@skynet.be> Hello Jaap, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Hail to the endless ping-pong match ! > Yes, and you've seen only the second half of the fifth set! > This discussion has gone on for a long time. It will go on forever because > till they die David c.s. and Grattan c.s. will never agree. They just > recycle their arguments. This can cause frustration with others. And that > can cause ........... > Indeed. But every so often, new arguments do come forward, and we get some extra insight. > Actually it is a political question (if this could be brought to some kind > of vote I take bets on the outcome). Do we want to eliminate intent > judgements and the like as much as possible, or do we like the current > situation where everybody can call for an TD/AC ruling on almost anything. > And if the case makes any sense it will be a 'random' decision depending on > the mood/culture/whatever of the TD/AC members. Don't tell me, I have been > making too many of those rulings myself. > > The way I phrase the above probably shows my own opinion. For all kind of > 'obvious' reasons simple 'mechanical' rules should be adopted wherever > reasonable possible. I have never heard any good argument against it. Some > time ago Ton said 'too extreme' or 'you get unfair results'. One thing is > sure. Mechanical rules are fair by definition because they apply to > everybody the same way (and your reputation or whatever cannot help you out > with TD/AC). > There is one argument against: it will be very hard to get people to follow the mechanical rules. And very harsh on them in the meanwhile. Is it just Belgians or is the phenomenon more wide-spread, but after 4 years of an unchanged alerting policy, players still said they did not know what to alert and what not ? (and I can assure you this was not because it was too complicated). Momentum may seem like a lazy argument, but rest assured, it is one. Do you want to be the director who is the first to rule "you did not state you would draw trumps, so I am ruling this super-obvious 7Sp that you claimed after the lead, down three". > Unfortuanately in bridge we have the UI and 'wrong/incomplete/etc > explanation' problems. They cannot be mechanized. And mechanizing shouldn't > be overdone. It is not a goal in itself. David has said a lot about > claiming. Although I think resolving claims should be mechanized, you need > IMO judgement when there are problems about stating claims. At that moment > it is human beings using ordinairy language (if at all). > > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Feb 4 08:01:03 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:01:03 +0100 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass References: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00da01c2c9a7$78a20280$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> <009601c2ca56$76555fe0$07bd193e@4nrw70j> <00ab01c2cbc5$7ec48780$25b54351@noos.fr> <009101c2cbd2$5d5027a0$e44487d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <004a01c2cc26$b0d703e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Sorry Grattan, I just happened to answer your mail. You are right that David did most of the discussing with Herman and others. Nothing personal. I just try to discuss the subject at hand. Please read Herman (Ton?) c.s. instead of Grattan c.s. instead (or whatever, it is not the real issue). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 11:17 PM Subject: Re: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass > > Grattan Endicott ======================================= > " Designers must be sensitive to what is > technically possible and what is humanly > desirable." [Terence Conran] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "grandeval" ; > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 8:37 PM > Subject: Re: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass > > > > Hail to the endless ping-pong match ! > > > > This discussion has gone on for a long time. It will go on forever > > because till they die David c.s. and Grattan c.s. will never agree. > > They just recycle their arguments. This can cause frustration with > > others. And that can cause ........... > > > +=+ You have me at a disadvantage, Jaap, since you recall when, > and in what context, I last said anything on this question. It is my > impression that, in this, I passively observe what David says and > the responses he receives. We do not debate it between us. > It was kind of you to let me have two copies of your opinion. :-) > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Feb 4 09:05:58 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:05:58 +0100 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass References: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00da01c2c9a7$78a20280$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> <009601c2ca56$76555fe0$07bd193e@4nrw70j> <00ab01c2cbc5$7ec48780$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E3F76F4.30903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002101c2cc2c$a552f5a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman, You mention two subjects. 1. Alerting This is a complicated subject which is better to be discussed independently. 2. Save the rabbit's 7S. Well in ACBL land they have no problem with that and I am sure some rabbits have suffered greatly at the hands of their ghastly AC's. This is why all those ACBL rabbits now claim correctly. As I said before, I really don't care which mechanical rule we apply (you have to mention trumps, you are supposed to start on trumps, or whatever), as long as we pick one. However I do think the current situation is completely ridiculous where awarding that 7S (or not) is a random decision by an AC which is a toss-up because the rules are vague and there is no consensus about their interpretation. Are you the one to tell the opponent of the claimer that the claim is awarded when just last week another committee ruled the other way (when dear opponent or his brother was the claimer). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 9:16 AM Subject: Re: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass > Hello Jaap, > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Hail to the endless ping-pong match ! > > > > > Yes, and you've seen only the second half of the fifth set! > > > > This discussion has gone on for a long time. It will go on forever because > > till they die David c.s. and Grattan c.s. will never agree. They just > > recycle their arguments. This can cause frustration with others. And that > > can cause ........... > > > > > Indeed. But every so often, new arguments do come forward, and we get > some extra insight. > > > > Actually it is a political question (if this could be brought to some kind > > of vote I take bets on the outcome). Do we want to eliminate intent > > judgements and the like as much as possible, or do we like the current > > situation where everybody can call for an TD/AC ruling on almost anything. > > And if the case makes any sense it will be a 'random' decision depending on > > the mood/culture/whatever of the TD/AC members. Don't tell me, I have been > > making too many of those rulings myself. > > > > The way I phrase the above probably shows my own opinion. For all kind of > > 'obvious' reasons simple 'mechanical' rules should be adopted wherever > > reasonable possible. I have never heard any good argument against it. Some > > time ago Ton said 'too extreme' or 'you get unfair results'. One thing is > > sure. Mechanical rules are fair by definition because they apply to > > everybody the same way (and your reputation or whatever cannot help you out > > with TD/AC). > > > > > There is one argument against: it will be very hard to get people to > follow the mechanical rules. And very harsh on them in the meanwhile. > Is it just Belgians or is the phenomenon more wide-spread, but after 4 > years of an unchanged alerting policy, players still said they did not > know what to alert and what not ? (and I can assure you this was not > because it was too complicated). > Momentum may seem like a lazy argument, but rest assured, it is one. > > Do you want to be the director who is the first to rule "you did not > state you would draw trumps, so I am ruling this super-obvious 7Sp > that you claimed after the lead, down three". > > > > Unfortuanately in bridge we have the UI and 'wrong/incomplete/etc > > explanation' problems. They cannot be mechanized. And mechanizing shouldn't > > be overdone. It is not a goal in itself. David has said a lot about > > claiming. Although I think resolving claims should be mechanized, you need > > IMO judgement when there are problems about stating claims. At that moment > > it is human beings using ordinairy language (if at all). > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 4 10:27:03 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:27:03 +0100 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass In-Reply-To: <00ab01c2cbc5$7ec48780$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00da01c2c9a7$78a20280$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> <009601c2ca56$76555fe0$07bd193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030204112054.00a749f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:37 3/02/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >The way I phrase the above probably shows my own opinion. For all kind of >'obvious' reasons simple 'mechanical' rules should be adopted wherever >reasonable possible. I have never heard any good argument against it. Some >time ago Ton said 'too extreme' or 'you get unfair results'. One thing is >sure. Mechanical rules are fair by definition because they apply to >everybody the same way (and your reputation or whatever cannot help you out >with TD/AC). AG : that's true. However, this principle contradicts the statement of principle that Laws are made for equity (ie restoring a result that was altered by an infraction) rather than punishment. Some of us consider this as the most important sentence in TFLB. >Unfortuanately in bridge we have the UI and 'wrong/incomplete/etc >explanation' problems. They cannot be mechanized. And mechanizing shouldn't >be overdone. It is not a goal in itself. David has said a lot about >claiming. Although I think resolving claims should be mechanized, you need >IMO judgement when there are problems about stating claims. At that moment >it is human beings using ordinairy language (if at all). AG : the biggest danger about mechanizing rulings about declarations (eg claims) made by people is that you would put at a serious disadvantage those who have to make those declarations in a language other than their own. ACBL will find it minor, but in Europe, this could mean a great deal of inequity. Best regards, Alain. I find frequently that what is generally From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 4 10:24:24 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:24:24 +0100 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass References: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00da01c2c9a7$78a20280$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> <009601c2ca56$76555fe0$07bd193e@4nrw70j> <00ab01c2cbc5$7ec48780$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E3F76F4.30903@skynet.be> <002101c2cc2c$a552f5a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E3F94D8.7040206@skynet.be> Yes Jaap, I realize that the argument can work both ways, but this is not a symmetrical issue: Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman, > > You mention two subjects. > > 1. Alerting > This is a complicated subject which is better to be discussed independently. > I just mentioned this as an example of the immense difficulties we would face in changing fundamental bridge habits. > 2. Save the rabbit's 7S. > Well in ACBL land they have no problem with that and I am sure some rabbits > have suffered greatly at the hands of their ghastly AC's. This is why all > those ACBL rabbits now claim correctly. As I said before, I really don't > care which mechanical rule we apply (you have to mention trumps, you are > supposed to start on trumps, or whatever), as long as we pick one. However I > do think the current situation is completely ridiculous where awarding that > 7S (or not) is a random decision by an AC which is a toss-up because the > rules are vague and there is no consensus about their interpretation. Are > you the one to tell the opponent of the claimer that the claim is awarded > when just last week another committee ruled the other way (when dear > opponent or his brother was the claimer). > This is what I mean by non-symmetrical. We are used to explaining this. We are not used to explaining the opposite. It is very easy to explain a border-line case. And to explain why a similar case that came up last week was not similar at all. It is not easy to explain that a player loses 3 tricks in a cold 7Sp because of some technicality which was changed 5 years ago after having been the same for the previous 80 years. Especially when in those intervening 5 years the same thing has happened and this is the first time some bridge-lawyer tries to take advantage of it. Because that is what you will have: normal opponents will continue to play in the leasurely manner they are used to, and then you are faced with a bridge-lawyer. > Jaap > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 4 10:45:11 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:45:11 +0100 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass In-Reply-To: <3E3F76F4.30903@skynet.be> References: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00da01c2c9a7$78a20280$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> <009601c2ca56$76555fe0$07bd193e@4nrw70j> <00ab01c2cbc5$7ec48780$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030204113644.00a7ac10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:16 4/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >There is one argument against: it will be very hard to get people to >follow the mechanical rules. And very harsh on them in the meanwhile. >Is it just Belgians or is the phenomenon more wide-spread, but after 4 >years of an unchanged alerting policy, players still said they did not >know what to alert and what not ? (and I can assure you this was not >because it was too complicated). AG : please note that there was a radical change less than one year ago - a very bad one IMOBO - and that it is quite normal that people have some difficulties getting it. Part of the answer lies in the fact that Belgian bridge legislation suffers of two specific handicaps : - lack of communication - translation problems If either a) every club was informed as soon as a change in the legislation occurs or b) there was a national publication to inform us the problem would be cut by more than half. If you listen at people, they do not pretend that they don't know about alert rules ; they pretend they were never informed. And they are often right. I've asked many times about the alert rules around the Walsh complex (alert the 1D response ? the 1H/1S response ? the 1H/S rebid ? the 1NT rebid ? the 1C 1D 1M 2M sequence ?). Not even experienced TDs know the answers. Why should the _vulgum pecus_ know ? Best regards, Alain. From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 4 09:54:42 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:54:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] A language question References: <002501c2ca2d$b513ada0$9bf98351@davicaltd> <00ac01c2cbc5$7fb724e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000101c2cc3b$ab14d080$f8ca4c51@pc> Some while ago, I watched a TV program(me) in which a number of medical types were asked to rate as a %ge the likelyhood of an event occuring when they told patients various things. A group of "patients" were then asked what they would understand in %ge terms if their doctor/nurse told them certain things. Phrases used were things like....quite likely, reasonable chance, not very likely, distinct possibility, highly unlikely, small risk, near certain etc., etc. The medical group and the lay group varied enormously within themselves and the two groups varied enormously from each other. This when talking about deceases and operation outlooks. What chance do we have? lnb > ... at all likely ..... > > In the French version of the law this has been translated to the equivalent > of very likely. My English is good enough to know that is wrong. But I am > not so sure about the Dutch translation. Can native speakers help me to > gauge the meaning. My gut feeling says something like 'might be reasonably > possible' but please correct. And does it makes a difference between UK and > US ? > > I will write a follow-up of this mail. There is a context. > > Jaap From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 4 11:32:08 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 12:32:08 +0100 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass References: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00da01c2c9a7$78a20280$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> <009601c2ca56$76555fe0$07bd193e@4nrw70j> <00ab01c2cbc5$7ec48780$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030204113644.00a7ac10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E3FA4B8.4060009@skynet.be> Alain, don't tell me something I know very well. Also don't tell the world about bad things in Belgium, certainly not those I am partly responsible for (although in this case only for reason of not shouting loud enough that this is crap). The current alert procedures do not illustrate the point I was trying to make. The former ones did. Even simple regulations don't get followed by the public. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 09:16 4/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> There is one argument against: it will be very hard to get people to >> follow the mechanical rules. And very harsh on them in the meanwhile. >> Is it just Belgians or is the phenomenon more wide-spread, but after 4 >> years of an unchanged alerting policy, players still said they did not >> know what to alert and what not ? (and I can assure you this was not >> because it was too complicated). > > > AG : please note that there was a radical change less than one year ago > - a very bad one IMOBO - and that it is quite normal that people have > some difficulties getting it. > Part of the answer lies in the fact that Belgian bridge legislation > suffers of two specific handicaps : > - lack of communication > - translation problems > If either > a) every club was informed as soon as a change in the legislation occurs > or > b) there was a national publication to inform us > the problem would be cut by more than half. > > If you listen at people, they do not pretend that they don't know about > alert rules ; they pretend they were never informed. And they are often > right. I've asked many times about the alert rules around the Walsh > complex (alert the 1D response ? the 1H/1S response ? the 1H/S rebid ? > the 1NT rebid ? the 1C 1D 1M 2M sequence ?). Not even experienced TDs > know the answers. Why should the _vulgum pecus_ know ? > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Feb 4 12:26:45 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 13:26:45 +0100 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass References: Message-ID: <006401c2cc48$b06f7000$25b54351@noos.fr> Gorden, Thanks for your support :) Gordon wrote: > I think (I should know better, but I will say it anyway) that everyone > agrees that everybody should always be able to call for a ruling on > anything. Well yes, of course you are right. Don't worry, I don't want to curtail anybody's rights. What I was on my mind when writing such, is that mechanical rules eliminate lots of those rulings. You still (might) need a TD to decide whether it is a revoke or not (example) but then it stops because the revoke law fortunately offers little scope for you convincing an TD/AC that you are really not to blame or whatever. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" Cc: Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:54 PM Subject: Re: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass > > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Hail to the endless ping-pong match ! > > > > Actually it is a political question (if this could be brought to some kind > > of vote I take bets on the outcome). Do we want to eliminate intent > > judgements and the like as much as possible, or do we like the current > > situation where everybody can call for an TD/AC ruling on almost anything. > > I think (I should know better, but I will say it anyway) that everyone > agrees that everybody should always be able to call for a ruling on > anything. > > > And if the case makes any sense it will be a 'random' decision depending on > > the mood/culture/whatever of the TD/AC members. > > The desire for fewer judgment-call rulings has to do with this sentence, > not the one before it. > > I'm generally in agreement with the rest of Jaap's post - liking to > mechanize where we can instead of "equity for everything", but accepting > that we will always need to use judgment in areas like UI. > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Feb 4 13:29:52 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 08:29:52 -0500 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass In-Reply-To: <006401c2cc48$b06f7000$25b54351@noos.fr> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030204081052.01f5e500@pop.starpower.net> At 07:26 AM 2/4/03, Jaap wrote: >Gordon wrote: > > I think (I should know better, but I will say it anyway) that everyone > > agrees that everybody should always be able to call for a ruling on > > anything. > >Well yes, of course you are right. Don't worry, I don't want to curtail >anybody's rights. What I was on my mind when writing such, is that >mechanical >rules eliminate lots of those rulings. You still (might) need a TD to >decide >whether it is a revoke or not (example) but then it stops because the >revoke >law fortunately offers little scope for you convincing an TD/AC that >you are >really not to blame or whatever. It also stops because, having rewritten the laws to eliminate judgment in favor of mechanical rules, we will no longer have the equivalent of L64C, which is totally based on judgment. And we will have reverted to the bad old days when a strictly mechanical rule allowed unethical players to revoke deliberately, to their own advantage, with no provision for redress. I do not believe that it is possible to eliminate judgment in favor of totally mechanical rules from a body of laws that are "primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage". And I do not believe that we want to abandon this fundamental principle of our laws. IMO, making the rules totally mechanical serves those who have to enforce them (TDs and ACs) at the expense of those upon whom they are enforced (the players), and we must ask ourselves for whose benefit are we are writing them. Those fond of real life analogies may want to consider what the U.S. has done to is system of justice over the last 20 years or so by passing totally mechanical sentencing rules for drug offenders. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 4 14:21:09 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 15:21:09 +0100 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass In-Reply-To: <3E3FA4B8.4060009@skynet.be> References: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00da01c2c9a7$78a20280$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> <009601c2ca56$76555fe0$07bd193e@4nrw70j> <00ab01c2cbc5$7ec48780$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030204113644.00a7ac10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030204151636.00a77af0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:32 4/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Alain, don't tell me something I know very well. >Also don't tell the world about bad things in Belgium, certainly not those= =20 >I am partly responsible for (although in this case only for reason of not= =20 >shouting loud enough that this is crap). AG : let's do it together : *the new Belgian rules are CRAP* :-=A7 Cynism is "the art of telling things as they are, rather than as one would= =20 wish them to appear". I'm a great advocate of cynism. >The current alert procedures do not illustrate the point I was trying to=20 >make. The former ones did. Even simple regulations don't get followed by=20 >the public. AG : plaese note that my point about Walsh regulations has nothing to do=20 with the new regulations. The former ones were badly documented, badly transmitted and badly known by= =20 TDs. Do you expect the player-in-the-room to know them by heart ? From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Feb 4 16:50:09 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 17:50:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] A language question References: <002501c2ca2d$b513ada0$9bf98351@davicaltd> <00ac01c2cbc5$7fb724e0$25b54351@noos.fr> <000101c2cc3b$ab14d080$f8ca4c51@pc> Message-ID: <004701c2cc6d$7c715960$25b54351@noos.fr> Thanks Larry, Of course I agree with you. Still I would like to know how good or bad my guess at the value of 'at all likely' is. To be more precise, can anyone rephrase 70C2 using another word/words. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "LarryBennett" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A language question > Some while ago, I watched a TV program(me) in which > a number of medical types were asked to rate as a > %ge the likelyhood of an event occuring when they > told patients various things. > A group of "patients" were then asked what they > would understand in %ge terms if their doctor/nurse > told them certain things. > Phrases used were things like....quite likely, > reasonable chance, not very likely, distinct > possibility, highly unlikely, small risk, near > certain etc., etc. > The medical group and the lay group varied > enormously within themselves and the two groups > varied enormously from each other. This when talking > about deceases and operation outlooks. > What chance do we have? > > lnb > > > ... at all likely ..... > > > > In the French version of the law this has been > translated to the equivalent > > of very likely. My English is good enough to know > that is wrong. But I am > > not so sure about the Dutch translation. Can > native speakers help me to > > gauge the meaning. My gut feeling says something > like 'might be reasonably > > possible' but please correct. And does it makes a > difference between UK and > > US ? > > > > I will write a follow-up of this mail. There is a > context. > > > > Jaap > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Feb 4 16:54:20 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 17:54:20 +0100 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030204081052.01f5e500@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005301c2cc6e$17db1da0$25b54351@noos.fr> Eric, Please read my original post before reacting like this. I didn't even suggest eliminating judgement let alone that I favor totally mechanical rules. That would be more than silly. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:29 PM Subject: Re: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass > At 07:26 AM 2/4/03, Jaap wrote: > > >Gordon wrote: > > > I think (I should know better, but I will say it anyway) that everyone > > > agrees that everybody should always be able to call for a ruling on > > > anything. > > > >Well yes, of course you are right. Don't worry, I don't want to curtail > >anybody's rights. What I was on my mind when writing such, is that > >mechanical > >rules eliminate lots of those rulings. You still (might) need a TD to > >decide > >whether it is a revoke or not (example) but then it stops because the > >revoke > >law fortunately offers little scope for you convincing an TD/AC that > >you are > >really not to blame or whatever. > > It also stops because, having rewritten the laws to eliminate judgment > in favor of mechanical rules, we will no longer have the equivalent of > L64C, which is totally based on judgment. And we will have reverted to > the bad old days when a strictly mechanical rule allowed unethical > players to revoke deliberately, to their own advantage, with no > provision for redress. > > I do not believe that it is possible to eliminate judgment in favor of > totally mechanical rules from a body of laws that are "primarily > designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress > for damage". And I do not believe that we want to abandon this > fundamental principle of our laws. > > IMO, making the rules totally mechanical serves those who have to > enforce them (TDs and ACs) at the expense of those upon whom they are > enforced (the players), and we must ask ourselves for whose benefit are > we are writing them. > > Those fond of real life analogies may want to consider what the U.S. > has done to is system of justice over the last 20 years or so by > passing totally mechanical sentencing rules for drug offenders. > > > 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 jaapb@noos.fr Tue Feb 4 17:13:26 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 18:13:26 +0100 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass References: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00da01c2c9a7$78a20280$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> <009601c2ca56$76555fe0$07bd193e@4nrw70j> <00ab01c2cbc5$7ec48780$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E3F76F4.30903@skynet.be> <002101c2cc2c$a552f5a0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E3F94D8.7040206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006701c2cc70$bd33fea0$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman: > It is very easy to explain a border-line case. And to explain why a > similar case that came up last week was not similar at all. > It is not easy to explain that a player loses 3 tricks in a cold 7Sp > because of some technicality which was changed 5 years ago after > having been the same for the previous 80 years. Especially when in > those intervening 5 years the same thing has happened and this is the > first time some bridge-lawyer tries to take advantage of it. > Because that is what you will have: normal opponents will continue to > play in the leasurely manner they are used to, and then you are faced > with a bridge-lawyer. Hey, it is not me who wrote the current 70C. If people complain about harsh rulings they should complain about WBFLC who is responsible for 70C which easily supports rather harsh decisions. But which leaves enough room for AC's to rule different in identical cases. I can easily live with the French approach (mechanical rule = a simple claim is cashing trumps first). But that is not the point. For serious tournament bridge we need some clear rule one way or another (and not only for this problem). If not the AC lottery will persist. And for me that is a far bigger evil than some of the mechanical rules being a little bit harsh. I can also understand your argument that in 'our local club/region/country we cannot change our habits'. But there are many different habits on this Earth and we still want to play international championships from time to time. So either we make different laws for every situation or something has to give. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 11:24 AM Subject: Re: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass > Yes Jaap, I realize that the argument can work both ways, but this is > not a symmetrical issue: > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Herman, > > > > You mention two subjects. > > > > 1. Alerting > > This is a complicated subject which is better to be discussed independently. > > > > > I just mentioned this as an example of the immense difficulties we > would face in changing fundamental bridge habits. > > > > 2. Save the rabbit's 7S. > > Well in ACBL land they have no problem with that and I am sure some rabbits > > have suffered greatly at the hands of their ghastly AC's. This is why all > > those ACBL rabbits now claim correctly. As I said before, I really don't > > care which mechanical rule we apply (you have to mention trumps, you are > > supposed to start on trumps, or whatever), as long as we pick one. However I > > do think the current situation is completely ridiculous where awarding that > > 7S (or not) is a random decision by an AC which is a toss-up because the > > rules are vague and there is no consensus about their interpretation. Are > > you the one to tell the opponent of the claimer that the claim is awarded > > when just last week another committee ruled the other way (when dear > > opponent or his brother was the claimer). > > > > > This is what I mean by non-symmetrical. > We are used to explaining this. > We are not used to explaining the opposite. > > It is very easy to explain a border-line case. And to explain why a > similar case that came up last week was not similar at all. > It is not easy to explain that a player loses 3 tricks in a cold 7Sp > because of some technicality which was changed 5 years ago after > having been the same for the previous 80 years. Especially when in > those intervening 5 years the same thing has happened and this is the > first time some bridge-lawyer tries to take advantage of it. > Because that is what you will have: normal opponents will continue to > play in the leasurely manner they are used to, and then you are faced > with a bridge-lawyer. > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Feb 4 18:36:27 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 18:36:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] A language question In-Reply-To: <004701c2cc6d$7c715960$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <91FEBF7A-386F-11D7-9F1A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Tuesday, February 4, 2003, at 04:50 PM, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Thanks Larry, > > Of course I agree with you. Still I would like to know how good or bad > my > guess at the value of 'at all likely' is. To be more precise, can > anyone > rephrase 70C2 using another word/words. > > Jaap I think it's the counter to "very unlikely", as in: "unless it is very unlikely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand," -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Feb 4 19:17:33 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 14:17:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass Message-ID: <200302041917.OAA21824@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : the biggest danger about mechanizing rulings about declarations (eg > claims) made by people is that you would put at a serious disadvantage > those who have to make those declarations in a language other than their > own. The underlying problem has been mentioned before. There will always have to be judgment about the meaning of whatever words are uttered. The language problem is an additional difficulty, no doubt, but the type of judgment it requires is no different than deciding whether, for example, "cashing spades" means from the top, performing an obvious unblock, or whatever. Mechanical rules about claims show their biggest advantage when claimer fails altogether to state a line of play. That shouldn't be affected by language problems. > From: Eric Landau > It also stops because, having rewritten the laws to eliminate judgment > in favor of mechanical rules, we will no longer have the equivalent of > L64C, which is totally based on judgment. Oh, come on, Eric. In the first place, I don't think anyone is talking about eliminating judgment altogether. Information infractions (UI and MI) and applying L12C2/12C3 will always require judgment. The point is to minimize judgment in what should be questions of fact. In the second place, L64C is not a good example. Usually it requires nothing more than a double-dummy solver. I suppose in complex cases it requires the equivalent of a L12C2 judgment. In any case, no one is talking about eliminating this particular law. A better way of phrasing what we are talking about is "eliminating the need for mind reading," at least for score adjustment purposes. That seems an achievable objective. > a body of laws that are "primarily > designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress > for damage". And I do not believe that we want to abandon this > fundamental principle of our laws. I am afraid we disagree on what is desirable. > Those fond of real life analogies may want to consider what the U.S. > has done to is system of justice over the last 20 years or so by > passing totally mechanical sentencing rules for drug offenders. Considering intent, or "mind reading," is appropriate in disciplinary matters in bridge and in criminal law. A better real world analogy would be the question of compensation for damage caused by someone else. "No fault insurance" and "workers compensation" are somewhat analagous to mechanical bridge rulings. From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Feb 4 20:51:47 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:51:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] A language question References: <91FEBF7A-386F-11D7-9F1A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <001401c2cc8f$53f4d8a0$4903e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A language question > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2003, at 04:50 PM, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >. Still I would like to know how good or bad my guess at > > the value of 'at all likely' is. To be more precise can > > anyone rephrase 70C2 using another word/words. > > > > Jaap > +=+ Somewhere there is comment on the subject, coming from exchanges with EK in 1986-7. It may be in the EBL Commentary of 1992. (My copy is with Anna Gudge at present, so I am not able to look it up.) Or I may be able to find material in my 1987 files, but there is a lot of that to go through. I will try to make time to look at the papers for the 1987 seminar on the new laws. It is something like "not necessarily probable to happen but sufficiently possible that it is not unthinkable that it may occur. " Let us see if we can dig up the ancient wisdom. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From HarrisR@missouri.edu Tue Feb 4 22:10:30 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 16:10:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] ACBL Bidding Box Regulations Message-ID: Steve Wilner called my attention to the fact that I had quoted the old ACBL regulations. The current ones are at http://www.acbl.org/details.asp?id=1832&PID=10034&RID=9687 1. A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards, removing bidding cards prior to the call being considered "made," etc., may subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. 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. Until a call is considered made, the director will treat the situation as unauthorized information and apply Law 16. After a call is considered made, the director will apply Law 25. 2. A call, once made, may be changed without penalty under the provisions of Law 25 only if a player has inadvertently taken out the wrong bidding card, and the player corrects, or attempts to correct without pause for thought, and Partner has not taken action (picking up the bidding cards after the auction is over constitutes taking action). 3. The skip-bid warning is given using bidding boxes by displaying the stop card, making a call and then replacing the stop card in the bidding box. LHO is obligated to wait 10 seconds (while giving the appearance of studying his hand) before making a call. -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From moranl@netvision.net.il Tue Feb 4 22:15:46 2003 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 00:15:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] A language question In-Reply-To: <001401c2cc8f$53f4d8a0$4903e150@endicott> References: <91FEBF7A-386F-11D7-9F1A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20030204235033.00a5aa60@mail.netvision.net.il> The 1992 EBL commentary has this to say: quote ....Director acts on the understanding that the claimer is unaware of its existence, unless it is patent this is not so. unquote According to this, therefore, law 70C2 can be paraphrased thus: "claimer who has made no statement about this trump shall lose a trick or tricks (if it/they could be lost etc) unless he was obviously and openly aware of this trump" David Burn's solution (claimer who has made no statement about this trump shall lose a trick or tricks if it/they could be lost full stop) is still the only unambiguous solution, and the objections to his logical and clear-cut approach don't convince me at all. Eitan Levy At 20:51 04/02/03 +0000, you wrote: >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"It is our light, not our darkness, that >most frightens us." > {Marianne Williamson} >============================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Gordon Rainsford" >Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 6:36 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] A language question > > > > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2003, at 04:50 PM, Jaap van der Neut >wrote: > > >. Still I would like to know how good or bad my guess at > > > the value of 'at all likely' is. To be more precise can > > > anyone rephrase 70C2 using another word/words. > > > > > > Jaap > > >+=+ Somewhere there is comment on the subject, coming from >exchanges with EK in 1986-7. It may be in the EBL Commentary >of 1992. (My copy is with Anna Gudge at present, so I am not >able to look it up.) > Or I may be able to find material in my 1987 files, but >there is a lot of that to go through. I will try to make time to >look at the papers for the 1987 seminar on the new laws. > It is something like "not necessarily probable to happen >but sufficiently possible that it is not unthinkable that it may >occur. " > Let us see if we can dig up the ancient wisdom. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 4 22:23:57 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 22:23:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] A language question References: <91FEBF7A-386F-11D7-9F1A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <001401c2cc8f$53f4d8a0$4903e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001b01c2cc9c$437b1720$5043893e@pc> ".......where nothing has been said about it, the director acts on the understanding that the claimer is unaware of its existence, unless this is patently not so. If on any normal line of play, one that is not irrational - as failing to over-ruff where this will avoid it's loss - the trump must be deeemed to take a trick........" lnb > +=+ Somewhere there is comment on the subject, coming from > exchanges with EK in 1986-7. It may be in the EBL Commentary > of 1992. (My copy is with Anna Gudge at present, so I am not > able to look it up.) > Or I may be able to find material in my 1987 files, but > there is a lot of that to go through. I will try to make time to > look at the papers for the 1987 seminar on the new laws. > It is something like "not necessarily probable to happen > but sufficiently possible that it is not unthinkable that it may > occur. " > Let us see if we can dig up the ancient wisdom. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Feb 4 22:21:42 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 17:21:42 -0500 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass In-Reply-To: <005301c2cc6e$17db1da0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030204081052.01f5e500@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030204170653.01f5d0d0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:54 AM 2/4/03, Jaap wrote: >Eric, > >Please read my original post before reacting like this. I didn't even >suggest eliminating judgement let alone that I favor totally mechanical >rules. That would be more than silly. I didn't mean to pin any particular position on Jaap, and apologize to him if that wasn't clear from my message. His post was simply a convenient hook on which to hang a broad statement that generalizes well beyond the specific point he was addressing. This thread has evolved into a discussion of the general philosophy of the laws, contrasting what I shall call the "mechanist" viewpoint with the "judgmental" one. The debate so far has been largely between David, who is a "strict mechanist", and various others who believe the laws have more or less scope for judgmental influence (do we have any "strict judgmentalists", a la Jeff Rubens editorial writings in The Bridge World?). I believe this is an important discussion, and that it would behoove our lawmakers to address and formulate their views on the issue before they undertake their next revision of TFLB. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > At 07:26 AM 2/4/03, Jaap wrote: > > > > >Gordon wrote: > > > > I think (I should know better, but I will say it anyway) that > everyone > > > > agrees that everybody should always be able to call for a ruling on > > > > anything. > > > > > >Well yes, of course you are right. Don't worry, I don't want to > curtail > > >anybody's rights. What I was on my mind when writing such, is that > > >mechanical > > >rules eliminate lots of those rulings. You still (might) need a TD to > > >decide > > >whether it is a revoke or not (example) but then it stops because the > > >revoke > > >law fortunately offers little scope for you convincing an TD/AC that > > >you are > > >really not to blame or whatever. > > > > It also stops because, having rewritten the laws to eliminate judgment > > in favor of mechanical rules, we will no longer have the equivalent of > > L64C, which is totally based on judgment. And we will have reverted to > > the bad old days when a strictly mechanical rule allowed unethical > > players to revoke deliberately, to their own advantage, with no > > provision for redress. > > > > I do not believe that it is possible to eliminate judgment in favor of > > totally mechanical rules from a body of laws that are "primarily > > designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress > > for damage". And I do not believe that we want to abandon this > > fundamental principle of our laws. > > > > IMO, making the rules totally mechanical serves those who have to > > enforce them (TDs and ACs) at the expense of those upon whom they are > > enforced (the players), and we must ask ourselves for whose benefit are > > we are writing them. > > > > Those fond of real life analogies may want to consider what the U.S. > > has done to is system of justice over the last 20 years or so by > > passing totally mechanical sentencing rules for drug offenders. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Feb 4 22:49:12 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 13:49:12 -0900 (AKST) Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030204081052.01f5e500@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Not sure about the others contributing to this thread... but I didn't think anyone was proposing getting rid of 64C. There just are many of us who think it would be a mistake to get rid of 64A and rely ONLY on a 64C-type ruling. Come to think of it, the word "equity" is only in the title of 64C, not the text of the law. If the director thinks all revokes should carry a 2-trick penalty, what's to stop him from taking away an extra trick from one-trick revokes? (Not saying it's right. Not saying anyone would do it. But it is unusual that 64C seems to give specific powers that could be read as in excess of those allowed by 12B, by those who subscribe to the "specific laws always take precedence over general ones" philosophy.) I forget - is making the headings part of the laws something that is likely to happen in the next edition? Or do we need to be noting all the places where key words from headings need inserted into the body? GRB From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Feb 5 07:27:28 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:27:28 -0000 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass References: Message-ID: <001301c2cce8$3f2cba10$f445e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 10:49 PM Subject: Re: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass > > If the director thinks all revokes should carry a > 2-trick penalty, what's to stop him from taking > away an extra trick from one-trick revokes? > +=+ I do not think that would have anything to do with compensation for the damage caused. +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Feb 5 07:37:39 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:37:39 -0000 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass References: Message-ID: <001f01c2cce9$8c9b27e0$f445e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 10:49 PM Subject: Re: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass > I forget - is making the headings part of the laws > something that is likely to happen in the next edition? > Or do we need to be noting all the places where key > words from headings need inserted into the body? > +=+ Without discussing solutions, let us just say the need to undo this kind of confusion is something of which the subcommittee is aware. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 5 08:33:22 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 09:33:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Infractions shall not pay" - 5 different (partly) overlapping laws? Message-ID: <000d01c2ccf1$3f455c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Law 12A1: The Director may award an adjusted score ....when these laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant ..... Law 12B: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided ....is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. Law 23: ...... when the Director deems that the offender ....... could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side ..... and consider awarding an adjusted score (See Law 72B1) Law 64C: When ........ the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated ...... he shall assign an adjusted score. Law 72B1: Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known ......damage the non-offending side .......awarding an adjusted score if .... offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. These are five laws essentially covering the same principle: Infractions shall not pay. Is it really neccessary to have so many different laws stating this same principle, each more or less handling a different situation? After all "Infractions shall not pay" is one of the pillars of the game we play, it ought to be possible to have a single law early in the law book that states this principle in a way that is generally applicable? And incidently: I have always used and interpreted Law 12B as if it read: ......unduly severe to offending side or unduly advantageous to non-offending side. The present text undisputably denies the Director the right to award an adjusted score on the ground that the provided penalty is unduly advantageous to the offending side and/or unduly severe to non-offending side. I trust that this has never been the intention of that law? regards Sven From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Feb 5 10:23:21 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:23:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] A language question Message-ID: 70C2 says ... at all likely ..... In the French version of the law this has been translated to the equivalent of very likely. My English is good enough to know that is wrong. But I am not so sure about the Dutch translation. Can native speakers help me to gauge the meaning. My gut feeling says something like 'might be reasonably possible' but please correct. And does it makes a difference between UK and US ? I will write a follow-up of this mail. There is a context. Jaap ============================================================== 1. If the writer is known to be striving for precision then the phrase means that there is a chance, no matter how small, that the trump was forgotten, i.e. it is not certain that claimer remembered. 2. If the writer is expressing himself informally then the intended degree of uncertainty cannot be ascertained. 3. If the writer is known to choose his words carelessly, uses the the phrase "at all likely that he was unaware...", and adds the heading "Was probably unaware...", then he cannot expect to make himself understood, regardless of the intended meaning. 4. It is conceivable that the phrase has a well-defined meaning in legal usage, and this meaning could be different in various English speaking countries. If the French 'fort probable' is workable, although it means roughly the opposite of 'at all likely', then it doesn't seem to matter a great deal what other translations say. Obviously, 70C2 is unnecessary and should be eliminated. Jürgen From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 4 22:29:23 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 22:29:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] A language question References: <91FEBF7A-386F-11D7-9F1A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <5.1.1.6.1.20030204235033.00a5aa60@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: <000001c2cd01$e1d529a0$4dcf4c51@pc> > David Burn's solution (claimer who has made no statement about this trump > shall lose a trick or tricks if it/they could be lost full stop) is still > the only unambiguous solution, and the objections to his logical and > clear-cut approach don't convince me at all. > Eitan Levy And so say all of us ??? It works for me. lnb From Anne Jones" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F02%2F05%2Fnc heat05.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=142377 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003 From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 5 10:56:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:56:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] A language question References: <91FEBF7A-386F-11D7-9F1A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <5.1.1.6.1.20030204235033.00a5aa60@mail.netvision.net.il> <000001c2cd01$e1d529a0$4dcf4c51@pc> Message-ID: <004501c2cd05$32ccfa60$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "LarryBennett" > > > David Burn's solution (claimer who has made no > statement about this trump > > shall lose a trick or tricks if it/they could be > lost full stop) is still > > the only unambiguous solution, and the objections > to his logical and > > clear-cut approach don't convince me at all. > > Eitan Levy > > And so say all of us ??? > It works for me. > > lnb Nothing I have seen on this thread so far has made me change my opinion that after a claim where some essential detail has been omitted from the claim statement the claimer shall NOT be protected against making any silly mistake for which there is the slightest likely possibility that he might have made had the play continued without the claim. This includes f.i. losing all three tricks with spades as trump holding S9, HA and DA against a defender holding ST, CAK (discussed some time ago). Whether the omission in the statement is about an outstanding trump or some other detail is to me completely irrelevant. He shall be deemed being unaware of that particular important detail. And from talks with other players in Norway I have a very strong feeling of being in line with the general opinion here. Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Feb 5 11:03:41 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:03:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] A language question Message-ID: <6938368.1044443021675.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> > ... at all likely ..... is a very silly phrase. "likely" is a word that implies a large measure or degree of probability. We speak of something being "likely" if it has, perhaps, a chance of more than about 66% to happen; there is for English speakers a rough continuum "impossible - unlikely - about even money - likely - certain". "at all" is a phrase that implies a small measure or degree of something; we may ask "if it is at all possible, could you please do X?" to mean "please do X unless it is impossible for you". Hence, "at all likely" implies a small measure of a large measure of probability, and is nonsense. We tend to create nonsense phrases of this sort when we look for synonyms for "very", as I will shortly demonstrate. And when the wrong synonym for "very" is translated into a foreign language, a serious error may result. Of course, whatever phrase were instead used in law 70 would be nonsense; anyone with a trump should just get a trick with it unless the claimer says that he will draw it. But this, I fear, is highly unlikely... David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 5 11:39:06 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:39:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Bidding Box Regulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030205123543.02491880@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:10 4/02/2003 -0600, Robert E. Harris wrote: >3. The skip-bid warning is given using bidding boxes by displaying the >stop card, making a call and then replacing the stop card in the bidding >box. LHO is obligated to wait 10 seconds (while giving the appearance of >studying his hand) before making a call. AG : that's very interesting. Some players don't study their hand when looking for the right declaration ; they know it already and prefer to focus on their problem. Some even close their eyes. YT occasionally looks at the ceiling when in need for inspiration. If they take steps to look like they study their hands when they have no problem, they give the show out, because they will do it only in this case. One should be more general, eg requiring the player to behave as if one had a problem. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 5 11:43:47 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:43:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gender (was Passing after slow pass (Was Online Bridge case)) In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030204222941.0152aef0@mail.comcast.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030131134735.00a6cdd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200301301801.NAA00484@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030205124151.02493ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:33 4/02/2003 -0500, you wrote: >At 07:52 AM 1/31/2003, you wrote: >>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). > >In Hebrew, where all numbers have gender, the denominations are just >transliterated from the English, and since they all transliterate with >masculine endings, they are all masculine. Three hearts is "shalosh >heart" or "shalosh heartim". AG : no problem then. But the possible use of the singular form is , er, singular to a linguist's eyes. Is it felt as a collective ? From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 5 11:47:18 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:47:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Infractions shall not pay" - 5 different (partly) overlapping laws? In-Reply-To: <000d01c2ccf1$3f455c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030205124456.02494320@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:33 5/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >Law 12A1: The Director may award an adjusted score ....when these >laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant ..... > >Law 12B: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground >that the penalty provided ....is either unduly severe or advantageous to >either side. > >Law 23: ...... when the Director deems that the offender ....... could have >known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending >side ..... and consider awarding an adjusted score (See Law 72B1) > >Law 64C: When ........ the Director deems that the non-offending side is >insufficiently compensated ...... he shall assign an adjusted score. > >Law 72B1: Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have >known ......damage the non-offending side .......awarding an adjusted >score if .... offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. > > >These are five laws essentially covering the same principle: Infractions >shall >not pay. Is it really neccessary to have so many different laws stating this >same principle, each more or less handling a different situation? After all >"Infractions shall not pay" is one of the pillars of the game we play, it >ought >to be possible to have a single law early in the law book that states this >principle in a way that is generally applicable? AG : not that easy. The principle is not "infractions shall not pay", it is "no player shall have any opportunity to try and make one's infractions pay". If an infraction pays, as eg getting a MPC during the auction, which happens to be the unlikkely and killing lead, there is no redress. This is one of the purposes of L12B. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 5 11:55:37 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:55:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] A language question In-Reply-To: <6938368.1044443021675.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030205125024.0249b6f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:03 5/02/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > ... at all likely ..... > >is a very silly phrase. > >"likely" is a word that implies a large measure or degree of probability. >We speak of something being "likely" if it has, perhaps, a chance of more >than about 66% to happen; there is for English speakers a rough continuum >"impossible - unlikely - about even money - likely - certain". > >"at all" is a phrase that implies a small measure or degree of something; >we may ask "if it is at all possible, could you please do X?" to mean >"please do X unless it is impossible for you". > >Hence, "at all likely" implies a small measure of a large measure of >probability, and is nonsense. We tend to create nonsense phrases of this >sort when we look for synonyms for "very", as I will shortly demonstrate. >And when the wrong synonym for "very" is translated into a foreign >language, a serious error may result. AG : however, "at all probable" has sense. I take 'probable' as meaning "there is a non-negligible probability that it will happen, but also a non-negligible probability that it will not". Then, "at all probable" means "a non-negligible probability, even if quite small", and that's what the Lawmakers intended to mean, isn't it ? Note that the French "probable" is similar to what you call "likely". It won't be used under the 50% mark. This was not taken into account in the translation of the Laws. And "improbable" means "unlikely" as you defined it. If needed, I can find sources. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 5 11:55:41 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:55:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Infractions shall not pay" - 5 different (partly) overlapping laws? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030205124456.02494320@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <006301c2cd0d$82209ec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 09:33 5/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > >Law 12A1: The Director may award an adjusted score ....when these > >laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant ..... > > > >Law 12B: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground > >that the penalty provided ....is either unduly severe or advantageous to > >either side. > > > >Law 23: ...... when the Director deems that the offender ....... could have > >known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending > >side ..... and consider awarding an adjusted score (See Law 72B1) > > > >Law 64C: When ........ the Director deems that the non-offending side is > >insufficiently compensated ...... he shall assign an adjusted score. > > > >Law 72B1: Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have > >known ......damage the non-offending side .......awarding an adjusted > >score if .... offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. > > > > > >These are five laws essentially covering the same principle: Infractions > >shall > >not pay. Is it really neccessary to have so many different laws stating this > >same principle, each more or less handling a different situation? After all > >"Infractions shall not pay" is one of the pillars of the game we play, it > >ought > >to be possible to have a single law early in the law book that states this > >principle in a way that is generally applicable? > > AG : not that easy. The principle is not "infractions shall not pay", it is > "no player shall have any opportunity to try and make one's infractions > pay". If an infraction pays, as eg getting a MPC during the auction, which > happens to be the unlikkely and killing lead, there is no redress. This is > one of the purposes of L12B. I see (and accept) your point in this particular case where the connection between the infraction and the consequences is so remote. Still I also see some cause for questioning that case because it cannot be denied that the infraction led to an unjust result in favour of the offending side. Now then, let us turn to law 72B1: "If the offender could have known that getting the MPC ....." Could he have known???? I suppose if the lead itself is unlikely he could hardly have known, but even so there is still a possibility. We end up with a TD judgement ("how unlikely is really that lead?") which could result in the application of Law 72B1. regards Sven From gester@lineone.net Wed Feb 5 12:03:48 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:03:48 -0000 Subject: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass References: <1955640.1044018852730.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <00da01c2c9a7$78a20280$e22c27d9@pbncomputer> <009601c2ca56$76555fe0$07bd193e@4nrw70j> <00ab01c2cbc5$7ec48780$25b54351@noos.fr> <009101c2cbd2$5d5027a0$e44487d9@4nrw70j> <004a01c2cc26$b0d703e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000b01c2cd0e$d0d74400$cf1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" ; Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 8:01 AM Subject: Re: Passing judgement: was Re: [blml] Passing after slow pass > Sorry Grattan, > > I just happened to answer your mail. You are right that > David did most of the discussing with Herman and others. > Nothing personal. I just try to discuss the subject at hand. > Please read Herman (Ton?) c.s. instead of Grattan c.s. > instead (or whatever, it is not the real issue). > > Jaap > +=+ Yes, of course. Actually I do not think my private feelings are too far removed from those of Gordon Bower. Mechanical problems should have mechanical solutions. Judgemental problems - those that the director should desirably consult second/third opinion about - call for the arts of the mind-detector (giving good reason to engage a number of people in forming a view). ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 5 12:13:36 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 13:13:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] A language question References: <91FEBF7A-386F-11D7-9F1A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <5.1.1.6.1.20030204235033.00a5aa60@mail.netvision.net.il> <000001c2cd01$e1d529a0$4dcf4c51@pc> <004501c2cd05$32ccfa60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E40FFF0.1000701@skynet.be> Yes Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > From: "LarryBennett" > > >>>David Burn's solution (claimer who has made no >>> >>statement about this trump >> >>>shall lose a trick or tricks if it/they could be >>> >>lost full stop) is still >> >>>the only unambiguous solution, and the objections >>> >>to his logical and >> >>>clear-cut approach don't convince me at all. >>>Eitan Levy >>> >>And so say all of us ??? >> It works for me. >> >>lnb >> > > Nothing I have seen on this thread so far has made > me change my opinion that after a claim where some > essential detail has been omitted from the claim > statement the claimer shall NOT be protected against > making any silly mistake for which there is the slightest > likely possibility that he might have made had the play > continued without the claim. > > This includes f.i. losing all three tricks with spades as > trump holding S9, HA and DA against a defender > holding ST, CAK (discussed some time ago). > > > Whether the omission in the statement is about an > outstanding trump or some other detail is to me > completely irrelevant. He shall be deemed being > unaware of that particular important detail. > Yes, Sven, so? You have said it yourself: > statement the claimer shall NOT be protected against > making any silly mistake for which there is the slightest > likely possibility that he might have made had the play > continued without the claim. But David B wants to go even further. He does not even want to protect claimer against huge whopping mistakes! > And from talks with other players in Norway I have a > very strong feeling of being in line with the general > opinion here. > and over here. Yesterday I claimed 13 tricks in 6HX after the lead (spades) on something like: - AKxxxxx xx Q987 xx Qxxx x AK5432 The claim was agreed upon and the cards put into the board. Then I realized the clubs blocked. So I took back the cards (on my own initiative) and re-examined the claim. Now I regard uncareful play in clubs, so that they remain blocked (in this case there is nothing we can do about it - they were 3-0) as a silly mistake. And I would not mind being ruled against for that reason. I did not notice the blockage and am no longer supposed to be able to do anything about it. But there is always an entry in hearts (don't really remember the spots, but they could not block like the clubs and they were 2-1). So I consider it a huge whopping error not to be able to find out how to play on after seeing the clubs being blocked. I would not award the 13th trick if my hearts had been Q543. Playing the queen first, the two from the table, is a silly error. If need be, I can assure you that my opponents were fully OK with the "ruling". > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 5 12:20:06 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 13:20:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a first? References: <000f01c2cd02$ef9a2300$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: <3E410176.2080409@skynet.be> Anne Jones wrote: > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F02%2F05%2Fnc > heat05.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=142377 > for those of you who are not so good at pasting a two-line URL into their browser, and with due recoginition to Patrick Jourdain and the Daily Telegraph, here's the article Anne refers to: quote Ban for internet bridge cheat By Patrick Jourdain, Bridge Correspondent (Filed: 05/02/2003) An internet bridge competitor has been suspended for cheating by looking at other players' virtual cards. Azad Mahomed, from Harrow, north-west London, has been banned from all English Bridge Union on-line competitions and every national tournament for six years for a "kibitzing" - spectating - offence. He was found guilty of looking at other players' cards while pretending to be an on-line spectator using a different name. There was no money at stake, but Mr Mahomed's on-line ranking improved. Mr Mahomed, a company director, could not be contacted yesterday. His solicitors are trying to overturn the decision which they believe is "technically defective". They plan to seek a judicial review unless the union reinstates his playing rights. Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003. unquote > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Feb 5 12:59:00 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 07:59:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] "Infractions shall not pay" - 5 different (partly) overlapping laws? In-Reply-To: <000d01c2ccf1$3f455c10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030205075344.028c7120@pop.starpower.net> At 03:33 AM 2/5/03, Sven wrote: >The present text undisputably denies the Director the right to award an >adjusted score on the ground that the provided penalty is unduly >advantageous to the offending side and/or unduly severe to non-offending >side. I trust that this has never been the intention of that law? I feel certain that it has. In the classic case, a player with a good flat hand acts out of turn, barring his partner, and then guesses blindly to bid 3NT, scoring a top when the normal suit contract goes down on bad breaks. L12B tells us specifically that he keeps his top, notwithstanding that he would not have gotten it had he not been penalized for bidding out of turn, which is precisely its intended effect. 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 Feb 5 13:18:45 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:18:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Infractions shall not pay" - 5 different (partly) overlapping laws? In-Reply-To: <006301c2cd0d$82209ec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030205124456.02494320@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030205141221.0249c0a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:55 5/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > At 09:33 5/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > >Law 12A1: The Director may award an adjusted score ....when these > > >laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant ..... > > > > > >Law 12B: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground > > >that the penalty provided ....is either unduly severe or advantageous to > > >either side. > > > > > >Law 23: ...... when the Director deems that the offender ....... could >have > > >known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending > > >side ..... and consider awarding an adjusted score (See Law 72B1) > > > > > >Law 64C: When ........ the Director deems that the non-offending side is > > >insufficiently compensated ...... he shall assign an adjusted score. > > > > > >Law 72B1: Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have > > >known ......damage the non-offending side .......awarding an adjusted > > >score if .... offending side gained an advantage through the >irregularity. > > > > > > > > >These are five laws essentially covering the same principle: Infractions > > >shall > > >not pay. Is it really neccessary to have so many different laws stating >this > > >same principle, each more or less handling a different situation? After >all > > >"Infractions shall not pay" is one of the pillars of the game we play, it > > >ought > > >to be possible to have a single law early in the law book that states >this > > >principle in a way that is generally applicable? > > > > AG : not that easy. The principle is not "infractions shall not pay", it >is > > "no player shall have any opportunity to try and make one's infractions > > pay". If an infraction pays, as eg getting a MPC during the auction, which > > happens to be the unlikkely and killing lead, there is no redress. This is > > one of the purposes of L12B. > >I see (and accept) your point in this particular case where the connection >between the infraction and the consequences is so remote. Still I also see >some cause for questioning that case because it cannot be denied that >the infraction led to an unjust result in favour of the offending side. >Now then, let us turn to law 72B1: > >"If the offender could have known that getting the MPC ....." > >Could he have known???? I suppose if the lead itself is unlikely he could >hardly have known, but even so there is still a possibility. We end up with >a TD judgement ("how unlikely is really that lead?") which could result in >the application of Law 72B1. AG : oh, yes, he could have known it was the good lead, in some specific cases, but in *no* case could he be better off after getting the MPC than before (this was said in some previous thread). If he guesses that was the right lead, he didn't have to expose the card ; he could just wait and then lead it. And even if it was the right lead, there are several risks, one of these being that the opopnents find some contract to play from the other side, where the MPC would cost. L72B1 applies when there is some probability that the player be better off after the infraction, and there is at least a slight probability that the player knew it could help him. In other words, when the ordinary penalty doesn't restore equity to the NOS. To make it bear its effects in other cases looks to me like trying to ervert the Lawmakers' intent. Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Feb 5 13:13:41 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 08:13:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] "Infractions shall not pay" - 5 different (partly) overlapping laws? In-Reply-To: <006301c2cd0d$82209ec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030205124456.02494320@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030205080432.028f4be0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:55 AM 2/5/03, Sven wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > At 09:33 5/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > >These are five laws essentially covering the same principle: > Infractions > > >shall > > >not pay. Is it really neccessary to have so many different laws > stating >this > > >same principle, each more or less handling a different situation? > After >all > > >"Infractions shall not pay" is one of the pillars of the game we > play, it > > >ought > > >to be possible to have a single law early in the law book that states >this > > >principle in a way that is generally applicable? > > > > AG : not that easy. The principle is not "infractions shall not > pay", it >is > > "no player shall have any opportunity to try and make one's infractions > > pay". If an infraction pays, as eg getting a MPC during the > auction, which > > happens to be the unlikkely and killing lead, there is no redress. > This is > > one of the purposes of L12B. > >I see (and accept) your point in this particular case where the connection >between the infraction and the consequences is so remote. Still I also see >some cause for questioning that case because it cannot be denied that >the infraction led to an unjust result in favour of the offending side. >Now then, let us turn to law 72B1: > >"If the offender could have known that getting the MPC ....." > >Could he have known???? I suppose if the lead itself is unlikely he could >hardly have known, but even so there is still a possibility. We end up >with >a TD judgement ("how unlikely is really that lead?") which could result in >the application of Law 72B1. I don't understand this at all. How can it possibly be advantageous for a player to commit an infraction, resulting in an MPC which he is required to lead, when he "could have known" that it would be the killing lead, in order to be forced to lead it, rather than committing no infraction and just leading it? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Feb 5 12:52:42 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 06:52:42 -0600 Subject: [blml] A language question References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jürgen Rennenkampff" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 4:23 AM Subject: [blml] A language question > 70C2 says > > ... at all likely ..... > > In the French version of the law this has been translated to the equivalent > of very likely. My English is good enough to know that is wrong. But I am > not so sure about the Dutch translation. Can native speakers help me to > gauge the meaning. My gut feeling says something like 'might be reasonably > possible' but please correct. And does it makes a difference between UK and > US ? > > I will write a follow-up of this mail. There is a context. > > Jaap > > ============================================================== > > 1. If the writer is known to be striving for precision then the phrase means > that there is a chance, no matter how small, that the trump was forgotten, > i.e. it is not certain that claimer remembered. > > 2. If the writer is expressing himself informally then the intended degree > of uncertainty cannot be ascertained. > > 3. If the writer is known to choose his words carelessly, uses the the > phrase "at all likely that he was unaware...", and adds the heading "Was > probably unaware...", then he cannot expect to make himself understood, > regardless of the intended meaning. > > 4. It is conceivable that the phrase has a well-defined meaning in legal > usage, and this meaning could be different in various English speaking > countries. > > If the French 'fort probable' is workable, although it means roughly the > opposite of 'at all likely', then it doesn't seem to matter a great deal > what other translations say. > > Obviously, 70C2 is unnecessary and should be eliminated. > > Jürgen When a hand is played out it does not matter in affixing the number of tricks taken how likely it was a player has 'forgotten'. If an adequate clarification as to what is to be done about trump is made when claiming it does not matter in affixing the number of tricks taken how likely it was a player has 'forgotten'. If a less than adequate clarification as to what is to be done about trump is made when claiming it does not matter how likely it was a player has 'forgotten'- there is a presumption he has unless there is convincing evidence otherwise. And this does matter in affixing the number of tricks taken. At least it is a more sensible approach than assuming a player knows what to do this hand if he merely mentions trump rather than clarifying adequately what is to be done about them. regards roger pewick From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Feb 5 13:58:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:58 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Is this a first? In-Reply-To: <3E410176.2080409@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman quoted from the Telgraph. > Mr Mahomed, a company director, could not be contacted yesterday. His > solicitors are trying to overturn the decision which they believe is > "technically defective". They plan to seek a judicial review unless > the union reinstates his playing rights. "Technically defective" - what the hell is that supposed to mean? The guy was using a second account to kib hands and then making "out of the blue" game/slam bids. Tim From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 5 15:28:52 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:28:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Language question resolved. References: <91FEBF7A-386F-11D7-9F1A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <5.1.1.6.1.20030204235033.00a5aa60@mail.netvision.net.il> <000001c2cd01$e1d529a0$4dcf4c51@pc> <004501c2cd05$32ccfa60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E40FFF0.1000701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00b901c2cd2b$4d82c9e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Thanks everybody for helping me out. As I strongly suspected (but I wanted to make sure) the Dutch translation of 70C2 is also botched. ---------------------- The English version means roughly that 70C2 triggers (ruling against claimer) unless it is (very) obvious that declarer is aware of the situation. In the French version it is excactly the other way round. Here 70C2 triggers only if it is very likely that declarer is unaware of the trump. The Dutch wording is somewhere in the middle although it tends to the French side of the spectrum. First interesting question. For national purposes which law applies? I tend to think it is ok for a country to use its own language version. But I am not a lawyer and this is typical lawyer stuff. Can pose interesting problems in countries like Switzerland, Belgium and Canada. --------------------- But there is more to this. In France 70C is dead anyway because they ruled (in a relevant national appeal where it was judged that the remaining trump was sure to be forgotten) that the 'normal' in 70C3 means cashing ones trumps first (in simple cashing claims cases). This way you are not going to lose any tricks to outstanding trumps anyway. End of 70C. Second interesting question. Is it ok for a national authority to interpreted the law like that. I think it should be ok. Why on earth it shouldn't be ok. If you don't want them to do so you can prevent it easily by better defining the law. --------------------- And now the reason why I asked. The Dutch national authority has to decide a claim case depending on the interpretation of 70C2 and the 'normal' in 70C3. I cannot give the case at this stage but it is essentially equivalent to one of the Phoenix cases (the Chinese girl). Brief. Declarer playing slam cannot draw the last trump early. He does what he has to do and the moment he can draw the last trump he tables his hand without statement (but he could have claimed at least one trick earlier). For an ACBL-AC this is bussiness us usual. Declarer didn't mention the trump and it is not obvious that he/she is still aware of that trump. Slam one down (like in Phoenix). For an FFB-AC this is a complete no-brainer. Come on, don't bother them with this kind of rubish. Slam made. And now Holland. Given the Dutch text the trigger of 70C2 is to me a toss-up but I tip the declarer. And the interpretation of 'normal' in 70C3 (not necessary if declarer survives C2 which he might well do)? I guess we might vote on that one too. For high level purposes I tend to side with the French (trumps first), for low level purposes I tend to go with the Yanks (trumps last). --------------------- But maybe it is a good idea that laws that can be clear should be clear. Maybe clear is a better word than mechanical. Leaving this kind of stuff to AC's has obvious disadvantages. Judgement yes, but also lots of different judgement. Some other thread said something about the headers. Of course it is confusing if the headers are not part of the laws. But regardless of that it is IMHO insane that some headers 'contradict' their text (like 70C2). Should be fixed. And David is right that constructs like 'at all likely' should be avoided. They are too dangerous. I said so myself in my original Dutch mail where I mentioned the Dutch text was probably wrong. I got the usual bogus response 'don't worry, it has been carefully translated by experts'. Now guess who said that. Jaap From HauffHJ@aol.com Tue Feb 4 11:05:05 2003 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 06:05:05 EST Subject: [BLML] competition theory Message-ID: <1c6.4897768.2b70f861@aol.com> --part1_1c6.4897768.2b70f861_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Competition theory Jaap observes " This is a very nice discussion but fort specialists only" and he gives a lot of supporting arguments. Now imagine, that bridge becomes olimpic and you try to get medals. I strongly believe that then the competition system would be of very high importance to you. Yes, we have a perfect (as possible) system: team-of-four (under certain conditions), but no perfect system for pair tournaments. But most people dont go for medals, they want to have fun in their weekly tournament. They get much of their satisfaction from the traveling sheet, where they compare their own score to others, and enjoy to be on top of the ranking l ist ( if this happens). But, as Jaap said " they do notice certain things" : they are quite aware of the deficiencies of the system. But still, players try to improve their game and bidding, and there are lot of books, articles etc. to it. I therefore think that that they would accept better methods in tournaments if offered. A smal club, where tables are below ten, has little choice. They must play Mitchell or Howell, depending on the tables present.. And much depends on the opinion of the manager (wether she/he will accept the inconveniences that go with mitchell, mainly seeding). But if tables are above ten, then the clubmanager should install a "group" system. The top group plays mitchell and has always seven tables. Two pairs go down to the lower group at the end of a event, and two pair come up from the lower group. The lower group play costumary Howell, and the number of tables changes from event to event. Any evaluation system is ok, but to the one which gives sometimes a chance to be top for a weak player should be given preference. ( " some sessions you get ten presents ...,other sessions none") The fixed and limited number of participants for the upper group allows to to play "all against all (of a side)" and everybody plays all boards. Here, the best possible evaluation system should be used, and the participants "will notice certain things": the quality of the system. By introducing a group system, playing bridge becomes more fun and more sport at the same time. And the club will attract players, who played in other clubs. It is a fact that players who go for duplicate accept generally competition as essential part of the game. If not, they stay away after a certain time and play in private circles. As to the evaluation system, there is sufficient choice: MP-pair, Cross-IMP-Pair, Butler. The problem of eliminating " presents and gifts" has been discussed in previuous postings. The actual solution is to evaluate non-scorers by zero ( the same as all pass) Paul Hauff www.bridgeassistant.com 4.2.03. --part1_1c6.4897768.2b70f861_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Competition theory

Jaap observes " This is a very nice discussion but fort specialists only" and
he gives a lot of supporting arguments.

Now imagine, that bridge becomes olimpic and you try to get medals. I strongly
believe that then the competition system would be of very high importance to you.
Yes, we have a perfect (as possible) system: team-of-four (under certain conditions),
but no perfect system for pair tournaments.

But most people dont go for medals, they want to have fun in their weekly
tournament. They get much of their satisfaction from the traveling sheet, where
they compare their own score to others, and enjoy to be on top of the ranking l
ist ( if this happens). But, as  Jaap said " they do notice certain things" : they
are quite aware of the deficiencies of the system.

But still, players try to improve their game and bidding, and there are lot of books,
articles etc. to it. I therefore think that that they would accept better methods 
in tournaments if offered.

A smal club, where tables are below ten, has little choice. They must play Mitchell
or Howell, depending on the tables present.. And much depends on the opinion of the
manager (wether she/he will accept the inconveniences that go
with mitchell, mainly seeding).

But if tables are above ten, then the clubmanager should install a "group" system.
The top group plays mitchell and has always seven tables. Two pairs go down to
the lower group at the end of a event, and two pair come up from the lower group.

The lower group play costumary Howell, and the number of tables changes from
event to event. Any evaluation system is ok, but to the one which gives sometimes
a chance  to be top for a weak player should  be given preference. (<jaap> " some
sessions you get ten presents ...,other sessions none")

The fixed and limited number of participants for the upper group allows to to
play "all against all (of a side)" and everybody plays all boards. Here, the best
possible evaluation system should be used, and the participants "will notice
certain things": the quality of the system.

By introducing a group system,  playing bridge becomes more fun and more
sport at the same time. And the club will attract players, who played in
other clubs.  It is a fact that players who go for duplicate accept generally 
competition as essential part of the game. If not, they stay away after a certain
time and play in private circles.

As to the evaluation system, there is sufficient choice: MP-pair, Cross-IMP-Pair,
Butler. The problem of eliminating " presents and gifts" has been discussed in
previuous postings. The actual solution is to evaluate non-scorers
by zero ( the same as all pass)

Paul Hauff
www.bridgeassistant.com
4.2.03.
 --part1_1c6.4897768.2b70f861_boundary-- From gester@lineone.net Wed Feb 5 16:23:42 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:23:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Language question resolved. References: <91FEBF7A-386F-11D7-9F1A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <5.1.1.6.1.20030204235033.00a5aa60@mail.netvision.net.il> <000001c2cd01$e1d529a0$4dcf4c51@pc> <004501c2cd05$32ccfa60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E40FFF0.1000701@skynet.be> <00b901c2cd2b$4d82c9e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000901c2cd33$14eb8240$80182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 3:28 PM Subject: [blml] Language question resolved. > > And David is right that constructs like 'at all likely' should be avoided. > They are too dangerous. I said so myself in my original Dutch mail where I > mentioned the Dutch text was probably wrong. I got the usual bogus response > 'don't worry, it has been carefully translated by experts'. Now guess who > said that. > +=+ An expert? +=+ From raymond3@cox.net Wed Feb 5 17:08:50 2003 From: raymond3@cox.net (Raymond) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:08:50 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is this a first? In-Reply-To: <3E410176.2080409@skynet.be> Message-ID: It is also interesting to note that Mr. Azad Mahomed won a years' free membership for EBU online for playing the 1,000,000th board last year. http://www.bridgeclublive.com/Information/general/news.htm Raymond > From: Herman De Wael > Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 13:20:06 +0100 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a first? > > Anne Jones wrote: > >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F02%2F05%2Fnc >> heat05.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=142377 >> > > for those of you who are not so good at pasting a two-line URL into > their browser, and with due recoginition to Patrick Jourdain and the > Daily Telegraph, here's the article Anne refers to: > > quote > Ban for internet bridge cheat > By Patrick Jourdain, Bridge Correspondent > (Filed: 05/02/2003) > > An internet bridge competitor has been suspended for cheating by > looking at other players' virtual cards. > > Azad Mahomed, from Harrow, north-west London, has been banned from all > English Bridge Union on-line competitions and every national > tournament for six years for a "kibitzing" - spectating - offence. > > He was found guilty of looking at other players' cards while > pretending to be an on-line spectator using a different name. > > There was no money at stake, but Mr Mahomed's on-line ranking improved. > > Mr Mahomed, a company director, could not be contacted yesterday. His > solicitors are trying to overturn the decision which they believe is > "technically defective". They plan to seek a judicial review unless > the union reinstates his playing rights. > > Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003. > > unquote > > >> >> --- >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Walt.Flory@fscv.net Wed Feb 5 19:08:30 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:08:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is this a first? In-Reply-To: References: <3E410176.2080409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030205140317.0217d020@mail.fscv.net> At 08:58 AM 5/02/2003, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Herman quoted from the Telgraph. > > > Mr Mahomed, a company director, could not be contacted yesterday. His > > solicitors are trying to overturn the decision which they believe is > > "technically defective". They plan to seek a judicial review unless > > the union reinstates his playing rights. > >"Technically defective" - what the hell is that supposed to mean? The guy >was using a second account to kib hands and then making "out of the blue" >game/slam bids. Tim I believe his solicitors are trying to make the case that the EBU sanctions are illegal because of what we in the U.S. would call a legal technicality. That is, that the solicitors are not saying that Mr. Mahomed was innocent but that the sanctions are illegal. Walt From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 6 03:26:46 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 03:26:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is this a first? References: Message-ID: <003d01c2cd8f$94735900$254b27d9@pbncomputer> Raymond wrote: > It is also interesting to note that Mr. Azad Mahomed won a years' free > membership for EBU online for playing the 1,000,000th board last year. He should have claimed two years' free membership for playing it twice. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 6 03:40:21 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 03:40:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is this a first? References: <3E410176.2080409@skynet.be> <5.1.1.6.0.20030205140317.0217d020@mail.fscv.net> Message-ID: <005901c2cd91$79dbdfc0$254b27d9@pbncomputer> Walt wrote: > I believe his solicitors are trying to make the case that the EBU sanctions > are illegal because of what we in the U.S. would call a legal technicality. > That is, that the solicitors are not saying that Mr. Mahomed was innocent > but that the sanctions are illegal. TECHNICALITY, n. In an English court a man named Home was tried for slander in having accused his neighbor of murder. His exact words were: "Sir Thomas Holt hath taken a cleaver and stricken his cook upon the head, so that one side of the head fell upon one shoulder and the other side upon the other shoulder." The defendant was acquitted by instruction of the court, the learned judges holding that the words did not charge murder, for they did not affirm the death of the cook, that being only an inference. Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" David Burn London, England From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 6 03:31:09 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:31:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACBL Bidding Box Regulations In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030205123543.02491880@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 2/5/03, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >One should be more general, eg requiring the player to behave as if >one had a problem. Sounds reasonable to me. Although... In the games in which I play the problem is that LHO completely ignores the stop card, or calls as soon as the card is picked up. We should probably fix that first. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 6 03:18:02 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:18:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] First and final warning In-Reply-To: <00a301c2c965$2af9f7a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: On 1/31/03, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >But it is so crude to let a first warning be the final one. Lily Rowan: Strike two, you're out. Archie Goodwin: I thought I get three strikes. Lily Rowan: Not in my game. Rex Stout, *The Silent Speaker* From adam@tameware.com Thu Feb 6 06:19:10 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 01:19:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is this a first? In-Reply-To: <000f01c2cd02$ef9a2300$2f2e6651@annescomputer> References: <000f01c2cd02$ef9a2300$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: I've been told the okbridge regularly bars players found cheating. I don't know that it's ever made it into a newspaper, though. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From henk@ripe.net Thu Feb 6 09:09:51 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:09:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Is this a first? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > I've been told the okbridge regularly bars players found cheating. That is correct, their policy is to close the account and not say anything to anybody about it. Henk > I > don't know that it's ever made it into a newspaper, though. > > -- > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 normanscorbie@hotmail.com Thu Feb 6 09:50:12 2003 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 09:50:12 +0000 Subject: [blml] Is this a first? Message-ID: >Mr Mahomed, a company director, could not be contacted yesterday. His >solicitors are trying to overturn the decision which they believe is >"technically defective". They plan to seek a judicial review unless the >union reinstates his playing rights. ++++The EBU should give him what W.C. Fields used to call "an evasive answer". _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Feb 6 15:53:04 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:53:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Is this a first? Message-ID: <200302061553.KAA01681@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > I've been told the okbridge regularly bars players found cheating. > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > That is correct, their policy is to close the account and not say anything > to anybody about it. One of the early okbridge cases was announced in rec.games.bridge. (It may have been the first online disciplinary action.) As I recall, there was no direct evidence, but a mediocre player had made large numbers of plays that seemed inexplicable except by prior knowledge of the deals. My memory of the date is dim, but I think it might have been shortly after okbridge began charging. I think we have a blml reader who could give us an idea of the current numbers if he is inclined to do so. In general, I wish regulatory bodies would give their members information about disciplinary actions. Obviously individual cases can seldom be disclosed, but I think it would make the membership feel better to know that problems are dealt with. Something as simple as an annual report giving the number of actions taken, the most common offenses, and the usual range of punishments would go a long way towards building confidence. From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <004a01c2ce08$d435c8b0$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Yes - He also won a membership for "a friend". I wonder who this friend was :-( Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raymond" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a first? > > It is also interesting to note that Mr. Azad Mahomed won a years' free > membership for EBU online for playing the 1,000,000th board last year. > > http://www.bridgeclublive.com/Information/general/news.htm > > Raymond > > > > > From: Herman De Wael > > Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 13:20:06 +0100 > > To: blml > > Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a first? > > > > Anne Jones wrote: > > > >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F02%2F05%2Fnc > >> heat05.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=142377 > >> > > > > for those of you who are not so good at pasting a two-line URL into > > their browser, and with due recoginition to Patrick Jourdain and the > > Daily Telegraph, here's the article Anne refers to: > > > > quote > > Ban for internet bridge cheat > > By Patrick Jourdain, Bridge Correspondent > > (Filed: 05/02/2003) > > > > An internet bridge competitor has been suspended for cheating by > > looking at other players' virtual cards. > > > > Azad Mahomed, from Harrow, north-west London, has been banned from all > > English Bridge Union on-line competitions and every national > > tournament for six years for a "kibitzing" - spectating - offence. > > > > He was found guilty of looking at other players' cards while > > pretending to be an on-line spectator using a different name. > > > > There was no money at stake, but Mr Mahomed's on-line ranking improved. > > > > Mr Mahomed, a company director, could not be contacted yesterday. His > > solicitors are trying to overturn the decision which they believe is > > "technically defective". They plan to seek a judicial review unless > > the union reinstates his playing rights. > > > > Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003. > > > > unquote > > > > > >> > >> --- > >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >> Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003 From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Feb 6 20:29:46 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 20:29:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is this a first? References: <200302061553.KAA01681@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001e01c2ce1e$bf6ae670$3447e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a first? > > In general, I wish regulatory bodies would give their > members information about disciplinary actions. > Obviously individual cases can seldom be disclosed, > but I think it would make the membership feel better > to know that problems are dealt with. Something as > simple as an annual report giving the number of > actions taken, the most common offenses, and the > usual range of punishments would go a long way > towards building confidence. > +=+ David Burn or David Martin could give more exact information, but I understand procedures in the EU are governed by European Human Rights Law, and in principle hearings must be conducted in public. The EBU has initiated detailed procedural arrangements. Leaving that aside it is normal for EBU disciplinary sanctions to be reported in the EBU's house magazine. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jrmayne@mindspring.com Fri Feb 7 04:29:29 2003 From: jrmayne@mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 20:29:29 -0800 Subject: Online cheating (was: [blml] Is this a first?) Message-ID: <3E433629.7030507@mindspring.com> Steve Willner suggested that someone might know something of OKbridge's cheating removals; I can't get ahold of that post right now. But here's the scoop: In October, 2000, OKbridge revamped its conduct and ethics department. Since then, about 120 accounts have been removed for the use of illicit information (cheating). Some of those are multiple accounts held by one person; my guess is that we're dealing with about 100 problem children on those 120 accounts. This month (Feb., 2003), the over/under on accounts removed for illicit information is 8, though generally cheating is down from where it was in October, 2000. In no cases did OKbridge report the offenders to any external party. The majority of people caught come from investigations initiated by member complaints, though OKb receives a large number of questionable or baseless cheating complaints. In virtually all of the cases, the determination of use of illicit information was made using the hand records. On a personal note, I think I'm the all-time leader in bridge cheating investigations/determinations. I'd be really interested in any contrary information. The psychology of the cheats is interesting. They are an odd group; they often have a lot wrong with them and like to send angry missives. My favorites are the legal threats; they tend to be wildly errant in their assessment of the law and tend to include verifiably false information. --JRM, still looking for Philly NABC partners Monday and Tuesday "... and the newest member, Ethics Clown John R. Mayne." -- Satisfied former customer. "If you throw me out, OKbridge will be bankrupted." -- Satisfied former customer. "I can hire people to kill you." -- Very satisfied former customer. From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 7 07:54:40 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 08:54:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a first? References: <200302061553.KAA01681@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001e01c2ce1e$bf6ae670$3447e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3E436640.4050301@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Leaving that aside it is normal for EBU disciplinary > sanctions to be reported in the EBU's house magazine. Is that the Daily Telegraph? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Feb 7 07:40:25 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 07:40:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is this a first? References: <3E410176.2080409@skynet.be> <5.1.1.6.0.20030205140317.0217d020@mail.fscv.net> <005901c2cd91$79dbdfc0$254b27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001a01c2ce7e$e894c420$a02be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a first? > > > That is, that the solicitors are not saying that Mr. Mahomed > > was innocent but that the sanctions are illegal. > > The defendant was acquitted by instruction of the court, the > learned judges holding that the words did not charge murder, > for they did not affirm the death of the cook, that being only > an inference. > > Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" > +=+ Where no law is, there is no transgression." ['Romans' ch.4, v.15] +=+ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri Feb 7 08:14:32 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 23:14:32 -0900 (AKST) Subject: Online cheating (was: [blml] Is this a first?) In-Reply-To: <3E433629.7030507@mindspring.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, John R. Mayne wrote: > > In October, 2000, OKbridge revamped its conduct and ethics department. > Since then, about 120 accounts have been removed for the use of illicit > information (cheating). Some of those are multiple accounts held by one > person; my guess is that we're dealing with about 100 problem children > on those 120 accounts. > > This month (Feb., 2003), the over/under on accounts removed for illicit > information is 8, though generally cheating is down from where it was in > October, 2000. For comparison: In the 15 months I have worked for Swan, we have had 6 people on 8 accounts (the repeats were pretty obvious) get into enough trouble to be suspended. There were a few additional ones before I started. Some of these people left quietly after being asked for a system description and then told they were suspended pending the outcome of a ethics committee, and management decided to drop the matter rather than following through with actually holding the hearing. > In no cases did OKbridge report the offenders to any external party. Swan, by contrast, has a policy that anyone caught cheating WILL be reported to his national federation. (That is, in cases where a committee actually returns a verdict.) We've had people disappear for a few months to let the heat abate, then return again some months later, several times. As a result of this, there is a general mood that in future we will see cases through to a conclusion even if the players involved quietly disappear, if for no other reason than having justification to impose immediate suspensions on sight when they come back in. > The majority of people caught come from investigations initiated by > member complaints, though OKb receives a large number of questionable or > baseless cheating complaints. > > In virtually all of the cases, the determination of use of illicit > information was made using the hand records. All our cases have also been based on hand records - generally on bids or opening leads from the blue. The usual method is that if we get a couple complaints about someone, the directing staff review the results the next few tourneys someone plays, and either submit a stack of evidence, or report to management that we have looked but found nothing. We (the directors) were more or less forced into doing it this way, since the players in general tend to either not bother reporting even if they whine aloud, or to file emotional reports every time they get fixed. As a director I don't really like this state of affairs - because we see the players in action, we are forced into the role of prosecuting attorney, piling up hands and badgering management to form a committee. > On a personal note, I think I'm the all-time leader in bridge cheating > investigations/determinations. I'd be really interested in any contrary > information. > > The psychology of the cheats is interesting. They are an odd group; they > often have a lot wrong with them and like to send angry missives. My > favorites are the legal threats; they tend to be wildly errant in their > assessment of the law and tend to include verifiably false information. Curiously, the people we have expelled for cheating have generally not given us trouble. We've had plenty of troublemakers who make threats - but they tend to get banned for behavior long before they gt caught cheating too. On another subject touched on earlier in this thread: Swan's management's policy is to be very hush-hush about committees and their outcomes. This gives some people the impression that we don't do anything about cheats - especially if we have to continue to let cheats play for a few weeks while we collect evidence. I understand the gravity of the accusations - but Swan is so cautious about forming a committee that usually "everyone" knows ___ is a cheat by word-of-mouth long before any hearings get held, which is not good. I have argued to the other Swan folks that the findings of a committee should be public (even if the actual content of the hearing is kept sealed), but to no avail. Management is adamant that all be done in secrecy. GRB From jurgenr@t-online.de Fri Feb 7 13:49:18 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:49:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a first Message-ID: JRM: [...] The psychology of the cheats is interesting. They are an odd group; they often have a lot wrong with them and like to send angry missives. My favorites are the legal threats; they tend to be wildly errant in their assessment of the law and tend to include verifiably false information. [...] ======================================================================== Indeed - look up 'Hooks vs OKBridge' if you find jurisprudence in the New World entertaining. Here a customer, who was banned for cheating and generally behaving like a lunatic, proceeded to sue on the grounds that his mental debility is certifiable, and therefore his behavior ought to be protected under the 'Americans with Disabilities Act'. (Does this law really not apply to non-Merkins?) The suit, which may seem ludicrous at first sight, is not entirely without merit. The case was of interest because here the issue whether a web-based service is 'a place of accommodation' in the sense of the ADA is addressed for the first time. Jürgen From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Feb 8 08:26:15 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 08:26:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is this a first? References: <200302061553.KAA01681@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001e01c2ce1e$bf6ae670$3447e150@endicott> <3E436640.4050301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c2cf4b$de812e60$2b1ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a first? > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Leaving that aside it is normal for EBU disciplinary > > sanctions to be reported in the EBU's house magazine. > > > Is that the Daily Telegraph? > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ The thought exists that the Daily Telegraph correspondent reads 'English Bridge', or someone who does has drawn the correspondent's eyes to its pages. +=+ From adam@tameware.com Sun Feb 9 20:12:09 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 15:12:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 Message-ID: Last year we briefly discussed Phoenix Case #2. The writeup from the daily bulletin is available in the BLML archives: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-December/002914.html Everyone who posted agreed with the dissent, but the case still bothers me. It seems nonsensical to claim that a failure to alert Drury does not create unauthorized information. I'd like to explore just what that means, though. What about calls that are properly alerted? In that situation is the alert authorized information? The laws define Authorized Information in Law 16 http://acbl.lunaweb.net/templates/acbl/laws97/node7.html#law16 though they say nothing about alerts, which are left to the sponsoring organization under Law 80. In practice we know that the logical alternative prohibition does not apply after a proper alert, so we can conclude that a proper alert does not convey unauthorized information. That means that either it is authorized or it is not information. It does not seem to be authorized under Law 16, though it could be under Law 80. I think it may be most useful to consider that it is in fact not information! Claude Shannon's Information Theory tells us in part that a message does not contain information unless it is unexpected. The theory is mathematical, but it seems reasonable to use this part as a working definition here. Then my options are not affected by hearing partner alert my call if it is alertable, nor by failing to hear an alert if my call is not alertable. Could there be a case where a failure to alert is not UI? Perhaps. I'll pose an example in my next post -- I'll give y'all a chance to respond to this one first. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From svenpran@online.no Sun Feb 9 20:54:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 21:54:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: Message-ID: <001d01c2d07d$5fe6dd10$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Adam Wildavsky" ......... > Everyone who posted agreed with the dissent, but the case still > bothers me. It seems nonsensical to claim that a failure to alert > Drury does not create unauthorized information. I'd like to explore > just what that means, though. What about calls that are properly > alerted? In that situation is the alert authorized information? The > laws define Authorized Information in Law 16 ......... > though they say nothing about alerts, which are left to the > sponsoring organization under Law 80. In practice we know that the > logical alternative prohibition does not apply after a proper alert, > so we can conclude that a proper alert does not convey unauthorized > information. That means that either it is authorized or it is not > information. It does not seem to be authorized under Law 16, though > it could be under Law 80. I think it may be most useful to consider > that it is in fact not information! By inference from Law 21B1 an alert and a missing alert are both kinds of explanation of agreements. And such explanations do not qualify as authorized information (nor do alerts explitly qualify) the way authorized information is defined in Law 16. Thus your partner's explanation of a call or calls made by you is unauthorized information for you (except that you have the duty to correct partner's misinformation as specified in Law 75D2). Yes, the fact that your partner alerted (or did not alert) is unauthorized information for you. > > Claude Shannon's Information Theory tells us in part that a message > does not contain information unless it is unexpected. The theory is > mathematical, but it seems reasonable to use this part as a working > definition here. Then my options are not affected by hearing partner > alert my call if it is alertable, nor by failing to hear an alert if > my call is not alertable. Information is the limitation of choices among available alternatives. An expected alert conveys the information that your partner correctly remembers that your call is alertable. The amount of this information may be negligible, but it is there - and it is unauthorized for you. > > Could there be a case where a failure to alert is not UI? Perhaps. > I'll pose an example in my next post -- I'll give y'all a chance to > respond to this one first. I cannot think of any such case, but let's see what you can come up me for an example. Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Feb 9 21:22:35 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 13:22:35 -0800 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: Message-ID: <001b01c2d081$658a0d60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > Claude Shannon's Information Theory tells us in part that a message > does not contain information unless it is unexpected. The theory is > mathematical, but it seems reasonable to use this part as a working > definition here. Then my options are not affected by hearing partner > alert my call if it is alertable, nor by failing to hear an alert if > my call is not alertable. That should be true, but the message could be unexpected if one has had a memory lapse. If so, it becomes UI. The Alert/Announcement procedures may not be utilized for memory jogging. > > Could there be a case where a failure to alert is not UI? Perhaps. > I'll pose an example in my next post -- I'll give y'all a chance to > respond to this one first. I can't think of one, but no doubt Adam has something up his sleeve. I do not buy the argument, often heard, that an experienced partnership would not receive any UI this way. Case 2 argument: "I knew he just forgot to Alert, as he often does." Too bad, L16 applies. Contrary arguments from the OS are irrelevant, given zero weight, no matter who it is. This principle was introduced (I believe for the first time) by Ron Gerard. It simplifies adjudication and ensures equal treatment of all contestants under the Laws. Same infraction, same consequences. It also applies to LAs. Uncorroborated (e.g, by system notes) statements of the OS in regard to LAs are irrelevant. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California My object all sublime I shall achieve in time-- To let the punishment fit the crime-- The punishment fit the crime; (The MIkado) From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Feb 9 21:53:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 21:53 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam wrote: > What about calls that are properly > alerted? In that situation is the alert authorized information? The > laws define Authorized Information in Law 16 I thought the consensus was that proper Alerts were UI but they seldom suggested any particular LA (since playing for partner to have forgotten the system is not usually a majority approach). Tim From jrmayne@mindspring.com Sun Feb 9 22:13:59 2003 From: jrmayne@mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 14:13:59 -0800 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: Message-ID: <3E46D2A7.6020401@mindspring.com> Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Last year we briefly discussed Phoenix Case #2. The writeup from the > daily bulletin is available in the BLML archives: > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-December/002914.html > > Everyone who posted agreed with the dissent, but the case still bothers > me. It seems nonsensical to claim that a failure to alert Drury does not > create unauthorized information. "Nonsensical" is an overbid, I think. Given the manner of the writeup, I certainly agreed with the dissent, though. [snip] > > Could there be a case where a failure to alert is not UI? Perhaps. I'll > pose an example in my next post -- I'll give y'all a chance to respond > to this one first. > This one's easy: Wife and I go to Slovakia to play in the Bratislava Regional. She doesn't alert Stayman because she doesn't know it's alertable, and I know she doesn't know it's alertable. (Slovakia requires the alert of all conventional bids.) Thus, the failure to alert imparts no information to me about whether partner remembered the convention or not, so there is no UI. I am convinced this is a valid argument, and am even willing to take a couple of steps down the slippery slope. Phoenix #2 appears too far down the mountain, though. --JRM, who doesn't actually know what Slovaks have to alert. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Feb 9 22:18:27 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 17:18:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 Message-ID: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Wildavsky > What about calls that are properly > alerted? In that situation is the alert authorized information? As Sven said, no. All partner's alerts and explanations are UI. However, a _proper_ alert and explanation will rarely suggest any action over another, so the UI normally has no consequence. The exception, as Marv said, is when the player hearing the alert has already misbid, and the alert causes him to "wake up." Of course the "wake up" isn't allowed. (The rule was a little different prior to 1987. Some of us preferred the old rule, but the LC did not.) BLML saw an interesting case a few years ago, where a player who appeared to have misbid claimed to have psyched instead. Psyching was plausible on the hand and for the player. I don't think we reached consensus on how to rule after psycher's/misbidder's partner properly alerted the true agreement. From ehaa@starpower.net Sun Feb 9 23:21:12 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 18:21:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030209171923.022ab410@pop.starpower.net> At 03:12 PM 2/9/03, Adam wrote: >Last year we briefly discussed Phoenix Case #2. The writeup from the >daily bulletin is available in the BLML archives: > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-December/002914.html > >Everyone who posted agreed with the dissent, but the case still >bothers me. It seems nonsensical to claim that a failure to alert >Drury does not create unauthorized information. I'd like to explore >just what that means, though. What about calls that are properly >alerted? In that situation is the alert authorized information? By law 16, it is "extraneous information", as it does not arise "from legal calls and or plays, [or] from mannerisms of opponents". This, then, is a function of its source. One view is that whether it is "authorized" or "unauthorized" is a function of its content relative to information already in your possession. Thus the information conveyed by the alert is "unauthorized" only if tells you something you don't already know. Another view is that it is always authorized, inasmuch as knowledge of your own methods cannot be unauthorized, even if it may have slipped your mind temporarily and required partner's alert to recall it. Accepted interpretation favors the former view. We are instructed that the law requires that if, for example, we make what we think is a natural bid, only to be reminded by partner's alert that our methods define the bid as something else entirely, we must continue to bid as though continuing to suffer from our original misapprehension, even when this requires that us to get rather creative in interpreting our partner's responses. If we are ethical, we do this, and so satisfy L73C. When we get to L16A, though, we are wearing our TD/AC hats, rather than our player hats, and we discover that while L73C may be entirely clear in its guidance to players (at least when supplemented with a moderately sized tome on WBF/NCBO guidelines and "accepted interpretation"), figuring out whether a player has violated it is another kettle of fish altogether, triggering off the aversion Steve and others have to our reading our players' minds when so hatted. So the alternative view, although not accepted as correct interpretation, becomes the de facto presumptive interpretation for TDs anc ACs, as it should. In other words, unless we have compelling evidence that convinces us to the contrary, we assume, as we should, that the information carried by a proper and correct alert is authorized. The Pheonix case was the contrary situation; here we had an improper, incorrect (failure to) alert. But the principles are the same. There the extraneous information was that partner might have forgotten the partnership agreement. Whether that was unauthorized depends on what he already knew, in a probabilistic sense -- you always know there's a possibility of partner forgetting anything at any time, but an incorrect alert would presumably alter the probability. Four of the committee members felt there was compelling evidence that the extraneous information carried by the failure to alert was not unauthorized. One member, and, it seems, just about everyone who read the writeup, were not convinced. > The laws define Authorized Information in Law 16 > > http://acbl.lunaweb.net/templates/acbl/laws97/node7.html#law16 > >though they say nothing about alerts, which are left to the sponsoring >organization under Law 80. In practice we know that the logical >alternative prohibition does not apply after a proper alert, so we can >conclude that a proper alert does not convey unauthorized information. >That means that either it is authorized or it is not information. It >does not seem to be authorized under Law 16, though it could be under >Law 80. I think it may be most useful to consider that it is in fact >not information! That doesn't work, because it is information, and, by law, extraneous information at that. It's unwise to produce interpretations that violate ordinary common sense, even when they would be useful. >Claude Shannon's Information Theory tells us in part that a message >does not contain information unless it is unexpected. "Unexpected" is being used very specifically here, quite differently from its common usage, so I don't think this will help. Generations of mothers won't believe that the everything's-fine-nothing's-happening-I'm-OK letter or phone call (or e-mail or whatever these days) from their child "does not contain information". >The theory is mathematical, but it seems reasonable to use this part >as a working definition here. Then my options are not affected by >hearing partner alert my call if it is alertable, nor by failing to >hear an alert if my call is not alertable. Your options are only affected insofar as your self-imposed obligation to follow L73C affects them, as it will on occasion. As a practical matter, they are almost certainly not affected by anything that a TD or AC might do to you if you don't choose to allow them to be. This apparent dichotomy within the law probably arises because when the words used in Laws 16 and 73 were written, it was assumed that conveying extraneous information to partner was something to be generally avoided. Since the introduction in the last few decades of alerts, we've seen numerous problems that arise in situations where the conveying of extraneous information is mandatory. The not-very-carefully-drawn distinction in the law between "extraneous" and "unauthorized" information -- between matters of source and content -- has become far more critical than the original writers could have expected. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From adam@tameware.com Mon Feb 10 03:48:31 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 22:48:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks to all for the prompt and thoughtful responses! At 9:53 PM +0000 2/9/03, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Adam wrote: > >> What about calls that are properly >> alerted? In that situation is the alert authorized information? The >> laws define Authorized Information in Law 16 > >I thought the consensus was that proper Alerts were UI but they seldom >suggested any particular LA (since playing for partner to have forgotten >the system is not usually a majority approach). I'll buy that. Knowing that partner remembers our system will not demonstrably suggest one logical alternative over another, since for most partnerships all logical alternatives presuppose that partner has remembered our system. At 9:54 PM +0100 2/9/03, Sven Pran wrote: >Yes, the fact that your partner alerted (or did not alert) is unauthorized >information for you. ... >An expected alert conveys the information that your partner correctly >remembers that your call is alertable. The amount of this information >may be negligible, but it is there - and it is unauthorized for you. That seems fair enough. So now I have UI on almost every hand! But that need not be a concern because of the wording of 16A. It seems that you and Tim are in the same camp. At 1:22 PM -0800 2/9/03, Marvin French wrote: >That should be true, but the message could be unexpected if one has had a >memory lapse. If so, it becomes UI. The Alert/Announcement procedures may >not be utilized for memory jogging. Fair enough -- good point. This ought to be easy enough to administer, since there will be prior evidence that I've forgotten my methods, either from my hand or from my earlier alerts/explanations or lack thereof. At 5:18 PM -0500 2/9/03, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Wildavsky >> What about calls that are properly >> alerted? In that situation is the alert authorized information? > >As Sven said, no. All partner's alerts and explanations are UI. >However, a _proper_ alert and explanation will rarely suggest any >action over another, so the UI normally has no consequence. Almost exactly what Tim said. I see a consensus emerging! But it's not unanimous : At 6:21 PM -0500 2/9/03, Eric Landau wrote: >By law 16, it is "extraneous information", as it does not arise >"from legal calls and or plays, [or] from mannerisms of opponents". >This, then, is a function of its source. ... >The not-very-carefully-drawn distinction in the law between >"extraneous" and "unauthorized" information -- between matters of >source and content -- has become far more critical than the original >writers could have expected. Quite so. I do not understand why Law 16 uses two different terms. In this context they seem to be synonyms. One possibility is that "extraneous" information becomes "unauthorized" only when partner gains an advantage from it. I don't like that -- I think a more useful approach is to consider its nature from the outset as either authorized or unauthorized. Yes, that puts me in Aristotle's camp. >One view is that whether it is "authorized" or "unauthorized" is a >function of its content relative to information already in your >possession. Thus the information conveyed by the alert is >"unauthorized" only if tells you something you don't already know. This is probably a better way of saying what I was trying to with my reference to information theory. When put this way, though, I think I disagree! Better to say that if it duplicates authorized information then it does not suggest one LA over another. >Another view is that it is always authorized, inasmuch as knowledge >of your own methods cannot be unauthorized, even if it may have >slipped your mind temporarily and required partner's alert to recall >it. Isn't there a third possibility, that it is always unauthorized? Back to Case 2: >Four of the committee members felt there was compelling evidence >that the extraneous information carried by the failure to alert was >not unauthorized. Is "not unauthorized" the same as authorized? It bothers me that partner's failure to alert could be considered authorized info. I wrote: >>I think it may be most useful to consider that it is in fact not information! Eric replied: >That doesn't work, because it is information, and, by law, >extraneous information at that. It's unwise to produce >interpretations that violate ordinary common sense, even when they >would be useful. I wasn't sure it violated common sense -- that was one reason for my post. I am convinced now. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Feb 10 08:20:01 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:20:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3E4760B1.1040300@skynet.be> I have chosen Steve's reply because he comes closest to what I want to contribute. Consider me too Aristotlean in the sense that information is either authorized or not authorized. In that sense, the correct alert is also UI. That much should be clear. We don't want, however, to limit a player's possibilities through some totally expected piece of I even if that piece is UI. Some have suggested that the correct alert carries no I. That is not true. Even if just to make one feel better, it does have an effect. Others have suggested that the correct alert suggests no action. That is a better approach. But then we come to this: Steve Willner wrote: >>From: Adam Wildavsky >>What about calls that are properly >>alerted? In that situation is the alert authorized information? >> > > > BLML saw an interesting case a few years ago, where a player who > appeared to have misbid claimed to have psyched instead. Psyching was > plausible on the hand and for the player. I don't think we reached > consensus on how to rule after psycher's/misbidder's partner properly > alerted the true agreement. > I think we can agree that we would allow a psycher to see the (to him, expected) alert, but not the misbidder. I don't want to talk about the difficulty of catching the misbidder who claims to have psyched, that is not the point. The point is that both the psycher and the misbidder have UI: the alert. To both, that alert must be deemed to suggest the same action, since their situation is otherwise similar. Yet we want to put constraints on the misbidder, and not on the psycher. So the only solution lies in the recognition of the difference in their prior knowledge. The psycher knows the explanation his partner will dish up, the misbidder doesn't. So the solution is that UI should carry no restrictions if there is AI also present that say the same thing. And we need to agree that one's own knowledge of the system is AI. I don't actually think this is all clear within the laws. I am clear however, that these are general principles that are commonly accepted. But the principle must be formulated as: UI + AI = no L16 restrictions. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 10 10:19:55 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:19:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: <001d01c2d07d$5fe6dd10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030210111537.02530730@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:54 9/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > Claude Shannon's Information Theory tells us in part that a message > > does not contain information unless it is unexpected. AG : not really. A message does not contain information when it is the only possible message in a this specific situation. A message could be one of several pre-defined as expected, and still be informative. That is, BTW, the case of bridge bids. > > > > Could there be a case where a failure to alert is not UI? Perhaps. > > I'll pose an example in my next post -- I'll give y'all a chance to > > respond to this one first. > >I cannot think of any such case, but let's see what you can come up >me for an example. AG : I can. An automatic artificial response (there are people who always answer 2D to a Benji 2C) has to be alerted. IMHO, the non-alert can't help you as to what partenr thinks of it. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 10 10:27:35 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:27:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: <3E4760B1.1040300@skynet.be> References: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030210112539.02493780@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:20 10/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >The principle must be formulated as: > >UI + AI = no L16 restrictions. AG : do you mean that if a player has mannerisms from both partner and opponent to help him, there will be no restrictions ? I've seen several AC decisions telling the contrary. From svenpran@online.no Mon Feb 10 10:18:08 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:18:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030210111537.02530730@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002201c2d0ed$b5c83a60$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Sven Pran wrote: ......... > > > Could there be a case where a failure to alert is not UI? Perhaps. > > > I'll pose an example in my next post -- I'll give y'all a chance to > > > respond to this one first. > > > >I cannot think of any such case, but let's see what you can come up > >me for an example. > > AG : I can. An automatic artificial response (there are people who always > answer 2D to a Benji 2C) has to be alerted. IMHO, the non-alert can't help > you as to what partenr thinks of it. The failure to alert conveys the "information" that partner might have forgotten something or that he simply ignored to alert. This "information" (however small) is unauthorized for you. Note: I do not say that this "information" could suggest any choice among alternatives, but it is still extraneous. (If it does suggest a particular action it would probably be due to secret agreements: "If we fail to alert it means ....") Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Feb 10 10:22:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:22:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20030210112539.02493780@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003001c2d0ee$5b8c7240$6900a8c0@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 > At 09:20 10/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > >The principle must be formulated as: > > > >UI + AI = no L16 restrictions. > > AG : do you mean that if a player has mannerisms from both partner and > opponent to help him, there will be no restrictions ? I've seen several AC > decisions telling the contrary. I made the following comment to Herman's posting. Unfortunately something happened to my reply, disturbing the headers and causing it to be held for approval, so here is my comment again: > But the principle must be formulated as: > > UI + AI = no L16 restrictions. Or to put it , I believe, in accordance with Law16: A player who has received extraneous information from his partner must not choose among alternatives an action that could demonstrably have been suggested by this information unless he has sufficient reason from his available information (as specified in the preamble of Law 16) to choose such action. What is "sufficient reason" - that is up to the judgement by the TD and eventually (in case) by the AC. The stronger the suggestion is from UI the more overwhelming reason we require from the AI. So maybe your "formula" should better be: UI < AI = no L16 restrictions? I think that is how we all use Law 16? By the way: Law 16 does *not* use the term "Unauthorized information"! (Except in the headline which is not part of the law). So I agree with those who consider UI another term for "Extraneous information" as described in Law 16. regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Feb 10 09:21:39 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:21:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3E4760B1.1040300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001001c2d0e5$d18be650$6900a8c0@WINXP> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C2D0EE.32CE4D10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Herman De Wael" .......... > I don't actually think this is all clear within the laws. I am clear > however, that these are general principles that are commonly accepted. > > But the principle must be formulated as: > > UI + AI = no L16 restrictions. Or to put it , I believe, in accordance with Law16: A player who has received extraneous information from his partner must not choose among alternatives an action that could demonstrably have been suggested by this information unless he has sufficient reason from his available information (as specified in the preamble of Law 16) to choose such action. What is "sufficient reason" - that is up to the judgement by the TD and eventually (in case) by the AC. The stronger the suggestion is from UI the more overwhelming reason we require from the AI. So maybe your "formula" should better be: UI < AI = no L16 restrictions? I think that is how we all use Law 16? By the way: Law 16 does *not* use the term "Unauthorized information"! (Except in the headline which is not part of the law). So I agree with those who consider UI another term for "Extraneous information" as described in Law 16. regards Sven ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C2D0EE.32CE4D10 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Windows Explorer.lnk" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Windows Explorer.lnk" TAAAAAEUAgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEbfAgAAIAAAAKAwYDynWMIB4D1iArNYwgEA4sieSE/CAQBSDwAB AAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALcAFAAfUOBP0CDqOmkQotgIACswMJ0ZAC9DOlwAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAPAAxAAAAAACHLemBEABXSU5ET1dTACYAAwAEAO++2ywhb4stnXwUAAAAVwBJAE4A RABPAFcAUwAAABYATAAyAABSDwAdLSxVIABleHBsb3Jlci5leGUAADAAAwAEAO++Ki1rRostfYAU AAAAZQB4AHAAbABvAHIAZQByAC4AZQB4AGUAAAAcAAAARgAAABwAAAABAAAAHAAAAC0AAAAAAAAA RQAAABEAAAADAAAAQJTllBAAAAAAQzpcV0lORE9XU1xleHBsb3Jlci5leGUAACkAQAAlAFMAeQBz AHQAZQBtAFIAbwBvAHQAJQBcAHMAeQBzAHQAZQBtADMAMgBcAHMAaABlAGwAbAAzADIALgBkAGwA bAAsAC0AMgAyADUANwA5AB0ALgAuAFwALgAuAFwALgAuAFwAVwBJAE4ARABPAFcAUwBcAGUAeABw AGwAbwByAGUAcgAuAGUAeABlABUAJQBIAE8ATQBFAEQAUgBJAFYARQAlACUASABPAE0ARQBQAEEA VABIACUAGQAlAFMAeQBzAHQAZQBtAFIAbwBvAHQAJQBcAGUAeABwAGwAbwByAGUAcgAuAGUAeABl ABQDAAABAACgJVN5c3RlbVJvb3QlXGV4cGxvcmVyLmV4ZQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgA2P30AwAAAAAlAFMAeQBzAHQAZQBtAFIA bwBvAHQAJQBcAGUAeABwAGwAbwByAGUAcgAuAGUAeABlAAAAAiT4dzco9Xegb/x3hkb1d35G9XcI AgAAjOOqAAAAAADy46oAAAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoAMIAAIAAAAAAAAACgAAAPgs CAAAAAAAvOGqAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPDjqgACAAAALgAIAgAAAAABAAABLgAAABcAAAAI6KoALgAw AAjoqgAU4KoANPOqAOzgqgACJPh3kGL3dx4o9XcnKPV3AAAAAAAAAAAA8P1/3OOqAODgqgAf4vd3 APD9fwAAAABMAgEANOGqAAAAAAA5XPV30OGqAAAAAADw46oAzmCtdZThqgDTf+d3+CwIAAEAAAC8 4aoACgAAANzjqgAKAAAAAAAAANzjqgAKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHk4KoAsOOqADTzqgACJPh30GL3d7zh qgDfXPV32sr1dwAAAABc4aoAAAAAANzjqgAEAQAAAAAAABQACAIAAAAAFAAUALpgrXUUAAAA+CwI AAAAAAAKAAAAXDbndxDqqgBnNud33OOqAAoAAAAAAAAAgOGqABgAGgA086oAhrvpd7AY6Hf///// Zzbnd5/GqnUQ6qoA8OOqAAAAAAAI6KoAQwA6AFwAVwBJAE4ARABPAFcAUwAAAPV3YAAAAAMAAKBY AAAAAAAAAHdpbnhwAAAAAAAAAAAAAACQrNtyrBIxQJLb6msyTTGgk4cS4aDE1hGyPQAGW7tcypCs 23KsEjFAktvqazJNMaCThxLhoMTWEbI9AAZbu1zKEAAAAAUAAKAkAAAAaQAAAAAAAAA= ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C2D0EE.32CE4D10-- From gester@lineone.net Mon Feb 10 16:30:43 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:30:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3E4760B1.1040300@skynet.be> <001001c2d0e5$d18be650$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003601c2d121$f3f76d40$9e2a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 > From: "Herman De Wael" > .......... > A player who has received extraneous > information from his partner must not > choose among alternatives an action that > could demonstrably have been suggested > by this information unless he has sufficient > reason from his available information (as > specified in the preamble of Law 16) to > choose such action. > > What is "sufficient reason" - that is up to > the judgement by the TD and eventually > (in case) by the AC. The stronger the > suggestion is from UI the more overwhelming > reason we require from the AI. > > So maybe your "formula" should better be: > UI < AI = no L16 restrictions? > > I think that is how we all use Law 16? > > > By the way: Law 16 does *not* use the term > "Unauthorized information"! (Except in the > headline which is not part of the law). > > So I agree with those who consider UI another > term for "Extraneous information" as described > in Law 16. > +=+ There are some interesting formulations here, but I think the subject calls for a wary approach. To begin with we should identify the terms 'extraneous' and 'unauthorized' as not being synonymous with each other, but rather descriptive of 'information' in different respects - the former as to its source and the latter as to its application (use). As has been said 'extraneous' is lifted directly from Law 16 whereas 'unauthorized' is a regulatory exegesis of the effects of Law 16A deriving from use of the words later in the laws. But there are a number of considerations which, if they do not conflict, at best leave scope for flexible interpretation - something that should no doubt be removed at a future time. For example, the wording of 16A is quite explicit that a player put in possession of 'extraneous information that may suggest a call or play' is precluded for the remainder of the hand (such being the effect of "after") from choosing 'among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information'. Such information is thereby identified as 'unauthorized'. Law 16A is a specific qualifying the preamble of Law 16. Contributing to the understanding of the law, the actual 'flexibility' of which I doubt, is Law 73C. This Law requires players to conform to 16A. It admonishes the player to 'carefully avoid' - by conforming with 16A - 'taking any advantage that might accrue to his side' ( from his possession of 'unauthorized information'). But there is nothing in 75C to justify belief that the effect of 16A is anything other than I have said, although I accept that certain regimes have found it convenient to act as though this were the case, and/or as though the relationship in Law 16 between the general and the specific were other than it is. This may be convenient, and one could suggest a more logical disposition of the matter; but it is a convenience gained by bending the law. Or, as you might think, a fudge. It would be my ambition to eliminate the need for such fudges. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Feb 10 16:26:08 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:26:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 Message-ID: On 2/9/03, Eric Landau wrote: >By law 16, it is "extraneous information", as it does not arise "from >legal calls and or plays, [or] from mannerisms of opponents". This, >then, is a function of its source. It seems to me there is something seriously wrong with a game which in one rule limits the ways in which partners communicate with each other, and in another *requires* those partners to communicate in ways outside those limits. Something oughta be done about that, but I'm not sure what. From svenpran@online.no Mon Feb 10 16:56:33 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:56:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3E4760B1.1040300@skynet.be> <001001c2d0e5$d18be650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003601c2d121$f3f76d40$9e2a2850@pacific> Message-ID: <001301c2d125$5de689e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: > Grattan Endicott ....... > +=+ There are some interesting formulations here, > but I think the subject calls for a wary approach. > To begin with we should identify the terms > 'extraneous' and 'unauthorized' as not being > synonymous with each other, but rather descriptive > of 'information' in different respects - the former as > to its source and the latter as to its application (use). > As has been said 'extraneous' is lifted directly from > Law 16 whereas 'unauthorized' is a regulatory > exegesis of the effects of Law 16A deriving from > use of the words later in the laws. > But there are a number of considerations which, > if they do not conflict, at best leave scope for > flexible interpretation - something that should no > doubt be removed at a future time. For example, > the wording of 16A is quite explicit that a player put > in possession of 'extraneous information that may > suggest a call or play' is precluded for the remainder > of the hand (such being the effect of "after") from > choosing 'among logical alternative actions one that > could demonstrably have been suggested over > another by the extraneous information'. Good point. But isn't it a fact that if the player has "sufficient" authorized information in support of that choice he no longer has any other logical alternatives and Law 16 no longer precludes him from choosing that alternative? (A separate issue is of course the question: How much AI does it take to be "sufficient"?) regards Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 10 16:58:27 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:58:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 Message-ID: <5027889.1044896307515.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Grattan wrote: > the wording of 16A is quite explicit that a player put > in possession of 'extraneous information that may > suggest a call or play' is precluded for the remainder > of the hand (such being the effect of "after") from > choosing 'among logical alternative actions one that > could demonstrably have been suggested over > another by the extraneous information'. Does this mean that if I bid Blackwood, and my partner says "5H - that shows two aces, you know", I may not do anything suggested by the information that he has two aces? David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 10 17:43:21 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:43:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: <5027889.1044896307515.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030210184053.00a7d7b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:58 10/02/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >Grattan wrote: > > > the wording of 16A is quite explicit that a player put > > in possession of 'extraneous information that may > > suggest a call or play' is precluded for the remainder > > of the hand (such being the effect of "after") from > > choosing 'among logical alternative actions one that > > could demonstrably have been suggested over > > another by the extraneous information'. > >Does this mean that if I bid Blackwood, and my partner says "5H - that >shows two aces, you know", I may not do anything suggested by the >information that he has two aces? AG : I would say it does. Just in case you had forgotten. I know some people whose responses to BW differ according to the trump suit / the strength promised by the answerer / the fact that a minimum # of controls has already been shown. He may not help you. Same if partner says "whoaw, 20+" and opens a GF opening. Best regards, Alain. From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Feb 11 00:08:09 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:08:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3E4760B1.1040300@skynet.be> <001001c2d0e5$d18be650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003601c2d121$f3f76d40$9e2a2850@pacific> <001301c2d125$5de689e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001a01c2d163$2774d1d0$8b24e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 > From: > > Grattan Endicott > ....... > > For example, > > the wording of 16A is quite explicit that a player put > > in possession of 'extraneous information that may > > suggest a call or play' is precluded for the remainder > > of the hand (such being the effect of "after") from > > choosing 'among logical alternative actions one that > > could demonstrably have been suggested over > > another by the extraneous information'. > > Good point. But isn't it a fact that if the player has > "sufficient" authorized information in support of that > choice he no longer has any other logical alternatives > and Law 16 no longer precludes him from choosing > that alternative? (A separate issue is of course the > question: How much AI does it take to be "sufficient"?) > > regards Sven > +=+ The last thing I would wish to do is to impede the TD in his determination whether a logical alternative exists; the second-last thing is to come between the NBO and its Director in the guidance it gives to him. So I limited my exploration of the subject to factual matters concerning the reading of the law book. However, Sven's final question illuminates the problem - when arguing in the presence of UI that no logical alternative action exists to one that the extraneous information suggests, the argument has to be wholly convincing. We can state the principle but we cannot remove the discretion of the director nor the authority of the appeals committee, nor yet the ultimate power of the national authority to adjudicate in the circumstances of each occasion. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Feb 10 22:22:43 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:22:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030210184053.00a7d7b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001901c2d163$264133d0$8b24e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 > At 16:58 10/02/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > >Grattan wrote: > > > > > the wording of 16A is quite explicit that a player put > > > in possession of 'extraneous information that may > > > suggest a call or play' is precluded for the remainder > > > of the hand (such being the effect of "after") from > > > choosing 'among logical alternative actions one that > > > could demonstrably have been suggested over > > > another by the extraneous information'. > > > >Does this mean that if I bid Blackwood, and my > > partner says "5H - that shows two aces, you know", I > > may not do anything suggested by the information > > that he has two aces? > > AG : I would say it does. Just in case you had forgotten. > I know some people whose responses to BW differ > according to the trump suit / the strength promised by > the answerer / the fact that a minimum # of controls > has already been shown. He may not help you. Same if > partner says "whoaw, 20+" and opens a GF opening. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > +=+ Although the sanctions against partner for violation of Laws 73A1, 74A3, and maybe 74C4, might obviate any necessity of a decision on UI. +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Feb 11 01:06:37 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:06:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3E4760B1.1040300@skynet.be> <001001c2d0e5$d18be650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003601c2d121$f3f76d40$9e2a2850@pacific> <001301c2d125$5de689e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001a01c2d163$2774d1d0$8b24e150@endicott> Message-ID: <007201c2d169$d40ba760$dd9d27d9@pbncomputer> Grattan wrote: > However, Sven's final question illuminates the > problem - when arguing in the presence of UI that no > logical alternative action exists to one that the > extraneous information suggests, the argument has > to be wholly convincing. We can state the principle > but we cannot remove the discretion of the director > nor the authority of the appeals committee, nor yet > the ultimate power of the national authority to > adjudicate in the circumstances of each occasion. Funny thing. A chap - Alf Cohen by name; some of the Englishmen on the list may know him - came up to me tonight in the club and asked me this. You are playing for the first time with this partner, who is a good player but about whom you otherwise know little. You agree beforehand on weak no trump, transfers, Stayman, and so forth. You discuss 1NT-2S, so there is substantial basis for saying that the partnership method definitely includes transfers. Your hand at love all is: 632 A87632 1075 3 Partner opens 1NT, RHO passes, you bid 2D, LHO passes. (a) partner has alerted 2D and now passes. RHO doubles. What call do you make? Is there any call that you consider yourself obliged (per Laws 16 and 73) not to make? (b) partner has not alerted 2D and now passes. RHO doubles. What call do you make? Is there any call that you consider yourself obliged (per Laws 16 and 73) not to make? Are you sure that an "expected alert" is "information-free"? David Burn London, England From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue Feb 11 01:14:55 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 20:14:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030210201335.00b9f3b0@mail.comcast.net> At 03:12 PM 2/9/2003, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >Could there be a case where a failure to alert is not UI? Perhaps. I'll >pose an example in my next post -- I'll give y'all a chance to respond to >this one first. In Great Britain, a 2C response to 1NT is alertable no matter what it means. Therefore, a failure to alert the 2C response gives no information other than that partner forgot to alert it. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 11 02:36:05 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:36:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: <007201c2d169$d40ba760$dd9d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On 2/11/03, David Burn wrote: >Funny thing. A chap - Alf Cohen by name; some of the Englishmen on the >list may know him - came up to me tonight in the club and asked me >this. > >You are playing for the first time with this partner, who is a good >player but about whom you otherwise know little. You agree beforehand >on weak no trump, transfers, Stayman, and so forth. You discuss >1NT-2S, so there is substantial basis for saying that the partnership >method definitely includes transfers. > >Your hand at love all is: > >632 A87632 1075 3 > >Partner opens 1NT, RHO passes, you bid 2D, LHO passes. > >(a) partner has alerted 2D and now passes. RHO doubles. What call do >you make? Is there any call that you consider yourself obliged (per >Laws 16 and 73) not to make? > >(b) partner has not alerted 2D and now passes. RHO doubles. What call >do you make? Is there any call that you consider yourself obliged (per >Laws 16 and 73) not to make? > >Are you sure that an "expected alert" is "information-free"? A long time ago, when I first learned to play this game, I was taught "trust partner". The principle has been reiterated to me in more recent times. We have agreed to play transfers. I have bid 2D, with the meaning "transfer to spades". Partner has alerted as required. What am I to make of this? Some might argue that it means only that partner thinks 2D has some (unspecified) alertable meaning. But this is not the case. We have *agreed* that it is a transfer. I have no reason to believe at this point that a request for explanation would produce anything other than "it's a transfer" (presumably to hearts, though that is not certain from the available data). Now partner passes. Does that change the information conveyed by the alert? I don't see how. The *pass* may tell me something, but in my case what it tells me is only that partner seems for some reason to have violated our agreement - it gives me no clue what the reason is, or what kind of hand he actually has. IAC, it is certainly not the case that the *alert* has conveyed anything other than AI to me. And IMO if a TD or a committee ruled that it *had* conveyed UI, then I think they would be basing that on *their* level of expertise in this game, not mine, and so doing me a disservice. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 11 04:09:32 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 23:09:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2/10/03, Ed Reppert wrote: >We have agreed to play transfers. I have bid 2D, with the meaning >"transfer to spades". Oops. I meant "transfer to hearts". From adam@tameware.com Tue Feb 11 06:34:07 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:34:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: <007201c2d169$d40ba760$dd9d27d9@pbncomputer> References: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3E4760B1.1040300@skynet.be> <001001c2d0e5$d18be650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003601c2d121$f3f76d40$9e2a2850@pacific> <001301c2d125$5de689e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001a01c2d163$2774d1d0$8b24e150@endicott> <007201c2d169$d40ba760$dd9d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: At 1:06 AM +0000 2/11/03, David Burn wrote: >(a) partner has alerted 2D and now passes. RHO doubles. What call do you >make? Is there any call that you consider yourself obliged (per Laws 16 >and 73) not to make? > >(b) partner has not alerted 2D and now passes. RHO doubles. What call do >you make? Is there any call that you consider yourself obliged (per Laws >16 and 73) not to make? This is a good example. I would pass or bid 3D in both cases, judging that partner discovered that both his red suits were diamonds. I would like to be able to interpret the law so that a player in my seat is allowed to do as he pleases in case (a) but is prohibited from bidding 2H in case (b). I'm not certain how to accomplish that. It certainly seems that the alert in case (a) demonstrably suggests not bidding hearts, just as the failure to alert in case (b) suggests bidding them. >Are you sure that an "expected alert" is "information-free"? No, but I still think it might be most practical to treat it as if it were. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 11 08:34:30 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:34:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3E4760B1.1040300@skynet.be> <001001c2d0e5$d18be650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003601c2d121$f3f76d40$9e2a2850@pacific> <001301c2d125$5de689e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001a01c2d163$2774d1d0$8b24e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3E48B596.2070506@skynet.be> Hello Grattan, Grattan Endicott wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" >>> >>Good point. But isn't it a fact that if the player has >>"sufficient" authorized information in support of that >>choice he no longer has any other logical alternatives >>and Law 16 no longer precludes him from choosing >>that alternative? (A separate issue is of course the >>question: How much AI does it take to be "sufficient"?) >> >>regards Sven >> >> > +=+ The last thing I would wish to do is to impede the > TD in his determination whether a logical alternative > exists; the second-last thing is to come between the > NBO and its Director in the guidance it gives to him. > So I limited my exploration of the subject to factual > matters concerning the reading of the law book. > However, Sven's final question illuminates the > problem - when arguing in the presence of UI that no > logical alternative action exists to one that the > extraneous information suggests, the argument has > to be wholly convincing. We can state the principle > but we cannot remove the discretion of the director > nor the authority of the appeals committee, nor yet > the ultimate power of the national authority to > adjudicate in the circumstances of each occasion. > ~ G ~ +=+ The problem is more complicated than that, Grattan. If a player is in the possession of UI and AI that tell him exactly the same thing, he can still have logical alternatives, one of which is suggested by the UI. Should not the possession of the AI allow him to select that suggested alternative, even if it's not the only one? Currently, and in a literal reading of the laws, he hasn't this option. Yet many believe that this ought to be not so. Suppose partner has a MPC, and declarer forbids my leading the suit. In the next trick, partner signals the suit. I re-take the lead, and I now have UI (the shown card) but also AI (declarers forbidding and partner's signal) that suggest me leading the suit. In a literal sense, L16 still forbids me to lead this suit. That should be addressed. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Feb 11 09:11:24 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:11:24 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > At 1:06 AM +0000 2/11/03, David Burn wrote: > >(a) partner has alerted 2D and now passes. RHO doubles. What call do you > >make? Is there any call that you consider yourself obliged (per Laws 16 > >and 73) not to make? > > > >(b) partner has not alerted 2D and now passes. RHO doubles. What call do > >you make? Is there any call that you consider yourself obliged (per Laws > >16 and 73) not to make? What a fun little test case for us! Here is my take on it - which seems to be a tad different than Adam's. When a player asks himself "what call do I want to make?", he should give the same answer in both situations. If not, he has been influenced by the UI. (An influence in one direction means he is prone to violating the law; an influence in the other direction means he is hyperactively ethical to the point of shooting himself in the foot.) If the answer to "what call do I want to make?" is a nice crisp Pass or a nice crisp 3D or a nice crisp 2H (in both situations), make that call. For you, there are no LAs. If the answer is "gee, it's a tough choice between raising his diamonds or rebidding the hearts to show six", you now have obligations under 16 and 73. (Raising the diamonds when partner has forgotten transfers, run back to hearts when he has alerted but passed anyway.) A subcase: if you are able to say with complete confidence "the only reason my partner would ever do this, alert or no alert, is to expose his psychic opening" you can, of course, pass with or without the alert -- but it's an interesting question if anyone can be *that* sure his partner isn't being an idiot. (Put another way, is "if I make an impossible bid, my partner must assume I have psyched, not midbid or forgotten" a legal agreement?) In my regular partnership, I have the opposite agreement: "never assume partner has psyched, if you can dream up any other possible meaning for the sequence." I feel confident that, alert or no alert, I should bid 2H on this hand to show the sixth heart. I don't know what partner is doing, but I've an explicit agreement *not* to cater for his psych by failing to make my normal rebid announcing the 8-card heart fit. Adam Wildavsky wrote: > This is a good example. I would pass or bid 3D in both cases, judging > that partner discovered that both his red suits were diamonds. A novel interpretation - reasonable, and perhaps likely especially with partners with poor eyesight. I suppose there is no moral high ground between "sorry, partner, I thought you were an idiot and mis-sorted your hand" and "sorry, partner, I thought you were an idiot and were too busy staring at the caddy to notice you needed to complete the transfer," is there? :) > would like to be able to interpret the law so that a player in my > seat is allowed to do as he pleases in case (a) but is prohibited > from bidding 2H in case (b). I'm not certain how to accomplish that. If I held only 5 hearts and had already shown my entire hand, I'd agree with prohibiting 2H in (b). I am uncomfortable, however, with the asymmetry between the two cases. > It certainly seems that the alert in case (a) demonstrably suggests > not bidding hearts, just as the failure to alert in case (b) suggests > bidding them. > As long as the word "seems" is in there, I agree with that part. > >Are you sure that an "expected alert" is "information-free"? An alert (or lack thereof) that conforms to the rules can be information-free, but only in a case where the auction and system leave no space for any extra information to be passed. In the event a pair's system actually specificed a meaning for 1NT-P-2D(transfer)-P-P, then we wouldn't have a problem in your test case. The problem arises because in undefined sequences, an alert conveys information about how your partner has interpreted the sequence. GRB From svenpran@online.no Tue Feb 11 09:31:26 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:31:26 +0100 Subject: {Virus?} Re: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3E4760B1.1040300@skynet.be> <001001c2d0e5$d18be650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001b01c2d189$830012a0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <001d01c2d1b0$59bb4690$6900a8c0@WINXP> Information related to a "suspicious" post from me: The case was something that never should happen and I really do not understand why it did. The immediate result was that my post was "held" for approval by blml administrator due to a suspicious header, actually an attachment. For some reason unknown to me my Object Explorer inserted this attachment while I edited and sent the comment to Herman's post, I saw the attachment in my copy of the sent message, it appeared to be some kind of a shortcut (.lnk) but I did not make any attempt to identify where it was pointing. What I immediately did was to make an extra thorough scan on my system (I am continuously protected by Norman Virus Control which has a very high reputation) and was reported "clean", so I assume that there should be little cause for fear. Of course I recommend everybody not to save nor to open unexpected attachment to any message. I am going to be particularly alert on similar cases. Thank you for your feedback, regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "Sven Pran" Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 5:53 AM Subject: Re: {Virus?} Re: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 > This is how I received this message from you. I don't know what the > attachment means and it sort of suggests that it might be a virus? Thought > you might like to know or can tell me if it is OK. Thanks, Nancy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 4:21 AM > Subject: {Virus?} Re: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 > > > > Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed > > Warning: (Windows Explorer.lnk). > > Warning: Please read the "VirusWarning.txt" attachment(s) for more > information. > > > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > .......... > > > I don't actually think this is all clear within the laws. I am clear > > > however, that these are general principles that are commonly accepted. > > > > > > But the principle must be formulated as: > > > > > > UI + AI = no L16 restrictions. > > > > Or to put it , I believe, in accordance with Law16: > > > > A player who has received extraneous information from his > > partner must not choose among alternatives an action that > > could demonstrably have been suggested by this information > > unless he has sufficient reason from his available information > > (as specified in the preamble of Law 16) to choose such > > action. > > > > What is "sufficient reason" - that is up to the judgement > > by the TD and eventually (in case) by the AC. The stronger > > the suggestion is from UI the more overwhelming reason we > > require from the AI. > > > > So maybe your "formula" should better be: > > UI < AI = no L16 restrictions? > > > > I think that is how we all use Law 16? > > > > > > By the way: Law 16 does *not* use the term "Unauthorized > > information"! (Except in the headline which is not part of > > the law). > > > > So I agree with those who consider UI another term for > > "Extraneous information" as described in Law 16. > > > > regards Sven > > > > > From svenpran@online.no Tue Feb 11 09:48:15 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:48:15 +0100 Subject: {Virus?} Re: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3E4760B1.1040300@skynet.be> <001001c2d0e5$d18be650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001b01c2d189$830012a0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <003901c2d1b2$b3419a00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Sorry, I must be sleepy: (Of course) I am using Outlook Express, not something called object explorer as my mail client. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 11 11:29:24 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:29:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030210201335.00b9f3b0@mail.comcast.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030211122752.00a7cd80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:14 10/02/2003 -0500, David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 03:12 PM 2/9/2003, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >>Could there be a case where a failure to alert is not UI? Perhaps. I'll >>pose an example in my next post -- I'll give y'all a chance to respond to >>this one first. > >In Great Britain, a 2C response to 1NT is alertable no matter what it >means. Therefore, a failure to alert the 2C response gives no information >other than that partner forgot to alert it. AG : very strange. The alert of 2C doesn't say anything to the opponents (the classical alert says "there is something unexpectedabout this bid"); One would get the same result by *never* alerting 2C. I do'nt understand which purposes the alert might serve. From gester@lineone.net Tue Feb 11 12:09:11 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:09:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030210201335.00b9f3b0@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <004b01c2d1c6$9c8cd400$021e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 > At 03:12 PM 2/9/2003, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > >Could there be a case where a failure to alert is not UI? Perhaps. I'll > >pose an example in my next post -- I'll give y'all a chance to respond to > >this one first. > > In Great Britain, a 2C response to 1NT is alertable no matter what it > means. Therefore, a failure to alert the 2C response gives no information > other than that partner forgot to alert it. > +=+ Ah! :-) here is a total solution. Make all meanings of all calls alertable. +=+ From david.barton@boltblue.com Tue Feb 11 12:33:34 2003 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:33:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3E4760B1.1040300@skynet.be> <001001c2d0e5$d18be650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003601c2d121$f3f76d40$9e2a2850@pacific> <001301c2d125$5de689e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001a01c2d163$2774d1d0$8b24e150@endicott> <3E48B596.2070506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c2d1c9$cb0c2e40$0300a8c0@David> Herman DE WAEL wrote > Suppose partner has a MPC, and declarer forbids my leading the suit. > In the next trick, partner signals the suit. I re-take the lead, and I > now have UI (the shown card) but also AI (declarers forbidding and > partner's signal) that suggest me leading the suit. In a literal > sense, L16 still forbids me to lead this suit. That should be addressed. > > > > > > > I was under the impression that we had established in a recent thread that a choice of penalty (declarer forbidding in the above example) was UNAUTHORISED information. ******************************* David.Barton@boltblue.com ******************************* From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Feb 11 13:48:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: <007201c2d169$d40ba760$dd9d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > Grattan wrote: > > > However, Sven's final question illuminates the > > problem - when arguing in the presence of UI that no > > logical alternative action exists to one that the > > extraneous information suggests, the argument has > > to be wholly convincing. We can state the principle > > but we cannot remove the discretion of the director > > nor the authority of the appeals committee, nor yet > > the ultimate power of the national authority to > > adjudicate in the circumstances of each occasion. > > Funny thing. A chap - Alf Cohen by name; some of the Englishmen on the > list may know him - came up to me tonight in the club and asked me this. > > You are playing for the first time with this partner, who is a good > player but about whom you otherwise know little. You agree beforehand on > weak no trump, transfers, Stayman, and so forth. You discuss 1NT-2S, so > there is substantial basis for saying that the partnership method > definitely includes transfers. > > Your hand at love all is: > > 632 A87632 1075 3 > > Partner opens 1NT, RHO passes, you bid 2D, LHO passes. > > (a) partner has alerted 2D and now passes. RHO doubles. What call do you > make? Is there any call that you consider yourself obliged (per Laws 16 > and 73) not to make? > > (b) partner has not alerted 2D and now passes. RHO doubles. What call do > you make? Is there any call that you consider yourself obliged (per Laws > 16 and 73) not to make? I'd start from position c), distracted by a passing barmaid I don't know whether the alert was made or not. I'd want to know the meaning of the double (probably undiscussed, I grant you). Now I assume partner is fooling about with weak hand and good diamonds. I can see some merit in pass, 2H (planning to "retreat" to 3D, possibly via 3C, if doubled) and an immediate 3D. > Are you sure that an "expected alert" is "information-free"? Nope. But still "suggestion-free". I would consider all the above options to remain available to me after such an alert. Knowing the alert hadn't been made may be slightly different. Although the likely scenario is that it was simply forgotten I don't think I can now justify a 2H call. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 11 15:21:14 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:21:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: References: <007201c2d169$d40ba760$dd9d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030211161904.00a79a90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:48 11/02/2003 +0000, you wrote: >I'd start from position c), distracted by a passing barmaid I don't know >whether the alert was made or not. I'd want to know the meaning of the >double (probably undiscussed, I grant you). > >Now I assume partner is fooling about with weak hand and good diamonds. AG : the ultimate psyche : open 1NT on a weak, shapely two-suiter in hearts and clubs. If partner answers 2C or 2H, you may pass. If 2D or 2S (Clubs), you've found a profitable fit. >I can see some merit in pass, 2H (planning to "retreat" to 3D, possibly via >3C, if doubled) and an immediate 3D. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 11 15:55:28 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:55:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <007201c2d169$d40ba760$dd9d27d9@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20030211161904.00a79a90@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E491CF0.5090508@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > AG : the ultimate psyche : open 1NT on a weak, shapely two-suiter in > hearts and clubs. If partner answers 2C or 2H, you may pass. If 2D or 2S > (Clubs), you've found a profitable fit. > and what if he bids 2NT (transfer diamonds) ? > >> I can see some merit in pass, 2H (planning to "retreat" to 3D, >> possibly via >> 3C, if doubled) and an immediate 3D. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gester@lineone.net Tue Feb 11 16:48:28 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:48:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 References: <200302092218.RAA07394@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3E4760B1.1040300@skynet.be> <001001c2d0e5$d18be650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003601c2d121$f3f76d40$9e2a2850@pacific> <001301c2d125$5de689e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <001a01c2d163$2774d1d0$8b24e150@endicott> <3E48B596.2070506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001401c2d1ed$8a0c2020$a1182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 > Hello Grattan, > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > The problem is more complicated than that, > Grattan. If a player is in the possession of UI > and AI that tell him exactly the same thing, he > can still have logical alternatives, one of which > is suggested by the UI. Should not the possession > of the AI allow him to select that suggested > alternative, even if it's not the only one? > > Currently, and in a literal reading of the laws, he > hasn't this option. Yet many believe that this ought > to be not so. > > Suppose partner has a MPC, and declarer > forbids my leading the suit. In the next trick, > partner signals the suit. I re-take the lead, and I > now have UI (the shown card) but also AI > (declarers forbidding and partner's signal) that > suggest me leading the suit. In a literal sense, L16 > still forbids me to lead this suit. That should be > addressed. > +=+ I believe, if my previous messages are re-read, it will be found that I have acknowledged the existence of this situation. The papers regarding future laws are drafted in such a way that this issue will present itself to the drafting subcommittee. ~ G ~ +=+ From John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" First things first, ALL VUL at matchpoints, dealer holds s JTxx h AQxx d AQJx c T playing 5 card majors, you open 1D and hear the auction proceed 2C by LHO, pass by partner, 3C by RHO. Do you double or do you pass? Of course, dealer's partner had the pregnant pause over 2C, and so the TD has to make a ruling after it went double all pass. The table result was +200 for the dealer defending 3C doubled off one whereas if the dealer passes, it goes all pass for +100. My understanding of these situations is that if there is some doubt, the TD should calculate an assigned score. For example, if they feel that 30% of the player's peers would double and 70% would not, the TD would assign a score of +130 (30% of +200 and 70% of +100). One of the ways to determine the percentages would be a poll of players. Would three players be enough, or five or ten? If we use the +130 above, what happens in the case where the dealer's side had a maximum of +110 if they played the hand? Thanks, John John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica johnmacg@racsa.co.cr www.cacbf.com From jrhind@therock.bm Tue Feb 11 19:28:24 2003 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:28:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] between 100 and 200 In-Reply-To: <000001c2d1f9$73365e40$c72928c4@john> Message-ID: On 2/11/03 2:12 PM, "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" wrote: > First things first, ALL VUL at matchpoints, dealer holds > s JTxx > h AQxx > d AQJx > c T > playing 5 card majors, you open 1D and hear the auction > proceed 2C by LHO, pass by partner, 3C by RHO. > Do you double or do you pass? > > Of course, dealer's partner had the pregnant pause over 2C, > and so the TD has to make a ruling after it went double all pass. > The table result was +200 for the dealer defending 3C doubled > off one whereas if the dealer passes, it goes all pass for +100. > > My understanding of these situations is that if there is some > doubt, the TD should calculate an assigned score. For example, > if they feel that 30% of the player's peers would double and 70% > would not, the TD would assign a score of +130 (30% of +200 > and 70% of +100). > > One of the ways to determine the percentages would be a poll > of players. Would three players be enough, or five or ten? > > If we use the +130 above, what happens in the case where the > dealer's side had a maximum of +110 if they played the hand? > > Thanks, > John > John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director > Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation > San Jose, Costa Rica > johnmacg@racsa.co.cr > www.cacbf.com > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml I don't think it's appropriate to use this method for this situation. My understanding of 12Cx is that it should only be used when it is not possible to obtain an actual result from the table. I believe that this is a more straight forward situation where you make a decision as to whether dealer has a double in this situation or whether pass is a logical alternative. The opinion of expert players can certainly be sought in assisting, but I think the director makes the final decision based on the information gathered and either allows the table result to stand or takes the double away. Regards, Jack Rhind From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 11 19:40:07 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:40:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] between 100 and 200 References: <000001c2d1f9$73365e40$c72928c4@john> Message-ID: <3E495197.2030102@skynet.be> Well John, there are two mistakes in your analysis. John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF wrote: > First things first, ALL VUL at matchpoints, dealer holds > s JTxx > h AQxx > d AQJx > c T > playing 5 card majors, you open 1D and hear the auction > proceed 2C by LHO, pass by partner, 3C by RHO. > Do you double or do you pass? > > Of course, dealer's partner had the pregnant pause over 2C, > and so the TD has to make a ruling after it went double all pass. > The table result was +200 for the dealer defending 3C doubled > off one whereas if the dealer passes, it goes all pass for +100. > > My understanding of these situations is that if there is some > doubt, the TD should calculate an assigned score. For example, > if they feel that 30% of the player's peers would double and 70% > would not, the TD would assign a score of +130 (30% of +200 > and 70% of +100). > Mistake one: if a player has UI barring him from choosing the suggested alternative, then this alternative cannot be present in the weighted alternatives. So +100 it should be here. Mistake two: If a TD awards 30% of +200 and 70% of +100, then that is how it is put, not as one score of +130. The calculation team should calculate the results for +200 and +100 respectively, and give a result of 30% of the former + 70% of the latter. example - at teams, if the other table scores +120, this table gets 30% of +80 = +3IMPs + 70% of -20 = -1IMP = total +0.2 IMPs > One of the ways to determine the percentages would be a poll > of players. Would three players be enough, or five or ten? > > If we use the +130 above, what happens in the case where the > dealer's side had a maximum of +110 if they played the hand? > > Thanks, > John > John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director > Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation > San Jose, Costa Rica > johnmacg@racsa.co.cr > www.cacbf.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ardelm@bigpond.net.au Tue Feb 11 21:18:50 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:18:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030212080625.00b15400@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> With two tricks to play: North D 5 C 5 West East H 10 H J C 2 D J South D 10 C J South leads the CJ, West plays the H 10 and immediately realises her error, contributing the C2, East now discards her H J and takes the last trick. East claims she "knew" declarer still had a diamond, was always going to keep it etc. Should director rule against EW under L72B "could have known". Should East, acting under L73C, throw her diamond regardless (I feel sure that Richard would)? I suppose the director should have had the play repeated to check that East had no logical alternative to keeping the diamond, but it was the end of the round, and he was playing etc. Cheers, Tony From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Feb 11 21:35:22 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:35:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030212080625.00b15400@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030212080625.00b15400@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:18:50 +1100, Tony Musgrove wrote: >Should East, acting under L73C, throw her diamond regardless (I >feel sure that Richard would)? Yes. But you don't need L73C. The relevant law is L62D2, which is much simpler to apply. It says nothing at all about logical alternatives - it is only about whether one play could possibly have been suggested over the other, and that is certainly the case here. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Tue Feb 11 21:40:20 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:40:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030212080625.00b15400@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <001d01c2d216$2d0d8750$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Tony Musgrove" > With two tricks to play: > North > > D 5 > C 5 > > West East > H 10 H J > C 2 D J > > South > > D 10 > C J > > South leads the CJ, West plays the H 10 and immediately realises her error, > contributing the C2, East now discards her H J and takes the last trick. > > East claims she "knew" declarer still had a diamond, was always going to keep > it etc. > > Should director rule against EW under L72B "could have known". > > Should East, acting under L73C, throw her diamond regardless (I > feel sure that Richard would)? > > I suppose the director should have had the play repeated to check > that East had no logical alternative to keeping the diamond, but it > was the end of the round, and he was playing etc. The correct answer is Law 73C. East has the unauthorized information from the revoke that West holds the H 10. Unless she can convince the Director that she has that same knowledge from authorized information as well (no guesswork permitted!) she has a choice in which card to hold on to, and in that case she may not hold on to her Diamond. As far as I can see the only way she legally can have that information is if earlier in the play either West has shown out of Diamonds or South has shown out of Hearts. I am not convinced that I (as Director) would accept a statement that East "knew" because of partner's dirstribution signals etc. (but I might although I cannot disregard the possibility of false-carding). Sven From adam@irvine.com Tue Feb 11 21:48:23 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:48:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:18:50 +1100." <5.1.1.6.0.20030212080625.00b15400@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <200302112148.NAA14423@mailhub.irvine.com> Tony Musgrove wrote: > With two tricks to play: > North > > D 5 > C 5 > > West East > H 10 H J > C 2 D J > > South > > D 10 > C J > > South leads the CJ, West plays the H 10 and immediately realises her error, > contributing the C2, East now discards her H J and takes the last trick. > > East claims she "knew" declarer still had a diamond, was always going to keep > it etc. > > Should director rule against EW under L72B "could have known". > > Should East, acting under L73C, throw her diamond regardless (I > feel sure that Richard would)? I think Law 50D1 might apply here. This Law says: "The requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner". I'm not sure how to apply this---it seems pretty confusing---but I suspect it applies here, meaning that Law 73C (or 16A) kicks in. But that doesn't necessarily mean East's heart discard is illegal; it does depend on how the auction and play have gone. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Tue Feb 11 21:57:26 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:57:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030212080625.00b15400@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <002701c2d218$90904fe0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Jesper Dybdal" On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:18:50 +1100, Tony Musgrove wrote: >Should East, acting under L73C, throw her diamond regardless (I >feel sure that Richard would)? Yes. But you don't need L73C. The relevant law is L62D2, which is much simpler to apply. It says nothing at all about logical alternatives - it is only about whether one play could possibly have been suggested over the other, and that is certainly the case here. Jesper is quite right, and I am ashamed I didn't find L62D2 at once (I was looking for it myself!). However, L73C is in no way difficult to use, in fact I would say that the two laws overlap with L62D2 being more specific on revoke in the twelfth trick. Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Feb 11 22:05:50 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:05:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick Message-ID: <200302112205.RAA01285@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Tony Musgrove > South leads the CJ, West plays the H 10 and immediately realises her error, > contributing the C2, East now discards her H J and takes the last trick. > > East claims she "knew" declarer still had a diamond, was always going to keep > it etc. > > Should director rule against EW under L72B "could have known". The conditions exist, except that we don't know for sure there was damage. L64C also applies. Basically, the TD should look at the past play and assign an adjusted score based on likely/at all probable results as of the instant the C-J is led. If it is "at all probable" for East to discard D-J, the score will differ from the table result. The TD could also use L12C3 if it's available. > Should East, acting under L73C, throw her diamond regardless (I > feel sure that Richard would)? This is a good thought. East should do so if she thinks there's a reasonable chance she might have gotten the discard wrong. I don't think she is obliged to do so if she had a sure count, but it might save time if the TD isn't going to be convinced. From adam@irvine.com Tue Feb 11 22:06:30 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:06:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:40:20 +0100." <001d01c2d216$2d0d8750$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200302112206.OAA14629@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > As far as I can see the only way she legally can have that information > is if earlier in the play either West has shown out of Diamonds or South > has shown out of Hearts. Are you saying you wouldn't accept inferences from the auction (e.g. South's bidding denied having one more heart than she's already shown up with)? -- Adam From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Feb 11 22:11:38 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:11:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick Message-ID: <200302112211.RAA01301@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Jesper Dybdal > The relevant law is L62D2 Definitely so. Please ignore my previous message! Interesting that this law applies only when the player holds two different suits. If the issue is whether to play high or low within a single suit -- is that possible? -- 72B1 and 64C could apply. From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Feb 11 13:57:58 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:57:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Language question resolved. References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> Message-ID: <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C2D1DD.F6F627E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Bertrand, 1. Language. " if there is the slightest chance that he has forgotten "=20 That wording is a tad extreme but the general idea is ok. In other = words, in probabilty terms the current French translation is the = opposite of the original. By the way, by now I am quite sure that 'at = all likely' is American and not really British English. 2. French case. When I was thinking about the Dutch translation I ran into Claude = Dadoun. I asked him for the French text (just because I was curious) and = I pointed out to him that the French translation was wrong. Then he told = me about this case where a French AC ruled 'claim stands'. It was not = about 70C2 (they ruled the trump was forgotten) but they interpreted the = 'normal' in 70C3 as high trumps first. Of course this ruling makes 70C = obsolete. Ask Claude if you want to know more about the case, I don't = pretend to have done a formal investigation. 3. Tenerife case. You probably mean 41.=20 Before I go to 41 I want to discuss the normal 70C3 claim problem. = Declarer tables his hand (and claims the rest in top winners). Which is = in itself correct but there still is an outstanding trump. In this kind = of cases you might easily be protected by 70C2 (in France or in Holland = or in ....) but with the English wording that protection is minimal. = After that it boils down to the 'normal' in 70C3. We all know that 99.9% = of the players start with high trumps in this situation so an AC or = national authority can easily rule that it is normal to 'draw' trumps. = The American national authority has ruled otherwise (can also be = defended if only by the existence of the 70C articles). I myself have no = real problem with either interpretation. But it would be helpfull if we = manage to agree on one rule for everybody.=20 Now Tenerife 41. Although I don't mind allowing a 'the rest claim' to = draw an outstanding trump I think this ruling is overdoing that = principle. We all agree that 70C2 is not an issue here. It is about the = 'normal' in 70C3. He claimed to play the S10. So what will he do next. I = see no good reason why he shouldn't play his trump next going down. For = me not playing trumps because you might have forgotten a high trump is = something completely different from cashing your winners starting with = high trumps (which might accidently draw a small trump).=20 So yes I think the committee made a real mistake. And I don't like the = argument of the AC. In the writeup it says "There is a well-established = principle that, when a claimer knows he has high cards, any order he can = play them is deemed "normal". It is the view of the Committee however = that, in a case like this, this does not include the trump suit, which = is cashed last." Why is it cashed last. Because that is the way to play = the hand if there is a master trump outstanding? But I thought we have = to assume declarer is not aware of that.=20 What would the ruling be if there was a small trump outstanding (change = S98 to S32)? In that case it is sound technique to play trumps first.=20 I know all members of this AC. Maybe they can explain why they ruled as = they did. Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Bertrandgignoux@aol.com=20 To: jaapb@noos.fr=20 Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Language question resolved. Dans un e-mail dat=E9 du 05/02/03 15:36:05 GMT, jaapb@noos.fr a = =E9crit : Sujet :[blml] Language question resolved.=20 Date :05/02/03 15:36:05 GMT De :jaapb@noos.fr A :blml@rtflb.org Envoy=E9 via Internet=20 Thanks everybody for helping me out. As I strongly suspected (but I = wanted to make sure) the Dutch translation of 70C2 is also botched. ---------------------- The English version means roughly that 70C2 triggers (ruling against claimer) unless it is (very) obvious that declarer is aware of the situation. In the French version it is excactly the other way round. Here 70C2 = triggers only if it is very likely that declarer is unaware of the trump. The Dutch wording is somewhere in the middle although it tends to = the French side of the spectrum. First interesting question. For national purposes which law applies? I tend to think it is ok for a country to use its own language = version. But I am not a lawyer and this is typical lawyer stuff. Can pose = interesting problems in countries like Switzerland, Belgium and Canada. --------------------- But there is more to this. In France 70C is dead anyway because they = ruled (in a relevant national appeal where it was judged that the = remaining trump was sure to be forgotten) that the 'normal' in 70C3 means cashing = ones trumps first (in simple cashing claims cases). This way you are not = going to lose any tricks to outstanding trumps anyway. End of 70C. Bertrand GIGNOUX Hello ,=20 Thanks for telling us that the traduction in French was not good; = after discussion with a french director ( her job is to traduct english = for technical firms ) she confirms what you said saying that a better = traduction could be " if there is the slightest chance that he has = forgotten " . Do you agree ? anyway,=20 I am a little bit surprised to read that in France, in a relevant = national appeal, it was judged that " normal in 70C3 means cashing ones = trumps first. As I am involved in somes appeals done by the national appeal = committee, I ve never heard that case ; But , alas , it could happen. Could you tell me what was this case ? in addition, I am often in charge of teaching bridge tournament = directors. I remember especially that last year , I was in charge of lessons = concerning claims in the national directors course, the highest level in = France . And , with Philippe Lormant ( national chief director and = member of all national appeals committee) on my side , it was not the = way I teach this situations . One part of that lesson was to show my disapointment after the = decision given by the appeals committee in Tenerife , famous case in = which the committee decided that trumps are playing last. I m sure you = know that case . if not ( but there is not the slightest chance ) let me = know . Friendly=20 Bertrand Gignoux Second interesting question. Is it ok for a national authority to interpreted the law like that. I think it should be ok. Why on earth it shouldn't be ok. If you = don't want them to do so you can prevent it easily by better defining the law. --------------------- And now the reason why I asked. The Dutch national authority has to = decide a claim case depending on the interpretation of 70C2 and the 'normal' = in 70C3. I cannot give the case at this stage but it is essentially = equivalent to one of the Phoenix cases (the Chinese girl). Brief. Declarer playing = slam cannot draw the last trump early. He does what he has to do and the moment = he can draw the last trump he tables his hand without statement (but he = could have claimed at least one trick earlier). For an ACBL-AC this is bussiness us usual. Declarer didn't mention = the trump and it is not obvious that he/she is still aware of that trump. Slam = one down (like in Phoenix). For an FFB-AC this is a complete no-brainer. Come on, don't bother = them with this kind of rubish. Slam made. And now Holland. Given the Dutch text the trigger of 70C2 is to me a = toss-up but I tip the declarer. And the interpretation of 'normal' in 70C3 = (not necessary if declarer survives C2 which he might well do)? I guess = we might vote on that one too. For high level purposes I tend to side with = the French (trumps first), for low level purposes I tend to go with the Yanks = (trumps last). --------------------- But maybe it is a good idea that laws that can be clear should be = clear. Maybe clear is a better word than mechanical. Leaving this kind of = stuff to AC's has obvious disadvantages. Judgement yes, but also lots of = different judgement. Some other thread said something about the headers. Of course it is confusing if the headers are not part of the laws. But regardless of = that it is IMHO insane that some headers 'contradict' their text (like = 70C2). Should be fixed. And David is right that constructs like 'at all likely' should be = avoided. They are too dangerous. I said so myself in my original Dutch mail = where I mentioned the Dutch text was probably wrong. I got the usual bogus = response 'don't worry, it has been carefully translated by experts'. Now = guess who said that. Jaap _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C2D1DD.F6F627E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Bertrand,
 
1. Language.
" if there is the slightest chance that = he has=20 forgotten "
That wording is a tad extreme but = the general=20 idea is ok. In other words, in probabilty terms the current French = translation=20 is the opposite of the original. By the way, by now I am quite = sure that=20 'at all likely' is American and not really=20 British English.
 
2. French case.
When I was thinking about the Dutch=20 translation I ran into Claude Dadoun. I asked him for the French = text (just=20 because I was curious) and I pointed out to him that the French = translation was=20 wrong. Then he told me about this case where a French AC ruled 'claim = stands'.=20 It was not about 70C2 (they ruled the trump was forgotten) but they = interpreted the 'normal' in 70C3 as high trumps first. Of = course this=20 ruling makes 70C obsolete. Ask Claude if you want to know more about the = case, I=20 don't pretend to have done a formal investigation.
 
3. Tenerife case.
You probably mean 41.
Before I go to 41 I want to discuss the = normal 70C3=20 claim problem. Declarer tables his hand (and claims the rest in top = winners).=20 Which is in itself correct but there still is an outstanding trump. In = this kind=20 of cases you might easily be protected by 70C2 (in  France or in = Holland or=20 in ....) but with the English wording that protection is minimal. After=20 that it boils down to the 'normal' in 70C3. We all know that 99.9% = of the=20 players start with high trumps in this situation so an AC or = national=20 authority can easily rule that it is normal to 'draw' trumps. The = American=20 national authority has ruled otherwise (can also be defended if only by = the=20 existence of the 70C articles). I myself have no real problem with = either=20 interpretation. But it would be helpfull if we manage to agree on one = rule for=20 everybody.
 
Now Tenerife 41. Although I don't mind = allowing a=20 'the rest claim' to draw an outstanding trump I think this ruling is = overdoing=20 that principle. We all agree that 70C2 is not an issue here. It is about = the=20 'normal' in 70C3. He claimed to play the S10. So what will he do next. I = see no=20 good reason why he shouldn't play his trump next going down. For me not = playing=20 trumps because you might have forgotten a high trump is something = completely=20 different from cashing your winners starting with high trumps = (which might=20 accidently draw a small trump).
 
So yes I think the committee made a = real mistake.=20 And I don't like the argument of the AC. In the writeup it says "There = is a=20 well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has high cards, = any=20 order he can play them is deemed =93normal=94. It is the view of the = Committee=20 however that, in a case like this, this does not include the trump suit, = which=20 is cashed last." Why is it cashed last. Because that is the way to play = the hand=20 if there is a master trump outstanding? But I thought we have to assume = declarer=20 is not aware of that.
What would the ruling be if there was a small trump=20 outstanding (change S98 to S32)? In that case it is sound technique = to play=20 trumps first.
 
I know all members of this AC. Maybe = they can=20 explain why they ruled as they did.
 
Jaap
 
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Bertrandgignoux@aol.com =
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, = 2003 12:23=20 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Language = question=20 resolved.

Dans un e-mail dat=E9 = du 05/02/03=20 15:36:05 GMT, jaapb@noos.fr a = =E9crit=20 :


 Sujet :[blml] Language = question=20 resolved.
Date :05/02/03 15:36:05 GMT
De :jaapb@noos.fr
A = :blml@rtflb.org
Envoy=E9=20 via Internet



Thanks everybody for helping me = out. As I=20 strongly suspected (but I wanted
to make sure) the Dutch = translation of=20 70C2 is also botched.

----------------------

The = English=20 version means roughly that 70C2 triggers (ruling against
claimer) = unless=20 it is (very) obvious that declarer is aware of = the
situation.

In=20 the French version it is excactly the other way round. Here 70C2=20 triggers
only if it is very likely that declarer is unaware of = the=20 trump.

The Dutch wording is somewhere in the middle although = it tends=20 to the French
side of the spectrum.

First interesting = question.=20 For national purposes which law applies?

I tend to think it = is ok for=20 a country to use its own language version. But
I am not a lawyer = and this=20 is typical lawyer stuff. Can pose interesting
problems in = countries like=20 Switzerland, Belgium and = Canada.

---------------------

But=20 there is more to this. In France 70C is dead anyway because they=20 ruled
(in a relevant national appeal where it was judged that the = remaining trump
was sure to be forgotten) that the 'normal' in = 70C3 means=20 cashing ones
trumps first (in simple cashing claims cases). This = way you=20 are not going to
lose any tricks to outstanding trumps anyway. = End of=20 70C.


Bertrand=20 GIGNOUX
Hello ,
Thanks for telling us that the traduction in = French was=20 not good; after discussion with a french director ( her job is to = traduct=20 english for technical firms ) she confirms what you said saying that a = better=20 traduction could be " if there is the slightest chance that he has = forgotten "=20 . Do you agree ?
anyway,
I am a little bit surprised to read = that in=20 France, in a relevant national appeal, it was judged that " normal in = 70C3=20 means cashing ones trumps first.
As I am involved in somes appeals = done by=20 the national appeal committee, I ve never heard that case ; But , alas = , it=20 could happen.
Could you tell me what was this case ?
in = addition, I am=20 often in charge of teaching bridge tournament directors.
I remember = especially that last year , I was in charge of lessons concerning = claims in=20 the national directors course, the highest level in France . And , = with=20 Philippe Lormant ( national chief director and member of all national = appeals=20 committee) on my side , it was not the way I teach this situations = .
One=20 part of that lesson was to show my disapointment after the decision = given by=20 the appeals committee in Tenerife , famous case in which the committee = decided  that trumps are playing last. I m sure you know that = case . if=20 not ( but there is not the slightest chance ) let me know = .
Friendly=20
Bertrand Gignoux
Second interesting = question. Is it=20 ok for a national authority to
interpreted the law like = that.

I=20 think it should be ok. Why on earth it shouldn't be ok. If you don't = want
them to do so you can prevent it easily by better defining = the=20 law.

---------------------

And now the reason why I = asked. The=20 Dutch national authority has to decide a
claim case depending on = the=20 interpretation of 70C2 and the 'normal' in 70C3.

I cannot = give the=20 case at this stage but it is essentially equivalent to one
of the = Phoenix=20 cases (the Chinese girl). Brief. Declarer playing slam = cannot
draw the=20 last trump early. He does what he has to do and the moment he = can
draw=20 the last trump he tables his hand without statement (but he could=20 have
claimed at least one trick earlier).

For an ACBL-AC = this is=20 bussiness us usual. Declarer didn't mention the trump
and it is = not=20 obvious that he/she is still aware of that trump. Slam one
down = (like in=20 Phoenix).

For an FFB-AC this is a complete no-brainer. Come = on, don't=20 bother them with
this kind of rubish. Slam made.

And now = Holland.=20 Given the Dutch text the trigger of 70C2 is to me a toss-up
but I = tip the=20 declarer. And the interpretation of 'normal' in 70C3 = (not
necessary if=20 declarer survives C2 which he might well do)? I guess we = might
vote on=20 that one too. For high level purposes I tend to side with the=20 French
(trumps first), for low level purposes I tend to go with = the Yanks=20 (trumps
last).

---------------------

But maybe it = is a good=20 idea that laws that can be clear should be clear.
Maybe clear is = a better=20 word than mechanical. Leaving this kind of stuff to
AC's has = obvious=20 disadvantages. Judgement yes, but also lots of=20 different
judgement.

Some other thread said something = about the=20 headers. Of course it is
confusing if the headers are not part of = the=20 laws. But regardless of that it
is IMHO insane that some headers=20 'contradict' their text (like 70C2). Should
be fixed.

And = David is=20 right that constructs like 'at all likely' should be = avoided.
They are=20 too dangerous. I said so myself in my original Dutch mail where=20 I
mentioned the Dutch text was probably wrong. I got the usual = bogus=20 response
'don't worry, it has been carefully translated by = experts'. Now=20 guess who
said=20 = that.

Jaap



________________________________________= _______
blml=20 mailing=20 = list
blml@rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/bl= ml


 ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C2D1DD.F6F627E0-- From svenpran@online.no Tue Feb 11 22:50:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:50:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <200302112211.RAA01301@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003901c2d21f$e89c6d20$6900a8c0@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > > From: Jesper Dybdal > > The relevant law is L62D2 > > Definitely so. Please ignore my previous message! > > Interesting that this law applies only when the player holds two > different suits. If the issue is whether to play high or low within a > single suit -- is that possible? -- 72B1 and 64C could apply. Then we can at least safely return to L73C with the same result! Sven From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Feb 11 22:54:25 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:54:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: <200302112211.RAA01301@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200302112211.RAA01301@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:11:38 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >Interesting that this law applies only when the player holds two >different suits. If the issue is whether to play high or low within a >single suit -- is that possible? -- 72B1 and 64C could apply. Actually, that can never be an issue. Let me prove that. Assume that you have two cards of the same suit left and the L62D2 situation occurs: * The only situation where your partner can revoke before you have played to the trick is when you are the one who will be playing the fourth card to that trick. * So when it becomes your turn to play to trick 12, you know whether one or both of your same-suit cards can win that trick. * The following strategy is always optimal, regardless of which cards are left in the other hands: - If possible, win trick 12. This is optimal, because if you do not win the trick, then you get at most one trick, but if you do win the trick, then you get at least one trick - and that can never be worse. If both cards can win trick 12, use the lowest and keep the highest for the last trick: the highest card can win the last trick whenever the lowest can, but the opposite is not true. - If you cannot win the trick, play the lowest card: the highest card can win the last trick whenever the lowest can, but the opposite is not true. * Since the optimal strategy does not depend on the other hands, information about those hands, including partner's, is irrelevant. I have taken the liberty of ignoring situations where partner revokes *out of turn*: that may be another matter, and I am not going to try to analyze that now. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Tue Feb 11 22:55:41 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:55:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <200302112206.OAA14629@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <004301c2d220$b3ec27e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Adam Beneschan" Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > > Sven wrote: > > > As far as I can see the only way she legally can have that information > > is if earlier in the play either West has shown out of Diamonds or South > > has shown out of Hearts. > > Are you saying you wouldn't accept inferences from the auction > (e.g. South's bidding denied having one more heart than she's already > shown up with)? Have you never experienced deception in auction or play? Only today in the club I listened to the auction from opponents: (all natural - me and my partner only passed) 1C - 1H - 1NT AP The 1NT declarer turned out to have 4 spades to the nine while he had during his auction denied holding more than three. Yes, I confirm that I shall not accept inferences from auction or play unless the inference is corroborated by evidence. Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Feb 11 23:07:10 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:07:10 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: <200302112211.RAA01301@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: I almost embarrassed myself posting a reply to this one. I overlooked something in the 1997 laws! In the 1987 law book , L62D2 says simply "declarer may require the offender's partner to play to that trick either of the two cards he could legally have played." Absolutely crystal clear how to rule in this type of a case. (And, I confess, I have so ruled since 1997 at least once, in ignorance of this change.) With all due respect to the lawmakers - why has this perfectly good rule been screwed up? GRB From adam@irvine.com Tue Feb 11 23:16:03 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:16:03 -0800 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:55:41 +0100." <004301c2d220$b3ec27e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200302112315.PAA15313@mailhub.irvine.com> > From: "Adam Beneschan" > Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > > > > > > Sven wrote: > > > > > As far as I can see the only way she legally can have that information > > > is if earlier in the play either West has shown out of Diamonds or South > > > has shown out of Hearts. > > > > Are you saying you wouldn't accept inferences from the auction > > (e.g. South's bidding denied having one more heart than she's already > > shown up with)? > > Have you never experienced deception in auction or play? Sure I have. I even perpetrate it. I suppress lousy 4-card majors a lot more often than many other players. But why are you insisting on absolute certainty? Suppose that South already showed up with three hearts, and his bidding made it 98% certain that he doesn't have another heart (with a 2% chance that South is being deceptive or simply using judgment)---does this 2% possibility really make it a logical alternative for East to hang on to his last heart? I'd say that, if East has nothing else to go on, holding on to that 98%-chance-of-being-useless heart is a quite *illogical* play. -- Adam From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Feb 11 23:25:30 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:25:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: References: <200302112211.RAA01301@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:07:10 -0900 (AKST), Gordon Bower wrote: >In the 1987 law book , L62D2 says simply "declarer may require the >offender's partner to play to that trick either of the two cards he = could >legally have played."=20 ... >With all due respect to the lawmakers - why has this perfectly good rule >been screwed up? IMO, it was a bad rule: why should declarer have to decide anything? If the intention was to force the partner to play the card least advantageous to himself, I'd very much prefer a law that simply said so. At that stage of the game, it is always obvious which card is least advantageous, so the wording above really meant that declarer would have to choose between getting the optimal result or being kind to an opponent who has accidentally revoked. That kind of choice puts an unreasonable pressure on declarer: the laws and the TD should take it upon themselves to apply whatever penalty is considered reasonable. But I don't see anything wrong with the current rule. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From jrhind@therock.bm Tue Feb 11 23:36:56 2003 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:36:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030212080625.00b15400@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: I would apply law 62D2 and require the DJ to be played unless the play of the hand to that stage reveals that that would be irrational. Regards, Jack On 2/11/03 5:18 PM, "Tony Musgrove" wrote: > With two tricks to play: > North > > D 5 > C 5 > > West East > H 10 H J > C 2 D J > > South > > D 10 > C J > > South leads the CJ, West plays the H 10 and immediately realises her error, > contributing the C2, East now discards her H J and takes the last trick. > > East claims she "knew" declarer still had a diamond, was always going to keep > it etc. > > Should director rule against EW under L72B "could have known". > > Should East, acting under L73C, throw her diamond regardless (I > feel sure that Richard would)? > > I suppose the director should have had the play repeated to check > that East had no logical alternative to keeping the diamond, but it > was the end of the round, and he was playing etc. > > Cheers, > > Tony > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 12 00:08:50 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:08:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <200302112315.PAA15313@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <005d01c2d22a$ebef67b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Adam Beneschan" ......... > But why are you insisting on absolute certainty? Suppose that South > already showed up with three hearts, and his bidding made it 98% > certain that he doesn't have another heart (with a 2% chance that > South is being deceptive or simply using judgment)---does this 2% > possibility really make it a logical alternative for East to hang on > to his last heart? I'd say that, if East has nothing else to go on, > holding on to that 98%-chance-of-being-useless heart is a quite > *illogical* play. First of all your 2% probability is an assessment with no real foundation. It could be 5%, 10%, maybe even 20% or higher. But more important is the principles of the laws in general, we have a parallell in the claim statutes in Law 70E: The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, ......; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. By analogy I require "proof" to the extent that holding on to the wrong card would be irrational. ("Illogic" is not sufficient. And I am very restrictive about what I accept to be irrational rather than a simple bloody mistake). Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Feb 12 01:10:58 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:10:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick Message-ID: <4A256CCB.0004B376.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Gordon Bower wrote: >I almost embarrassed myself posting a reply to this one. I >overlooked something in the 1997 laws! > >In the 1987 law book , L62D2 says simply "declarer may >require the offender's partner to play to that trick >either of the two cards he could legally have played." >Absolutely crystal clear how to rule in this type of a >case. (And, I confess, I have so ruled since 1997 at least >once, in ignorance of this change.) > >With all due respect to the lawmakers - why has this >perfectly good rule been screwed up? My answer to Gordon Bower is that the 1987 rule was *not* perfectly good, and the 1997 Law 62D2 is *not* screwed up. Sure, an automatic draconian penalty made a ruling under this Law easier for a TD pre-1997. But, many deem equity to players more important than the convenience of TDs. Pre-1997, a meaningless trick-12 revoke by pard could allow declarer to force you to discard your only ace. Now there is leeway in that you can discard at trick 12 a card that could not possibly have been suggested by seeing pard's revoke card. In the past three decades, the tenor of the Laws has progressively moved from automatic penalties to equitable judgements. The 1997 Laws, in particular, have focused on giving equity to the Offending Side. David Burn has highlighted the flaws of rubbery equity rules, but the flaws of automatic penalties are, in my opinion, worse. Best wishes Richard From adam@irvine.com Wed Feb 12 00:46:04 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:46:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:08:50 +0100." <005d01c2d22a$ebef67b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200302120045.QAA16141@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > > already showed up with three hearts, and his bidding made it 98% > > certain that he doesn't have another heart (with a 2% chance that > > South is being deceptive or simply using judgment)---does this 2% > > possibility really make it a logical alternative for East to hang on > > to his last heart? I'd say that, if East has nothing else to go on, > > holding on to that 98%-chance-of-being-useless heart is a quite > > *illogical* play. > > First of all your 2% probability is an assessment with no real > foundation. It could be 5%, 10%, maybe even 20% or higher. Still doesn't matter. Even if it's 20%, it's illogical to hold on to the heart if holding onto the diamond is four times as likely to succeed. However, even for me (since I stated I suppress four-card majors more often than some players), I think that an auction that should deny a four-card major actually does deny a major substantially more than 80% of the time. (Of course, this applies only to the hypothetical case I suggested; we don't know anything about the auction or preceding play in Tony's case.) > But more important is the principles of the laws in general, we > have a parallell in the claim statutes in Law 70E: > > The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line > of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent > rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent > failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, > ......; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. I disagree that this is the "principles of the Laws in general". This is certainly the principle by which claims are adjudicated---if declarer makes a faulty claim, we don't allow it if there is any line consistent with his statement that would allow declarer to take fewer tricks than his claim, excluding any lines that are utterly stupid. However, this is *not* the principle by which UI situations are handled. In UI cases, we allow a play if there is no logical alternative; the WBF's "Code of Practice for Appeals Committees" defines a logical alternative as "a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it". If no players in the same class would adopt a play, then it's "illogical" and, even though it might be considered "careless" or "inferior" but not "irrational" by the claim standard, it's not considered an alternative for the purpose of dealing with a UI case. So we really don't have a "principle of the Laws in general". We have (at least) two different standards in the Laws for determining which actions are beyond consideration---one for dealing with claims, a different one for dealing with UI. Since the case Tony posted about is clearly not a claim case, I fail to see why a parallel should be drawn to the standard used for claim cases. -- Adam From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Feb 12 00:48:20 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:48:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Language question resolved. Message-ID: <200302120048.TAA01585@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > 2. French case. > ... this case where a French AC ruled 'claim stands'. It was not = > about 70C2 (they ruled the trump was forgotten) but they interpreted the = > 'normal' in 70C3 as high trumps first. Thanks for the detailed investigation. The above is slightly ambiguous. Does it mean high trumps first even before side suit winners, or just high trumps before low ones? The latter is the ACBL rule, as far as I can tell. That is, if the careless claimer's side suit winners all cash without getting ruffed, he isn't forced to lead a low trump before a high one, losing to an opponent's middle trump. However, if the opponent with the forgotten trump can ruff a side suit winner (without being overruffed in turn), then the claimer loses that trick. If the French position really is "high trumps before any side suit," it's hard to imagine when 70C would matter. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Feb 12 01:05:40 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:05:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] between 100 and 200 In-Reply-To: <000001c2d1f9$73365e40$c72928c4@john> Message-ID: <1A8DC3D9-3E26-11D7-9323-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 06:12 PM, John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF wrote: > First things first, ALL VUL at matchpoints, dealer holds > s JTxx > h AQxx > d AQJx > c T > playing 5 card majors, you open 1D and hear the auction > proceed 2C by LHO, pass by partner, 3C by RHO. > Do you double or do you pass? Pass. There's no longer any need to protect partner from having a penalty pass, because a) it's become very unlikely on the auction, and b) partner can make a penalty double of 3C. I would be much more sympathetic to the desire to re-open with a double if the auction had been 1D-3C-P-P; ? As it was, I wouldn't allow the double after the pause. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 12 01:13:16 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 02:13:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <200302120045.QAA16141@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <007601c2d233$ed03a7c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Adam Beneschan" > Sven wrote: > ......... > Still doesn't matter. Even if it's 20%, it's illogical to hold on to > the heart if holding onto the diamond is four times as likely to > succeed. However, even for me (since I stated I suppress four-card > majors more often than some players), I think that an auction that > should deny a four-card major actually does deny a major substantially > more than 80% of the time. (Of course, this applies only to the > hypothetical case I suggested; we don't know anything about the > auction or preceding play in Tony's case.) > > > But more important is the principles of the laws in general, we > > have a parallell in the claim statutes in Law 70E: > > > > The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line > > of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent > > rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent > > failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, > > ......; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. > > I disagree that this is the "principles of the Laws in general". This > is certainly the principle by which claims are adjudicated---if > declarer makes a faulty claim, we don't allow it if there is any line > consistent with his statement that would allow declarer to take fewer > tricks than his claim, excluding any lines that are utterly stupid. > > However, this is *not* the principle by which UI situations are > handled. In UI cases, we allow a play if there is no logical > alternative; the WBF's "Code of Practice for Appeals Committees" > defines a logical alternative as "a different action that, amongst the > class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, > would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of > such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it". > If no players in the same class would adopt a play, then it's > "illogical" and, even though it might be considered "careless" or > "inferior" but not "irrational" by the claim standard, it's not > considered an alternative for the purpose of dealing with a UI case. The essential question is (to partner of the revoking player): "How can you be so sure of which card you must hold on to?" Unless the answer convinces the Director that seing partners card "could not make any difference for my choice" I shall rule that it did, that he had a logical alternative and that he may not hold on to his Diamond rather than his Heart. (or wasn't it a she?) (L70E IMO just establishes an example of when a choice situation is no longer a choice situation, that is what it takes to eliminate a logical alternative) period Sven From adam@irvine.com Wed Feb 12 01:23:19 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:23:19 -0800 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Feb 2003 02:13:16 +0100." <007601c2d233$ed03a7c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200302120123.RAA16449@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > The essential question is > (to partner of the revoking player): > > "How can you be so sure of which card > you must hold on to?" > > Unless the answer convinces the Director > that seing partners card "could not make > any difference for my choice" I shall rule > that it did, that he had a logical alternative > and that he may not hold on to his Diamond > rather than his Heart. (or wasn't it a she?) I think we agree on this point, but not on how it's applied. > (L70E IMO just establishes an example of > when a choice situation is no longer a choice > situation, that is what it takes to eliminate a > logical alternative) This is where I vehemently disagree. Laws 68-71 (the claim/concession laws) do not refer to "logical alternatives" anywhere; nor do the Laws dealing with logical alternatives refer to Laws 68-71 or their footnotes. I believe it's a mistake to think that there's any connection between the standards set forth in these Laws and the concept of a "logical alternative". -- Adam From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Feb 12 01:56:30 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:56:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030212080625.00b15400@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <001d01c2d216$2d0d8750$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000c01c2d239$fb4b9a80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > > As far as I can see the only way she legally can have that information > is if earlier in the play either West has shown out of Diamonds or South > has shown out of Hearts. I am not convinced that I (as Director) > would accept a statement that East "knew" because of partner's > dirstribution signals etc. (but I might although I cannot disregard the > possibility of false-carding). Such statements are irrelevant without the corroboration of proven distribution, and that doesn't include count signals. It's like a declarer saying after a no-statement claim, "I was always going to finesse." The statement is irrelevant unless the finesse is proven or not finessing would be crazy (for anyone, not just for "the class of player involved.") It's also like a hesitator's partner saying "I was always going to take that action." Irrelevant, as the TD must rule without using that input. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Feb 12 07:55:59 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 07:55:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <200302120123.RAA16449@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <003201c2d26c$463b0850$5752e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > This is where I vehemently disagree. Laws 68-71 > (the claim/concession laws) do not refer to "logical > alternatives" anywhere; nor do the Laws dealing > with logical alternatives refer to Laws 68-71 or their > footnotes. I believe it's a mistake to think that > there's any connection between the standards > set forth in these Laws and the concept of a > "logical alternative". > +=+ Whilst agreeing with Adam here, I have failed to understand the relevance to the case in point. I think I must have missed something; otherwise are we not concerned only with the application of Law 62D2, a law designed for the tranquillity of the soul of David Burn? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 12 07:59:22 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:59:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Language question resolved. References: <200302120048.TAA01585@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000a01c2d26c$a87906c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Steve Sorry, if I was unclear. They ruled high trumps before the outside winners. It is not that strange but it makes 70C obsolete. By the way, I do not know if this is the official French position. I was told by a senior TD that 'they' have ruled like that. Suppose declarer has SAK + DAKQ in a spade contract and tables his hand. It is not absurd to let him play spades first. After all that is what 99.9% of the players would do in this situation whether they know for sure there still is a trump or not or anything in between. It is a rather 'normal' interpretation of the 'normal' in 70C3. But it is not the way things are done in the ACBL. I do think both approaches have their merits. But for the moment the international situation is unclear. Tenerife-41 hardly makes any sense at all (it allowed declarer to get away after forgetting about an outstanding master trump which for me is not the same as allowing 'the rest' claims to start on trumps). And Ton (who is chairman of the WBFLC) tried to sell me some international consensus which implied that in certain cases WBF (and or EBL) was more lenient than the ACBL. I didn't buy his story (I like someone who claims international consensus to put up at least two relevant case examples or two guys to support his story, I am still waiting) but to me it is clear nobody agrees on anything at the moment. For the moment it is just taking your chances at the AC and pray that the personal opinion of the AC members suits your case. That is the 'normal' procdure whenever we cannot agree on the rules, which in itself is quite 'normal'. But then one might discuss whether the use of the word 'normal' in the laws can be considerded 'normal'. I don't think so. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Language question resolved. > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > 2. French case. > > ... this case where a French AC ruled 'claim stands'. It was not = > > about 70C2 (they ruled the trump was forgotten) but they interpreted the = > > 'normal' in 70C3 as high trumps first. > > Thanks for the detailed investigation. The above is slightly ambiguous. > Does it mean high trumps first even before side suit winners, or just > high trumps before low ones? > > The latter is the ACBL rule, as far as I can tell. That is, if the > careless claimer's side suit winners all cash without getting ruffed, > he isn't forced to lead a low trump before a high one, losing to an > opponent's middle trump. However, if the opponent with the forgotten > trump can ruff a side suit winner (without being overruffed in turn), > then the claimer loses that trick. > > If the French position really is "high trumps before any side suit," > it's hard to imagine when 70C would matter. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 12 08:30:01 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:30:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <4A256CCB.0004B376.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <004401c2d270$f0c66860$25b54351@noos.fr> > In the past three decades, the tenor of the Laws has > progressively moved from automatic penalties to equitable > judgements. The 1997 Laws, in particular, have focused on > giving equity to the Offending Side. David Burn has > highlighted the flaws of rubbery equity rules, but the flaws > of automatic penalties are, in my opinion, worse. Equity, what equity ? Trying to rule using rubbery rules results in lots of random decisions depending on personal opionon, powers of analysis, scope of attention of whoever is ruling the case. 'Automatic' rules results in far better equity because rulings become much more consistent. This is what players (at least at my level) like and as a bonus it is much easier for TD's as well. But David might be right about the rabbits. They might not like to play with simple rules that actually imply some (possibly harsh) penalties for stupid things like dropping ones cards or revoking or faulty claims or bids out of turn or ..... Look at the discussion so far. Only one or two TD's correctly mentioned that you need a full analysis of the bidding and the play so far to judge whether or not it is irrational for East to get it wrong (or right). After all it is inconceivable you have no full count in a two card ending. But players very often don't count. Go judge that. Might easily cost you a full 15 minutes or longer if you do it seriously. If you can do it at all because a lot of TD's are simply not up to this kind of abstract analysis. It is far more difficult than most people realize to judge claims like 'of course I knew that .......' or 'of course I would have done such and so ....'. I remember cases at an top level AC (with five top class players with a lot of AC experience) where after an hour or so of prepared (we got to study the case in advance) discussion we still came up with new lines of reasoning and no consensus. It is so bloody difficult that in a way it is insane to try where it is not necessary. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > > > Gordon Bower wrote: > > >I almost embarrassed myself posting a reply to this one. I > >overlooked something in the 1997 laws! > > > >In the 1987 law book , L62D2 says simply "declarer may > >require the offender's partner to play to that trick > >either of the two cards he could legally have played." > >Absolutely crystal clear how to rule in this type of a > >case. (And, I confess, I have so ruled since 1997 at least > >once, in ignorance of this change.) > > > >With all due respect to the lawmakers - why has this > >perfectly good rule been screwed up? > > My answer to Gordon Bower is that the 1987 rule was *not* > perfectly good, and the 1997 Law 62D2 is *not* screwed up. > > Sure, an automatic draconian penalty made a ruling under > this Law easier for a TD pre-1997. But, many deem equity > to players more important than the convenience of TDs. > > Pre-1997, a meaningless trick-12 revoke by pard could allow > declarer to force you to discard your only ace. Now there > is leeway in that you can discard at trick 12 a card that > could not possibly have been suggested by seeing pard's > revoke card. > > In the past three decades, the tenor of the Laws has > progressively moved from automatic penalties to equitable > judgements. The 1997 Laws, in particular, have focused on > giving equity to the Offending Side. David Burn has > highlighted the flaws of rubbery equity rules, but the flaws > of automatic penalties are, in my opinion, worse. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 12 08:41:38 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:41:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Language question resolved. References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > I know all members of this AC. Maybe they can explain why they ruled as > they did. > > I think the write-up is clear. > > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Feb 12 08:58:06 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:58:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030212080625.00b15400@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <001d01c2d216$2d0d8750$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000c01c2d239$fb4b9a80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002d01c2d274$fbce8450$9522e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > > Such statements are irrelevant without the > corroboration of proven distribution, and > that doesn't include count signals. > +=+ Such statements are irrelevant. Period. In applying Law 62D2 we are concerned only with fact; which of two cards is possibly suggested by sight of the revoke card. This is a question of fact and the fact is determined by the Director - the player has no say in it. Having determined the fact the Director orders the player to play the other card. Questions of rationality, normality, logicality are not relevant and not involved; the Director is executing a penalty. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 12 09:13:10 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:13:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Language question resolved. References: <200302120048.TAA01585@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <000a01c2d26c$a87906c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E4A1026.4000208@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Steve > > > But for the moment the international situation is unclear. Tenerife-41 > hardly makes any sense at all (it allowed declarer to get away after > forgetting about an outstanding master trump which for me is not the same as > allowing 'the rest' claims to start on trumps). And Ton (who is chairman of Depends on what you mean by "getting away". The situation was that of a declarer thinking his hand was high, when this was not the case. The AC ruled that it is "normal" for a declarer to start with any suit, except trumps. Trumps are generally kept as a safeguard against any of the suits not being as high as one thinks. Trumps are not cashed in the same manner as another suit. And indeed Jaap, to answer a former question, the ruling would have been the same if the outstanding trump were smaller than the one in declarer's hand. but that is of minor importance, surely, since we are not in disagreement there. > the WBFLC) tried to sell me some international consensus which implied that > in certain cases WBF (and or EBL) was more lenient than the ACBL. I didn't > buy his story (I like someone who claims international consensus to put up > at least two relevant case examples or two guys to support his story, I am > still waiting) but to me it is clear nobody agrees on anything at the > moment. For the moment it is just taking your chances at the AC and pray > that the personal opinion of the AC members suits your case. That is the > 'normal' procdure whenever we cannot agree on the rules, which in itself is > quite 'normal'. But then one might discuss whether the use of the word > 'normal' in the laws can be considerded 'normal'. I don't think so. > Well, there is one way out of this dilemma. if the whole world would accept the Tenerife AC decision as some sort of precedent. Then the whole world could be ruling this case in the same manner. But no, people like you, Jaap, prefer to criticise this decision and then use that same criticism as basis for suggesting the laws are flawed because there is no consensus. Personally, I was very proud after that appeal. I thought it contained two excellent pieces of precedent, and since it was given by an AC of excellent standing, would be quite valuable to the bridge world. How wrong I was. > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 12 09:13:04 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:13:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> Tenerife 41 was an interesting case. I think there was no discussion about 75C2. It is about 75C3 The write up: "There is a well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has high cards, any order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view of the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the trump suit, which is cashed last." I said in a mail that this wording was rather unclear. Herman (who did the write-up) came with this answer: "I think the write-up is clear." Well dear Herman, you must be joking. This is bogus language used by people that have something to hide. For this language to mean anything, let alone it being clear, you have to explain what means 'a case like this'. What was the case. Declarer claims 4S by drawing the last trump after which he has the rest (this would produce 11 tricks if correct). Unfortuantly their are still two trumps outstanding, after drawing once the oustanding trump becomes the master trump. So if declarer plays another trump he is down. If he cashes his outside winners first he will make 4S. An interesting detail is that declarer is two down if you rule it down. TD and AC used one down all the time. It doesn't really matter but shows the lack of attention for details of TD/AC. Now the AC let the guy play the contract correctly (never touching trumps) although they say that the guy has probably forgotten about the trump. The AC says explicitly this is against a well established principle. Now what does this mean. What the hell makes 'a case like this' so special that we have to rule against a well established principle? Herman can you try again to explain this, in plain clear language, before I start guessing. Jaap From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 12 09:39:27 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:39:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030212080625.00b15400@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <001d01c2d216$2d0d8750$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000c01c2d239$fb4b9a80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c2d274$fbce8450$9522e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001d01c2d27a$a2b83720$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Grattan Endicott" ..... > > Such statements are irrelevant without the > > corroboration of proven distribution, and > > that doesn't include count signals. > > > +=+ Such statements are irrelevant. Period. > In applying Law 62D2 we are concerned only > with fact; which of two cards is possibly > suggested by sight of the revoke card. This > is a question of fact and the fact is determined > by the Director - the player has no say in it. > Having determined the fact the Director orders > the player to play the other card. Questions of > rationality, normality, logicality are not relevant > and not involved; the Director is executing a > penalty. ~ G ~ +=+ Let me get this straight: With two tricks to play: North D 5 C 5 West East H 10 H J C 2 D J South D 10 C J South leads the CJ, West plays the H 10 and immediately realises her error, contributing the C2, East now discards her H J and takes the last trick. Seing the H 10 in West clearly suggests that East holds on to her Diamond, no discussion on that, so normally East shall be required under L62D to discard her Diamond. And no inference as such from bidding or count signals during the play should change that. So far I believe we agree completely. But what about the following two possible cases? 1: Spade is trump and South ruffed a Heart in the eleventh trick. 2: South had (and played) the C3 instead of the C J. In either case I would tend to allow East holding on to her Diamond in spite of the unauthorized information from seing the H 10 because now I consider this so obvious from AI that any other play would be "irrational" regardless of the level of player. However, I get the impression from Grattan that even in such cases East shall be required to discard her winning Diamond and stick to her Heart? Did I understand Grattan correct? regards Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 12 09:50:41 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:50:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Language question resolved. References: <200302120048.TAA01585@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <000a01c2d26c$a87906c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A1026.4000208@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003a01c2d27c$36f811c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Help! Herman: > Personally, I was very proud after that appeal. I thought it contained > two excellent pieces of precedent, and since it was given by an AC of > excellent standing, would be quite valuable to the bridge world. How > wrong I was. Yes you are very very wrong. Your AC of 'excellent standing'. You must have lost contact with reality. I have heard a lot of comments on the standing of this kind of AC 'in the bar' or 'on the street'. Lets put it like this. Very few players (of the level that play this kind of events) take this kind of AC's serious because the members are a far cry from their peers (with the exception of Jens). We don't need AC's to overrule TD's on laws (the TD's are good enough for that and if not the AC's are no better and probably worse) but 'players' like their peers to rule on bridge judgement and they HATE people like you doing so. > Well, there is one way out of this dilemma. if the whole world would > accept the Tenerife AC decision as some sort of precedent. Then the > whole world could be ruling this case in the same manner. But no, > people like you, Jaap, prefer to criticise this decision and then use > that same criticism as basis for suggesting the laws are flawed > because there is no consensus. You want to be GOD or so. We just have to follow some AC's rulings like if the pope dictates some truth? Of course everybody should criticise all decisions (I love to criticise my own decisions as well, I have made quite a lot of stupid mistakes as we all do). That is the only way to go forward. By the way I can come up easily with 10 (or 100 given enough time) decisions of EBL/WBF-AC's , which are worse than ridiculous. And those should also set a precedent? In Holland I have said already 10 years ago that taking decisions under pressure is one thing. If you want to promote a ruling to a precedent (or whatever lawyers call it) it requires thorough analysis and criticism first. And a decent write-up. But so far I have not criticised the T-41 decision as such but I have asked you in another mail to explain your write-up. If you want to make write-ups that should set precedents you first have to learn who to write in a way that people understand you. In T-41 you didn't even get close. I don't use criticism as a basis for suggesting the laws are flawed. What makes you think so? If you put words like 'normal' in a law then you know in advance there won't be any consensus. Whether this is flawed or not depends on a certain set of (political) norms and values. I personally think it is better for the laws to be much stricter and clearer which implies less room for individual TD/AC's. But that is a political decision. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Language question resolved. > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Steve > > > > > > But for the moment the international situation is unclear. Tenerife-41 > > hardly makes any sense at all (it allowed declarer to get away after > > forgetting about an outstanding master trump which for me is not the same as > > allowing 'the rest' claims to start on trumps). And Ton (who is chairman of > > > Depends on what you mean by "getting away". > > The situation was that of a declarer thinking his hand was high, when > this was not the case. > The AC ruled that it is "normal" for a declarer to start with any > suit, except trumps. Trumps are generally kept as a safeguard against > any of the suits not being as high as one thinks. Trumps are not > cashed in the same manner as another suit. > And indeed Jaap, to answer a former question, the ruling would have > been the same if the outstanding trump were smaller than the one in > declarer's hand. but that is of minor importance, surely, since we are > not in disagreement there. > > > > the WBFLC) tried to sell me some international consensus which implied that > > in certain cases WBF (and or EBL) was more lenient than the ACBL. I didn't > > buy his story (I like someone who claims international consensus to put up > > at least two relevant case examples or two guys to support his story, I am > > still waiting) but to me it is clear nobody agrees on anything at the > > moment. For the moment it is just taking your chances at the AC and pray > > that the personal opinion of the AC members suits your case. That is the > > 'normal' procdure whenever we cannot agree on the rules, which in itself is > > quite 'normal'. But then one might discuss whether the use of the word > > 'normal' in the laws can be considerded 'normal'. I don't think so. > > > > > Well, there is one way out of this dilemma. if the whole world would > accept the Tenerife AC decision as some sort of precedent. Then the > whole world could be ruling this case in the same manner. But no, > people like you, Jaap, prefer to criticise this decision and then use > that same criticism as basis for suggesting the laws are flawed > because there is no consensus. > > Personally, I was very proud after that appeal. I thought it contained > two excellent pieces of precedent, and since it was given by an AC of > excellent standing, would be quite valuable to the bridge world. How > wrong I was. > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > -- > 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 svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 12 09:58:16 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:58:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <002501c2d27d$43ee4970$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Jaap van der Neut" > Tenerife 41 was an interesting case. > > I think there was no discussion about 75C2. It is about 75C3 L70 I presume? > > The write up: > "There is a well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has > high cards, any order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view of > the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the > trump suit, which is cashed last." I said in a mail that this wording was > rather unclear. Herman (who did the write-up) came with this answer: "I > think the write-up is clear." > > Well dear Herman, you must be joking. This is bogus language used by people > that have something to hide. For this language to mean anything, let alone > it being clear, you have to explain what means 'a case like this'. > > What was the case. Declarer claims 4S by drawing the last trump after which > he has the rest (this would produce 11 tricks if correct). Unfortuantly > their are still two trumps outstanding, after drawing once the oustanding > trump becomes the master trump. So if declarer plays another trump he is > down. If he cashes his outside winners first he will make 4S. An interesting > detail is that declarer is two down if you rule it down. TD and AC used one > down all the time. It doesn't really matter but shows the lack of attention > for details of TD/AC. > > Now the AC let the guy play the contract correctly (never touching trumps) > although they say that the guy has probably forgotten about the trump. The > AC says explicitly this is against a well established principle. Now what > does this mean. What the hell makes 'a case like this' so special that we > have to rule against a well established principle? Herman can you try again > to explain this, in plain clear language, before I start guessing. Being astonished by the ruling I have tried this question on various Norwegian players and Directors from time to time. (We also discussed this in part at a Directors assembly some time ago). Declarer claims with a trump and the two red aces. An opponent holds a trump and Ace-King in the last suit. How many of the remaining three tricks to declarer? The answer I always receive is that if opponent's trump is high declarer gets no more tricks, if declarer's trump is high he gets two of the three tricks. The general attitude here seems to be that when a player claims and apparently falsely believes that all his cards are high, he should be deemed to play the cards at random and in a sequence that results in the best possible result to opponents. Trump or no trump makes no difference. That is also my understanding of the laws, AC or no AC. regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 12 10:53:29 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:53:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Tenerife 41 was an interesting case. > > I think there was no discussion about 75C2. It is about 75C3 > > The write up: > "There is a well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has > high cards, any order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view of > the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the > trump suit, which is cashed last." I said in a mail that this wording was > rather unclear. Herman (who did the write-up) came with this answer: "I > think the write-up is clear." > > Well dear Herman, you must be joking. This is bogus language used by people > that have something to hide. For this language to mean anything, let alone > it being clear, you have to explain what means 'a case like this'. > > What was the case. Declarer claims 4S by drawing the last trump after which > he has the rest (this would produce 11 tricks if correct). Unfortuantly > their are still two trumps outstanding, after drawing once the oustanding > trump becomes the master trump. So if declarer plays another trump he is > down. If he cashes his outside winners first he will make 4S. An interesting > detail is that declarer is two down if you rule it down. TD and AC used one > down all the time. It doesn't really matter but shows the lack of attention > for details of TD/AC. > > Now the AC let the guy play the contract correctly (never touching trumps) NO, we ruled that he plays trumps once (he had stated that he would draw 'the' trump). After that, he considers his hand(s) to be high and we rule that it is normal for him to play either of his suits, but not his (supposedly last) trump. Whatever order he plays them, he shall be ruffed once, after which he has in any line a trump to regain the play and cash all. > although they say that the guy has probably forgotten about the trump. The > AC says explicitly this is against a well established principle. Now what > does this mean. What the hell makes 'a case like this' so special that we > have to rule against a well established principle? Herman can you try again > to explain this, in plain clear language, before I start guessing. > With "a case like this" we probably meant a case where a declarer has what he expects to be nothing but high cards and remaining trumps. The "well-established" principle is that any order of high cards is normal. We added the principle that this does not include the trump suit. The trump suit is not treated as any other suit that provides high card winners. > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 12 12:22:49 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:22:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030212080625.00b15400@pop-server.bigpond.net.a u> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030212132055.00a80740@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:18 12/02/2003 +1100, Tony Musgrove wrote: >With two tricks to play: > North > > D 5 > C 5 > > West East > H 10 H J > C 2 D J > > South > > D 10 > C J > >South leads the CJ, West plays the H 10 and immediately realises her error, >contributing the C2, East now discards her H J and takes the last trick. > >East claims she "knew" declarer still had a diamond, was always going to keep >it etc. > >Should director rule against EW under L72B "could have known". > >Should East, acting under L73C, throw her diamond regardless (I >feel sure that Richard would)? AG : none of these Laws are needed, although L72B spirit is in here. L62D is the answer. Remark that the play only needs to have been suggested ; the fact that it was more or less automatic doesn't retrict the use of this Law. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 12 12:30:57 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:30:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: <200302112211.RAA01301@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030212132630.00a876e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:11 11/02/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Jesper Dybdal > > The relevant law is L62D2 > >Definitely so. Please ignore my previous message! > >Interesting that this law applies only when the player holds two >different suits. If the issue is whether to play high or low within a >single suit -- is that possible? -- 72B1 and 64C could apply. AG : this is possible in case of premature play : the defender with KJ wonders whether declarer or partner holds the Queen. If it's partner, he has to crocodilize. This is covered by L57A. If you're 4th on the penultimate trick, this won't be a problem, so I think the case you mention can't happen. It could be necessary earlier in the play, of course, and *that* is covered by Laws 64C and 73C. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 12 12:37:33 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:37:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: <004301c2d220$b3ec27e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <200302112206.OAA14629@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030212133344.00a87a10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:55 11/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Adam Beneschan" >Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > > > > > > Sven wrote: > > > > > As far as I can see the only way she legally can have that information > > > is if earlier in the play either West has shown out of Diamonds or South > > > has shown out of Hearts. > > > > Are you saying you wouldn't accept inferences from the auction > > (e.g. South's bidding denied having one more heart than she's already > > shown up with)? > >Have you never experienced deception in auction or play? > >Only today in the club I listened to the auction from opponents: >(all natural - me and my partner only passed) 1C - 1H - 1NT AP > >The 1NT declarer turned out to have 4 spades to the nine >while he had during his auction denied holding more than three. AG : that's not deception; That's judgment. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 12 12:48:52 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:48:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Language question resolved. In-Reply-To: <3E4A1026.4000208@skynet.be> References: <200302120048.TAA01585@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <000a01c2d26c$a87906c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030212134434.00a87b70@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:13 12/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >>Steve >> >>But for the moment the international situation is unclear. Tenerife-41 >>hardly makes any sense at all (it allowed declarer to get away after >>forgetting about an outstanding master trump which for me is not the same as >>allowing 'the rest' claims to start on trumps). And Ton (who is chairman of > > >Depends on what you mean by "getting away". > >The situation was that of a declarer thinking his hand was high, when this >was not the case. >The AC ruled that it is "normal" for a declarer to start with any suit, >except trumps. Trumps are generally kept as a safeguard against any of the >suits not being as high as one thinks. AG : PMFJI. You're quite right, that's what usually done. But that's careful play. And after a claim there is a consensus that declarer will be deemed careless. Isn't there therefore a contradiction in said case ? To make things clear : either you aren't 100% sure the suits are high, and you play side suits first, or you are and you claim. Claiming and playing side suits first are incompatible attitudes. That's why I support the French view : trumps first, other suits indifferently, suits from the top. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 12 12:49:49 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:49:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <200302112206.OAA14629@mailhub.irvine.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030212133344.00a87a10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001601c2d295$3b1817f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 23:55 11/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > >From: "Adam Beneschan" > >Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > > > > > > > > > > Sven wrote: > > > > > > > As far as I can see the only way she legally can have that information > > > > is if earlier in the play either West has shown out of Diamonds or South > > > > has shown out of Hearts. > > > > > > Are you saying you wouldn't accept inferences from the auction > > > (e.g. South's bidding denied having one more heart than she's already > > > shown up with)? > > > >Have you never experienced deception in auction or play? > > > >Only today in the club I listened to the auction from opponents: > >(all natural - me and my partner only passed) 1C - 1H - 1NT AP > > > >The 1NT declarer turned out to have 4 spades to the nine > >while he had during his auction denied holding more than three. > > AG : that's not deception; That's judgment. OK. Deception or judgement - either is accepted, but whatever we call it it upsets the "safe" locating of cards from the auction (or from count signals during play). regards Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 12 13:29:22 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:29:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: <001601c2d295$3b1817f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <200302112206.OAA14629@mailhub.irvine.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030212133344.00a87a10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030212142316.00a83030@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:49 12/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > At 23:55 11/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > >From: "Adam Beneschan" > > >Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sven wrote: > > > > > > > > > As far as I can see the only way she legally can have that >information > > > > > is if earlier in the play either West has shown out of Diamonds or >South > > > > > has shown out of Hearts. > > > > > > > > Are you saying you wouldn't accept inferences from the auction > > > > (e.g. South's bidding denied having one more heart than she's already > > > > shown up with)? > > > > > >Have you never experienced deception in auction or play? > > > > > >Only today in the club I listened to the auction from opponents: > > >(all natural - me and my partner only passed) 1C - 1H - 1NT AP > > > > > >The 1NT declarer turned out to have 4 spades to the nine > > >while he had during his auction denied holding more than three. > > > > AG : that's not deception; That's judgment. > >OK. Deception or judgement - either is accepted, but >whatever we call it it upsets the "safe" locating of cards >from the auction (or from count signals during play). AG : I'm not so sure. I believe there is a difference. IMHO, any action that is obvious barring previous deception by the opponents might be called "obvious" for purposes of UI decisions, ie if you have no LA unless opponents have psyched, then you have no LA. However, you may not bar the fact that an opponents has a hand slightly different from what he advertised, for judgment / anticipation / tactical reasons, eg if you have no LA unless the opponents passed a flat 12-count, then you have a LA. I would be interested in hearing, er, reading, about any decision that addressed this matter. Best regards, Alain. From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Feb 12 13:31:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: <002d01c2d274$fbce8450$9522e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > Such statements are irrelevant without the > > corroboration of proven distribution, and > > that doesn't include count signals. > > > +=+ Such statements are irrelevant. Period. > In applying Law 62D2 we are concerned only > with fact; which of two cards is possibly > suggested by sight of the revoke card. This > is a question of fact and the fact is determined > by the Director - the player has no say in it. > Having determined the fact the Director orders > the player to play the other card. Questions of > rationality, normality, logicality are not relevant > and not involved; the Director is executing a > penalty. ~ G ~ +=+ I'm not sure where this takes us. The law is not dissimilar in tone to L73/16. If a revoke by a defender occurred before it was the turn of his partner to play to the twelfth trick, and if offender's partner has cards of two suits, (penalty) offender's partner may not choose the play that could possibly have been suggested by seeing the revoke card. I think many of us would have gone for "If the partner knows (or is overwhelmingly likely to believe) that declarer holds a particular card then seeing the revoke doesn't suggest (indeed can't possibly suggest) anything." If the law is intended as "(penalty) offender's partner must play the card least favourable to his side." It would help if it actually said so. Tim From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 12 13:50:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:50:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <200302120045.QAA16141@mailhub.irvine.com> <007601c2d233$ed03a7c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003e01c2d29a$b5c24700$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> Message-ID: <000a01c2d29d$c3f7f1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: mamos ....... >NO NO NO >Grattan has told you what the law says its simple >The Law says >(penalty) offender's partner may not choose the >play that could possibly have been suggested >by seeing the revoke card. >Everything else tthats happened on the hand is >irrelevant - keeping count false signals psyches >etc etc are all bollocks So on holding the Ace of Diamonds and the deuce of Clubs with two cards left when partner revokes in trick twelve with a card that clearly suggests you have no reason to stick on to the club (whatever is its rank), it is your opinion that you must do just that and discard your Ace of Diamonds? Sorry, but this is not how I read the laws nor how I apply them. (And no personal offence taken from your posting!) Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 12 13:56:42 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:56:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: Message-ID: <001001c2d29e$92ffd260$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Tim West-Meads" > Grattan wrote: > > > > Such statements are irrelevant without the > > > corroboration of proven distribution, and > > > that doesn't include count signals. > > > > > +=+ Such statements are irrelevant. Period. > > In applying Law 62D2 we are concerned only > > with fact; which of two cards is possibly > > suggested by sight of the revoke card. This > > is a question of fact and the fact is determined > > by the Director - the player has no say in it. > > Having determined the fact the Director orders > > the player to play the other card. Questions of > > rationality, normality, logicality are not relevant > > and not involved; the Director is executing a > > penalty. ~ G ~ +=+ > > I'm not sure where this takes us. The law is not dissimilar in tone to > L73/16. > > If a revoke by a defender occurred before it was the turn of his partner > to play to the twelfth trick, and if offender's partner has cards of two > suits, (penalty) offender's partner may not choose the play that could > possibly have been suggested by seeing the revoke card. > > I think many of us would have gone for "If the partner knows (or is > overwhelmingly likely to believe) that declarer holds a particular card > then seeing the revoke doesn't suggest (indeed can't possibly suggest) > anything." > > If the law is intended as "(penalty) offender's partner must play the card > least favourable to his side." It would help if it actually said so. Until 1997 it did (at the discretion of declarer!). It no longer does. Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 12 14:07:26 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:07:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman: > With "a case like this" we probably meant a case where a declarer has > what he expects to be nothing but high cards and remaining trumps. > > The "well-established" principle is that any order of high cards is normal. > > We added the principle that this does not include the trump suit. > > The trump suit is not treated as any other suit that provides high > card winners. > Herman, It is not so easy to be clear on or precise. First problem is 'probably'. This implies that you don't know anymore why or what you decided but that you are just guessing. Or what else means 'probably' in this context. One mail ago you claimed that your original language was very clear. Now you seem to need vague language to talk yourself out of it. Second problem. 'a case like this is a case where declarer has what he expects to be nothing but high cards and remaining trumps'. Help! What are you trying to say. What are 'remaining trumps'. High, Low, don't know? Declarer claimed the rest so he expects to have only high cards. Or in plain language he expected all his cards to be high including the remaining trunps. Please correct me if I am wrong. Anyway until you come up with something better it is just plain nonsense what you write because ANY claim that causes 70C problems contains high cards and remaining trumps. So once more what makes 'cases like this' so special? So far 'cases like this' seem to be equal to all cases so you just (tried to) changed a well established principle. OK. If this is what you thought you should do that is fine. You have the authority to do so. You can take any decision you like. But when you write-up such an important change then don't hide behind vague language. Just say that there is a new EBL-AC policy on the 'normal' in 70C3. And do I understand correctly that you always have to play outside winners first whatever the rank of the remaining trumps (this is different from both the ACBL and the French approach)? And if it is only 'in cases like this' please give a clear definition in which cases yes and in which cases no. If you want to be EBL scribe you should learn a little bit about communication. Besides the title should be 8 or 10 tricks. Not 9 or 10. I know it is a silly detail, but hey you claim that what you write is clear and correct. And then you are wide open for this kind of criticism. Now I don't think the write-ups are that bad. They used to be far worse. We had the same problem in Holland. At a certain point (when I realized the problem and I guessed to have enough political power to prevail) I have used some force to make sure that from then on we used language that normal players could actually understand to give our rulings. But is a very difficult problem because few people can write well enough, besides when you don't agree in an AC it is only too easy to give no or bogus reasons for the final verdict. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Tenerife 41 was an interesting case. > > > > I think there was no discussion about 75C2. It is about 75C3 > > > > The write up: > > "There is a well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has > > high cards, any order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view of > > the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the > > trump suit, which is cashed last." I said in a mail that this wording was > > rather unclear. Herman (who did the write-up) came with this answer: "I > > think the write-up is clear." > > > > Well dear Herman, you must be joking. This is bogus language used by people > > that have something to hide. For this language to mean anything, let alone > > it being clear, you have to explain what means 'a case like this'. > > > > What was the case. Declarer claims 4S by drawing the last trump after which > > he has the rest (this would produce 11 tricks if correct). Unfortuantly > > their are still two trumps outstanding, after drawing once the oustanding > > trump becomes the master trump. So if declarer plays another trump he is > > down. If he cashes his outside winners first he will make 4S. An interesting > > detail is that declarer is two down if you rule it down. TD and AC used one > > down all the time. It doesn't really matter but shows the lack of attention > > for details of TD/AC. > > > > Now the AC let the guy play the contract correctly (never touching trumps) > > > NO, we ruled that he plays trumps once (he had stated that he would > draw 'the' trump). After that, he considers his hand(s) to be high and > we rule that it is normal for him to play either of his suits, but not > his (supposedly last) trump. Whatever order he plays them, he shall be > ruffed once, after which he has in any line a trump to regain the play > and cash all. > > > > although they say that the guy has probably forgotten about the trump. The > > AC says explicitly this is against a well established principle. Now what > > does this mean. What the hell makes 'a case like this' so special that we > > have to rule against a well established principle? Herman can you try again > > to explain this, in plain clear language, before I start guessing. > > > > > With "a case like this" we probably meant a case where a declarer has > what he expects to be nothing but high cards and remaining trumps. > > The "well-established" principle is that any order of high cards is normal. > > We added the principle that this does not include the trump suit. > > The trump suit is not treated as any other suit that provides high > card winners. > > > Jaap > > > > > > > -- > 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 jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 12 14:18:02 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:18:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: Message-ID: <003d01c2d2a1$8f756bc0$25b54351@noos.fr> Tim (Sven says the same thing): > If the law is intended as "(penalty) offender's partner must play the card > least favourable to his side." It would help if it actually said so. That is the problem of all these vague laws. If the law said so we could rule this kind of things in two seconds flat. I myself like simple laws and yes they will create some strange results. Bad luck, I don't care what happens to players who play out of turn etc. I do care everybody get's the same treatment but that is something else. As it is all laws contain statements like 'unless it is irrational/unlikely/normal' or whatever. Well, go judge. 'Everybody' will come up with another interpretation of these clauses. Players will give up about understanding the laws. TD's lose time and energy about things they shouldn't be bothered with in the first place. Great. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > Grattan wrote: > > > > Such statements are irrelevant without the > > > corroboration of proven distribution, and > > > that doesn't include count signals. > > > > > +=+ Such statements are irrelevant. Period. > > In applying Law 62D2 we are concerned only > > with fact; which of two cards is possibly > > suggested by sight of the revoke card. This > > is a question of fact and the fact is determined > > by the Director - the player has no say in it. > > Having determined the fact the Director orders > > the player to play the other card. Questions of > > rationality, normality, logicality are not relevant > > and not involved; the Director is executing a > > penalty. ~ G ~ +=+ > > I'm not sure where this takes us. The law is not dissimilar in tone to > L73/16. > > If a revoke by a defender occurred before it was the turn of his partner > to play to the twelfth trick, and if offender's partner has cards of two > suits, (penalty) offender's partner may not choose the play that could > possibly have been suggested by seeing the revoke card. > > I think many of us would have gone for "If the partner knows (or is > overwhelmingly likely to believe) that declarer holds a particular card > then seeing the revoke doesn't suggest (indeed can't possibly suggest) > anything." > > If the law is intended as "(penalty) offender's partner must play the card > least favourable to his side." It would help if it actually said so. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gillp@bigpond.com Wed Feb 12 14:26:40 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 01:26:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] Pauline versus Law 55 Message-ID: <01d101c2d2a2$c52582e0$a38d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> I was directing at the local club today when a declarer named Pauline led out of turn from her hand when she was in dummy. The defenders called me to the table and I explained that either defender may accept the lead. Pauline accepted this graciously. At the end of the session, Pauline took me aside and said that she thinks Law 55 is unfair. No problem with Law 55(b)(iii) about redress of damage, but she wondered why the defenders are allowed to accept declarer's LOOT? All declarer has done is unnecessarily show the defenders one of her cards. She thinks that the right of defenders to accept declarer's LOOT should be removed from the Laws in order to make the Laws more equitable. Also, it can be a messy process for two defenders to decide whether to accept a lead or not, and in her opinion there is no reason why they should be allowed to do so. Does anyone agree with her? Has she missed something obvious (and indeed have I too), i.e. is there a good ( non-L55(b)(iii) reason to allow the defenders to accept declarer's LOOT? Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 12 14:59:01 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:59:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Language question resolved. References: <200302120048.TAA01585@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <000a01c2d26c$a87906c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030212134434.00a87b70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E4A6135.8070609@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 10:13 12/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> The AC ruled that it is "normal" for a declarer to start with any >> suit, except trumps. Trumps are generally kept as a safeguard against >> any of the suits not being as high as one thinks. > > > AG : PMFJI. You're quite right, that's what usually done. But that's > careful play. And after a claim there is a consensus that declarer will > be deemed careless. Isn't there therefore a contradiction in said case ? Yes and no. Can it not be "normal" to play carefully? > To make things clear : either you aren't 100% sure the suits are high, > and you play side suits first, or you are and you claim. Claiming and > playing side suits first are incompatible attitudes. That's why I > support the French view : trumps first, other suits indifferently, suits > from the top. > That's also a "careful" play. You don't give a trick then if someone has forgotten a small outstanding trump? It is impossible to define "normal", since the actual plays will never come up. After all, the player will claim. It seems to me however, that a player who has all will not play his trumps in the same manner as his other suits. He will play them last. That seems normal to me. It also seemed normal to my 3 colleagues on the Tenerife AC. > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 12 15:17:02 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:17:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> Sorry Jaap, this is not fair. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman: > >>With "a case like this" we probably meant a case where a declarer has >>what he expects to be nothing but high cards and remaining trumps. >> >>The "well-established" principle is that any order of high cards is >> > normal. > >>We added the principle that this does not include the trump suit. >> >>The trump suit is not treated as any other suit that provides high >>card winners. >> >> > > Herman, > > It is not so easy to be clear on or precise. > > First problem is 'probably'. This implies that you don't know anymore why or > what you decided but that you are just guessing. Or what else means > 'probably' in this context. One mail ago you claimed that your original > language was very clear. Now you seem to need vague language to talk > yourself out of it. > Of course I don't remember precisely why three other people decided something 18 months ago. And of course I don't remember why Jens did not throw out the sentence "in a case like this" from my write-up. Please allow me some latitude when trying to explain something I should not deem necessary to explain. > Second problem. 'a case like this is a case where declarer has what he > expects to be nothing but high cards and remaining trumps'. Help! What are > you trying to say. What are 'remaining trumps'. High, Low, don't know? Last ones. There is a fundamental difference between high cards in other suits and last trumps. > Declarer claimed the rest so he expects to have only high cards. Or in plain > language he expected all his cards to be high including the remaining > trunps. Please correct me if I am wrong. > Yes, but while he believes his trumps are last, he knows there are other cards in the other suits. As I said, there is a fundamental difference between high cards and last trumps. Probably that is what I originally meant when I wrote "a case like this" high side cards and last trumps. > Anyway until you come up with something better it is just plain nonsense > what you write because ANY claim that causes 70C problems contains high > cards and remaining trumps. So once more what makes 'cases like this' so > special? So far 'cases like this' seem to be equal to all cases so you just > (tried to) changed a well established principle. OK. If this is what you > thought you should do that is fine. You have the authority to do so. You can > take any decision you like. But when you write-up such an important change > then don't hide behind vague language. Just say that there is a new EBL-AC > policy on the 'normal' in 70C3. And do I understand correctly that you > always have to play outside winners first whatever the rank of the remaining > trumps (this is different from both the ACBL and the French approach)? No it is not. You seem to say that the French (trumps first) and the Americans (trumps last) have a standard way of saying what is normal. That is not true. There must be a standard as to what is included into normal plays. Side suits in random order is a common denominator, I believe. Is "trumps first" "normal" or not - that is the only question. Is "trumps second" "normal" might also be a question. So there can be only two possibilities and the EBLAC cannot be different from both the ACBL and the French. The size of the remaining trump is not of importance. Whatever anyone, including the french, say, "trumps last" must always be among the normal lines, so a small trump will win a trick in any case. The question that remains is whether or not someone holding 2 AK AK -- with spades trump will deem it "normal" to play the Sp2 first. And > if it is only 'in cases like this' please give a clear definition in which > cases yes and in which cases no. If you want to be EBL scribe you should > learn a little bit about communication. Besides the title should be 8 or 10 > tricks. Not 9 or 10. I know it is a silly detail, but hey you claim that > what you write is clear and correct. And then you are wide open for this > kind of criticism. > It was the Director who ruled (33% of) down 1. Since we changed it to making, there was no need to correct him on the down 2 bit. I do not remember if that was a conscious oversight, I don't believe we noticed it at all. But you are right. If the second trump is played first, West cashes two more diamond tricks. > Now I don't think the write-ups are that bad. They used to be far worse. We > had the same problem in Holland. At a certain point (when I realized the > problem and I guessed to have enough political power to prevail) I have used > some force to make sure that from then on we used language that normal > players could actually understand to give our rulings. But is a very > difficult problem because few people can write well enough, besides when you > don't agree in an AC it is only too easy to give no or bogus reasons for the > final verdict. > > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 12 15:38:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:38:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c2d2ac$ce4a5120$6900a8c0@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" ..... > The size of the remaining trump is not of importance. Whatever anyone, > including the french, say, "trumps last" must always be among the > normal lines, so a small trump will win a trick in any case. > > The question that remains is whether or not someone holding 2 AK AK -- > with spades trump will deem it "normal" to play the Sp2 first. I do not expect anybody to consider playing the S2 first from this holding as "normal" But change the S2 to a higher card say the Ace and I expect everybody to consider playing this last trump first as "normal". So where do you draw the line? At the King? the nine? the five? The fact must be that an unconditional rule of "trump first" or "trump last" can never be anything but meaningless. Sven From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Feb 12 15:36:14 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:36:14 -0600 Subject: [blml] Pauline versus Law 55 References: <01d101c2d2a2$c52582e0$a38d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 8:26 AM Subject: [blml] Pauline versus Law 55 > I was directing at the local club today when a declarer named > Pauline led out of turn from her hand when she was in dummy. > The defenders called me to the table and I explained that either > defender may accept the lead. Pauline accepted this graciously. > > At the end of the session, Pauline took me aside and said that she > thinks Law 55 is unfair. No problem with Law 55(b)(iii) about redress > of damage, but she wondered why the defenders are allowed to > accept declarer's LOOT? All declarer has done is unnecessarily show > the defenders one of her cards. She thinks that the right of defenders > to accept declarer's LOOT should be removed from the Laws in order > to make the Laws more equitable. > Also, it can be a messy process > for two defenders to decide whether to accept a lead or not, These few words strike a sensible chord with me, meaning that only the LHO of offender should be empowered to choose. I can suggest things that would motivate declarers to minimize the occasions they POOT and defenders from communicating in the selection of penalty The other words are spoken out of ignorance and are forgiven. regards roger pewick > and in > her opinion there is no reason why they should be allowed to do so. > Does anyone agree with her? Has she missed something obvious > (and indeed have I too), i.e. is there a good ( non-L55(b)(iii) reason > to allow the defenders to accept declarer's LOOT? Not sure what that means but... [a] declarer has violated a rule, albeit a violation that might gain tricks otherwise unwinnable by legitimate play. [b] the violation may well have been a bridge mistake and it has the tone of natural justice that the offender be hoisted on his own petard if the defender is savy enough to choose well. > Peter Gill > Sydney Australia. > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Feb 12 16:16:13 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:16:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000701c2d2ac$ce4a5120$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00f301c2d2b2$101023a0$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: > > The question that remains is whether or not someone holding 2 AK AK -- > > with spades trump will deem it "normal" to play the Sp2 first. > I do not expect anybody to consider playing the S2 first from this > holding as "normal" > But change the S2 to a higher card say the Ace and I expect > everybody to consider playing this last trump first as "normal". > > So where do you draw the line? At the King? the nine? the five? It's worse than that. Suppose you have lost no trick to this point, and your spade is the three. Then the only rational line in seven spades is to play the three of spades - you may have forgotten a trump, and it may be the two. But in six spades, playing a trump is the only irrational line - you may have forgotten a trump, and it may not be the two. The problem, of course, is not with the NBOs who define "normal" - that is a pointless exercise, since no one can do it. Nor is the problem with the Tenerife AC, who produced a ridiculous (and illegal) decision which they then claimed set a precedent; unfortunately, this was not the case, for there have been many other ridiculous and illegal decisions taken by appeals committees, and this was just another of them. The problem is with the rules on claims, and with the "look after the rabbits" principle. At the moment, we have a set of rules which has caused one country's NBO to produce guidance for implementing the rules which is the *diametric opposite* of the guidance produced by another country. Yet even this absurd situation is not enough to persuade those who make the rules that what they have at the moment does not, will not, and cannot work. "Normal", "careless", "irrational" and the entire caboodle must disappear. A claimer must be given those tricks that he could take by playing the cards specified in his claim in the order specified. He must lose all other tricks. It should by now be completely obvious even to... well, even to a member of a Laws Commission that where claims are concerned *no subjective law will work*. David Burn London, England From gester@lineone.net Wed Feb 12 15:58:06 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:58:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <200302120045.QAA16141@mailhub.irvine.com> <007601c2d233$ed03a7c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003e01c2d29a$b5c24700$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> <000a01c2d29d$c3f7f1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c2d2b2$4051a7a0$09192850@pacific> Grattan Endicott ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > > So on holding the Ace of Diamonds and the deuce of > Clubs with two cards left when partner revokes in trick > twelve with a card that clearly suggests you have no > reason to stick on to the club (whatever is its rank), it > is your opinion that you must do just that and discard > your Ace of Diamonds? > > Sorry, but this is not how I read the laws nor how I > apply them. > +=+ The question is not about having 'no reason to stick on to the club'; the question is whether sight of the revoke card could possibly suggest retention of one of the cards rather than the other. If it could that card *must* be discarded regardless, subject to Law 44C, of all other considerations. The Director has no discretion in the matter: he is bound to do as Law 62D2 says by reason of his duty under Law 81B2. (Since it would be discourteous to suggest that Sven is inventing a Law for himself, I must believe he is following a law too freely translated from the English into another language.) I repeat that the Director is applying a penalty clause and this operates notwithstanding any personal opinion of the Director as to the incongruity of the requirement. Perhaps I may say a word also about 'possible'. A thing may be 'impossible' (0% possibility); otherwise it is 'possible'. Possibility is not a term susceptible to qualification in the way that 'probable' may be qualified; a thing is probable if the probability of it is over 50%, but we may lower the 50% barrier to some conceptualized level by qualification - e.g. "at all probable". An informed use of English language avoids such treatment attempted of 'possible'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Feb 12 16:21:43 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:21:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <003d01c2d2a1$8f756bc0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001001c2d2b2$d5e59600$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > Tim (Sven says the same thing): > > > If the law is intended as "(penalty) offender's partner must play the card > > least favourable to his side." It would help if it actually said so. > > That is the problem of all these vague laws. If the law said so we could > rule this kind of things in two seconds flat. I myself like simple laws and > yes they will create some strange results. Bad luck, I don't care what > happens to players who play out of turn etc. I do care everybody get's the > same treatment but that is something else. > I really dont understand this here the law is neither vague or rubbery (penalty) offender's partner may not choose the play that could possibly have been suggested by seeing the revoke card. If someone can come up with a case where I cannot rule I'll be surprised Mike > As it is all laws contain statements like 'unless it is > irrational/unlikely/normal' or whatever. Well, go judge. 'Everybody' will > come up with another interpretation of these clauses. Players will give up > about understanding the laws. TD's lose time and energy about things they > shouldn't be bothered with in the first place. Great. > > Jaap > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:31 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > > Such statements are irrelevant without the > > > > corroboration of proven distribution, and > > > > that doesn't include count signals. > > > > > > > +=+ Such statements are irrelevant. Period. > > > In applying Law 62D2 we are concerned only > > > with fact; which of two cards is possibly > > > suggested by sight of the revoke card. This > > > is a question of fact and the fact is determined > > > by the Director - the player has no say in it. > > > Having determined the fact the Director orders > > > the player to play the other card. Questions of > > > rationality, normality, logicality are not relevant > > > and not involved; the Director is executing a > > > penalty. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > I'm not sure where this takes us. The law is not dissimilar in tone to > > L73/16. > > > > If a revoke by a defender occurred before it was the turn of his partner > > to play to the twelfth trick, and if offender's partner has cards of two > > suits, (penalty) offender's partner may not choose the play that could > > possibly have been suggested by seeing the revoke card. > > > > I think many of us would have gone for "If the partner knows (or is > > overwhelmingly likely to believe) that declarer holds a particular card > > then seeing the revoke doesn't suggest (indeed can't possibly suggest) > > anything." > > > > If the law is intended as "(penalty) offender's partner must play the card > > least favourable to his side." It would help if it actually said so. > > > > Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Feb 12 16:25:56 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:25:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <200302120045.QAA16141@mailhub.irvine.com> <007601c2d233$ed03a7c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <003e01c2d29a$b5c24700$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> <000a01c2d29d$c3f7f1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002b01c2d2b3$6b79ab70$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > From: mamos > ....... > >NO NO NO > > >Grattan has told you what the law says its simple > > >The Law says > >(penalty) offender's partner may not choose the > >play that could possibly have been suggested > >by seeing the revoke card. > > >Everything else tthats happened on the hand is > >irrelevant - keeping count false signals psyches > >etc etc are all bollocks > > So on holding the Ace of Diamonds and the deuce of > Clubs with two cards left when partner revokes in trick > twelve with a card that clearly suggests you have no > reason to stick on to the club (whatever is its rank), it > is your opinion that you must do just that and discard > your Ace of Diamonds? Holding the two of Clubs It will not be possible to create a case where anything is suggested but make it the 3 with the DA.. and we are in business - even if the 3C is the thirteenth of the suit .. if partners card suggests I keep the Ace of D I have to discard it -- that is how I read the laws - perhaps someone would like to come up with a "difficult case" mike > > Sorry, but this is not how I read the laws nor how I > apply them. > > (And no personal offence taken from your posting!) > > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 12 16:37:30 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:37:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pauline versus Law 55 References: <01d101c2d2a2$c52582e0$a38d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <000501c2d2b5$aee741e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Peter, 1. It makes sense that the hand behind the hand that played out of turn has the right to accept. As long as nobody notices he can just play a card anyway. So you run into a well known legal problem (calling the TD should not limit your rights). 2. IMHO it is a stupid complication that both opponents have the right to accept (or not). It becomes messy because when I am not so sure I just wait for some time to see if partner wants to do something (and he waits for the same reason). The law doesn't allow communication between the partners but also doesn't resolve the problem who is going to decide and when. If you want both opps to participate in a decision there should be some kind of procedure. Crazy laws as usual. 3. I don't mind (I actually support) the concept that there is some kind of penalty (opponent(s) has the right to accept or not). Come on, leading OOT is a stupid thing to do which deserves some kind of penalty. If a defender leads OOT the consequences are very often much more severe. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:26 PM Subject: [blml] Pauline versus Law 55 > I was directing at the local club today when a declarer named > Pauline led out of turn from her hand when she was in dummy. > The defenders called me to the table and I explained that either > defender may accept the lead. Pauline accepted this graciously. > > At the end of the session, Pauline took me aside and said that she > thinks Law 55 is unfair. No problem with Law 55(b)(iii) about redress > of damage, but she wondered why the defenders are allowed to > accept declarer's LOOT? All declarer has done is unnecessarily show > the defenders one of her cards. She thinks that the right of defenders > to accept declarer's LOOT should be removed from the Laws in order > to make the Laws more equitable. Also, it can be a messy process > for two defenders to decide whether to accept a lead or not, and in > her opinion there is no reason why they should be allowed to do so. > > Does anyone agree with her? Has she missed something obvious > (and indeed have I too), i.e. is there a good ( non-L55(b)(iii) reason > to allow the defenders to accept declarer's LOOT? > > Peter Gill > Sydney Australia. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 12 16:07:04 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:07:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c2d2b5$adaffa60$25b54351@noos.fr> OK, Maybe I am a little too agressive but unfair is something else. Anyway it is clear that we don't get any further on 'a case like this' so we don't know which cases we are talking about. This case only, all cases, or some undefined subset. And there remains a problem on 'normal'. Herman: > You seem to say that the French (trumps first) and the Americans > (trumps last) have a standard way of saying what is normal. > That is not true. > > There must be a standard as to what is included into normal plays. > > Side suits in random order is a common denominator, I believe. > Is "trumps first" "normal" or not - that is the only question. > Is "trumps second" "normal" might also be a question. > > So there can be only two possibilities and the EBLAC cannot be > different from both the ACBL and the French. Well first of all every national authority is free to define what 'normal' is supposed to be in their country. So we can end up with a dozen ways to handle this. Second this EBL ruling is different from both ACBL and FFB (but please notice that I only said that in France they have ruled like that, I don't know the official French position). I am quite sure that in ACBL-land (ACBL-TD's please correct) you will always get it wrong. They will let you play a trump when it is wrong and they won't let you play a trump when it is wrong. What I call French is when someone tables his cards and claims the rest he is supposed to start on the (presumably) high trumps. This is the way 99.9% of the people would play the hand so it is an reasonable interpretation of the 'normal' in 70C by any standard (I might vote myself for this interpretation if I have to). This way you might accidently draw some outstanding trumps. And it prevents some very silly rulings (it takes all presure off 70C2). Anyway in both approaches the T-41 4S is down. In the ACBL you always get it wrong and the French will let you start on trumps. Now the EBL-AC decides to rule this case against well established principles (and against well established ACBL standards). Then you might (as EBL scribe) put some more effort in explaining what you did and why you did it. Herman to Alain: > It is impossible to define "normal", since the actual plays will never > come up. After all, the player will claim. It seems to me however, > that a player who has all will not play his trumps in the same manner > as his other suits. He will play them last. That seems normal to me. > It also seemed normal to my 3 colleagues on the Tenerife AC. First of all it is questionable that a player of your level has an opinion on a line of play at an EC. Second this seems a rather silly argument to rule against a well established principle. Basically what you are saying is that this AC new better then the well established principle (which is about the way trumps are handled in this situation). That is ok, you have the authority, but please make a clear statement if you do a thing like that. As it is it is just another 'crazy' AC ruling 'nobody' understands and 'nobody' agrees with. In itself that's ok. There are so many decisions like that, decision far worse and far more ridiculous than this one. But the moment you (not Herman but the official EBL scribe) claim to be proud about this decision there is a real problem. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > Sorry Jaap, this is not fair. > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Herman: > > > >>With "a case like this" we probably meant a case where a declarer has > >>what he expects to be nothing but high cards and remaining trumps. > >> > >>The "well-established" principle is that any order of high cards is > >> > > normal. > > > >>We added the principle that this does not include the trump suit. > >> > >>The trump suit is not treated as any other suit that provides high > >>card winners. > >> > >> > > > > Herman, > > > > It is not so easy to be clear on or precise. > > > > First problem is 'probably'. This implies that you don't know anymore why or > > what you decided but that you are just guessing. Or what else means > > 'probably' in this context. One mail ago you claimed that your original > > language was very clear. Now you seem to need vague language to talk > > yourself out of it. > > > > > Of course I don't remember precisely why three other people decided > something 18 months ago. And of course I don't remember why Jens did > not throw out the sentence "in a case like this" from my write-up. > Please allow me some latitude when trying to explain something I > should not deem necessary to explain. > > > > Second problem. 'a case like this is a case where declarer has what he > > expects to be nothing but high cards and remaining trumps'. Help! What are > > you trying to say. What are 'remaining trumps'. High, Low, don't know? > > > Last ones. There is a fundamental difference between high cards in > other suits and last trumps. > > > > Declarer claimed the rest so he expects to have only high cards. Or in plain > > language he expected all his cards to be high including the remaining > > trunps. Please correct me if I am wrong. > > > > > Yes, but while he believes his trumps are last, he knows there are > other cards in the other suits. As I said, there is a fundamental > difference between high cards and last trumps. > > Probably that is what I originally meant when I wrote "a case like > this" high side cards and last trumps. > > > > Anyway until you come up with something better it is just plain nonsense > > what you write because ANY claim that causes 70C problems contains high > > cards and remaining trumps. So once more what makes 'cases like this' so > > special? So far 'cases like this' seem to be equal to all cases so you just > > (tried to) changed a well established principle. OK. If this is what you > > thought you should do that is fine. You have the authority to do so. You can > > take any decision you like. But when you write-up such an important change > > then don't hide behind vague language. Just say that there is a new EBL-AC > > policy on the 'normal' in 70C3. And do I understand correctly that you > > always have to play outside winners first whatever the rank of the remaining > > trumps (this is different from both the ACBL and the French approach)? > > > No it is not. > You seem to say that the French (trumps first) and the Americans > (trumps last) have a standard way of saying what is normal. > That is not true. > > There must be a standard as to what is included into normal plays. > > Side suits in random order is a common denominator, I believe. > Is "trumps first" "normal" or not - that is the only question. > Is "trumps second" "normal" might also be a question. > > So there can be only two possibilities and the EBLAC cannot be > different from both the ACBL and the French. > > The size of the remaining trump is not of importance. Whatever anyone, > including the french, say, "trumps last" must always be among the > normal lines, so a small trump will win a trick in any case. > > The question that remains is whether or not someone holding 2 AK AK -- > with spades trump will deem it "normal" to play the Sp2 first. > > > And > > if it is only 'in cases like this' please give a clear definition in which > > cases yes and in which cases no. If you want to be EBL scribe you should > > learn a little bit about communication. Besides the title should be 8 or 10 > > tricks. Not 9 or 10. I know it is a silly detail, but hey you claim that > > what you write is clear and correct. And then you are wide open for this > > kind of criticism. > > > > > It was the Director who ruled (33% of) down 1. Since we changed it to > making, there was no need to correct him on the down 2 bit. I do not > remember if that was a conscious oversight, I don't believe we noticed > it at all. But you are right. If the second trump is played first, > West cashes two more diamond tricks. > > > > Now I don't think the write-ups are that bad. They used to be far worse. We > > had the same problem in Holland. At a certain point (when I realized the > > problem and I guessed to have enough political power to prevail) I have used > > some force to make sure that from then on we used language that normal > > players could actually understand to give our rulings. But is a very > > difficult problem because few people can write well enough, besides when you > > don't agree in an AC it is only too easy to give no or bogus reasons for the > > final verdict. > > > > Jaap > > > > > > -- > 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 Wed Feb 12 17:31:44 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:31:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000701c2d2ac$ce4a5120$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00f301c2d2b2$101023a0$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E4A8500.9010303@skynet.be> Sorry to attack you, David, I have kept usually out of discussing with you. David Burn wrote: > > The problem, of course, is not with the NBOs who define "normal" - that > is a pointless exercise, since no one can do it. Nor is the problem with > the Tenerife AC, who produced a ridiculous (and illegal) decision which Ridiculous, I can live with, considering who it comes from. Illegal is too much. Retract or Prove. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 12 17:33:45 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:33:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000701c2d2ac$ce4a5120$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00f301c2d2b2$101023a0$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E4A8579.8010209@skynet.be> And another reply to the same post. David Burn wrote: > Sven wrote: > > > The problem is with the rules on claims, and with the "look after the > rabbits" principle. At the moment, we have a set of rules which has > caused one country's NBO to produce guidance for implementing the rules > which is the *diametric opposite* of the guidance produced by another > country. Yet even this absurd situation is not enough to persuade those > who make the rules that what they have at the moment does not, will not, > and cannot work. > There are no two sets of guidances, or if you consider there to be, those are not diametric opposites. Please tell us what you are referring to, so that I can counter. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 12 17:43:48 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:43:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000701c2d2ac$ce4a5120$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002401c2d2be$4d7493a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Sven: > The fact must be that an unconditional rule of "trump first" > or "trump last" can never be anything but meaningless. Any rule is meaningless if you call it that. But to assume a claim without statement to start on trumps is as good or as bad a rule as any (actually it is not that crazy). The lawmakers left us with undefined laws so 'we' have to come up with all kind of interpretations. The big advantage of 'you get it always wrong' or 'trumps first' or trumps last' is that at least there is some 'objective' way to rule these claims. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > ..... > > The size of the remaining trump is not of importance. Whatever anyone, > > including the french, say, "trumps last" must always be among the > > normal lines, so a small trump will win a trick in any case. > > > > The question that remains is whether or not someone holding 2 AK AK -- > > with spades trump will deem it "normal" to play the Sp2 first. > > I do not expect anybody to consider playing the S2 first from this > holding as "normal" > > But change the S2 to a higher card say the Ace and I expect > everybody to consider playing this last trump first as "normal". > > So where do you draw the line? At the King? the nine? the five? > > The fact must be that an unconditional rule of "trump first" > or "trump last" can never be anything but meaningless. > > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Feb 12 17:54:27 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:54:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000701c2d2ac$ce4a5120$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00f301c2d2b2$101023a0$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <3E4A8500.9010303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007801c2d2bf$c9d10360$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > Ridiculous, I can live with, considering who it comes from. > Illegal is too much. Retract or Prove. Is the transcript of this decision readily available? I expect I could find it in the Daily Bulletins, but someone else might have it nearer the surface. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Feb 12 17:57:41 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:57:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000701c2d2ac$ce4a5120$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00f301c2d2b2$101023a0$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <3E4A8579.8010209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008801c2d2c0$3d26c520$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > There are no two sets of guidances, or if you consider there to be, > those are not diametric opposites. Please tell us what you are > referring to, so that I can counter. I referred to the notion that in France, "trumps first" was considered normal, in the USA "trumps last". I believed this without checking it because it was contained in one of the messages here. Is it not so? Or is "first" not the diametric opposite of "last"? David Burn London, England From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Feb 12 18:06:50 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:06:50 -0800 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000401c2d2b5$adaffa60$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <002a01c2d2c1$86bf4bc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > I am quite sure that in ACBL-land (ACBL-TD's please correct) Why ask the TDs to correct? Are they the only knowledgeable ones? > you will always > get it wrong. They will let you play a trump when it is wrong and they won't > let you play a trump when it is wrong. But they won't always force you to play a trump when it is wrong. For instance, if it is the 2 of trumps, the ACBLScor tech file says this: "The argument put forth that since declarer is convinced that all cards are high, the Director should shuffle them and randomly select the 2. This line of reasoning depends on the premise that all "good" cards are equal. However it must be clear that trumps are intrinsically different and any value that the deuce has a trump would be wasted by leading it...The only rational purpose in playing the deuce is to execute some sort of squeeze. [otherwise] the play of the 2 is not rational: It can do no good, and may be harmful." But if the card is an honor that declarer may think is high, "it is considered normal for declarer to take a safety check with a 'high' trump." (Note the bureaucracy-typical weasel words "it is considered." What's wrong with "is normal"?) For other cards, the Director must decide which principle applies, recognizing that "there is a difference between a card that is thought to be good because of rank and one that is thought to be good by virtue of being the last remaining." Three more principles from the Tech files: --The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst possible, but top-down within the suit. --Declarer may never attempt to draw any trumps of which hs was likely unaware, if doing so would be to his advantage --Declarer should not be forced to play the remainder of his trumps to his disadvantage if both opponents have shown out of the suit. The above is a 1992 "Direction" of the Chief Tournament Director to ACBL TDs, which may not be followed by those outside his jurisdiction (e.g., ACs and club TDs) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam@irvine.com Wed Feb 12 18:15:28 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:15:28 -0800 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:58:06 GMT." <002d01c2d274$fbce8450$9522e150@endicott> Message-ID: <200302121815.KAA24913@mailhub.irvine.com> Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Where is the knowledge we have lost > in information?" ~ T S Eliot. > ============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin French" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:56 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > > > > > > Such statements are irrelevant without the > > corroboration of proven distribution, and > > that doesn't include count signals. > > > +=+ Such statements are irrelevant. Period. > In applying Law 62D2 we are concerned only > with fact; which of two cards is possibly > suggested by sight of the revoke card. This > is a question of fact and the fact is determined > by the Director - the player has no say in it. > Having determined the fact the Director orders > the player to play the other card. Questions of > rationality, normality, logicality are not relevant > and not involved; the Director is executing a > penalty. ~ G ~ +=+ If this is the case, then the penalty for a mechanical error would seem to be more severe at the 12th trick than at the previous 11. If you pull the wrong card and immediately correct it at tricks 1-11, this is UI to your partner but he is still allowed to play bridge, up to a point---he is still allowed to make logical plays if there is no suggested logical alternative. If you pull the wrong card at the 12th trick, your partner may be forced to make an illogical play. That doesn't seem quite right, which is why I didn't read the Law that way. Instead, I assumed (as Tim seems to) that the word "suggested" in 62D2 was meant to apply only when partner had a real choice between two logical plays. (Of course, it could be argued that pulling the wrong card at tricks 1-11 carries other penalties, i.e. the restrictions of Law 50D, while there are no such penalties attached to a mispull at trick 12, since Law 50D can no longer have any effect, other than the parenthesized part of 50D1.) (Off-topic: In looking into this, I discovered that a strict reading of the Laws says that if one defender has a penalty card, and his partner wins trick 12, he may still not lead to trick 13 until declarer has selected one of the options listed in L50D2. If the Lawmakers are ever in a mood to correct little tiny nits in the Laws, here's another one they can fix.) -- Adam From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 12 18:12:46 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:12:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000701c2d2ac$ce4a5120$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00f301c2d2b2$101023a0$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <3E4A8500.9010303@skynet.be> <007801c2d2bf$c9d10360$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <003a01c2d2c2$59bf68c0$25b54351@noos.fr> David, you can find it at http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appeals.html I tried to e-mail it but for some reason the spam filter got active. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 6:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > Herman wrote: > > > Ridiculous, I can live with, considering who it comes from. > > Illegal is too much. Retract or Prove. > > Is the transcript of this decision readily available? I expect I could > find it in the Daily Bulletins, but someone else might have it nearer > the surface. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 12 18:15:26 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:15:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000401c2d2b5$adaffa60$25b54351@noos.fr> <002a01c2d2c1$86bf4bc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005501c2d2c2$baaec720$25b54351@noos.fr> Thanks Marvin, Every day I learn a little bit more. This doesn't change my argument of course (in normal language these ACBL rules almost always make you get it wrong) but it is always nice to get the facts as correct as possible. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > > > I am quite sure that in ACBL-land (ACBL-TD's please correct) > > Why ask the TDs to correct? Are they the only knowledgeable ones? > > > you will always > > get it wrong. They will let you play a trump when it is wrong and they > won't > > let you play a trump when it is wrong. > > But they won't always force you to play a trump when it is wrong. For > instance, if it is the 2 of trumps, the ACBLScor tech file says this: > > "The argument put forth that since declarer is convinced that all cards are > high, the Director should shuffle them and randomly select the 2. This line > of reasoning depends on the premise that all "good" cards are equal. However > it must be clear that trumps are intrinsically different and any value that > the deuce has a trump would be wasted by leading it...The only rational > purpose in playing the deuce is to execute some sort of squeeze. [otherwise] > the play of the 2 is not rational: It can do no good, and may be harmful." > > But if the card is an honor that declarer may think is high, "it is > considered normal for declarer to take a safety check with a 'high' trump." > > (Note the bureaucracy-typical weasel words "it is considered." What's wrong > with "is normal"?) > > For other cards, the Director must decide which principle applies, > recognizing that "there is a difference between a card that is thought to be > good because of rank and one that is thought to be good by virtue of being > the last remaining." > > Three more principles from the Tech files: > > --The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst possible, but > top-down within the suit. > > --Declarer may never attempt to draw any trumps of which hs was likely > unaware, if doing so would be to his advantage > > --Declarer should not be forced to play the remainder of his trumps to his > disadvantage if both opponents have shown out of the suit. > > The above is a 1992 "Direction" of the Chief Tournament Director to ACBL > TDs, which may not be followed by those outside his jurisdiction (e.g., ACs > and club TDs) > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 12 18:26:43 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:26:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000701c2d2ac$ce4a5120$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00f301c2d2b2$101023a0$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <3E4A8579.8010209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005e01c2d2c4$4b3d80a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > And another reply to the same post. > > David Burn wrote: > > > Sven wrote: Not that it matters much, but NO I did not write anything of this! Sven > > > > > > The problem is with the rules on claims, and with the "look after the > > rabbits" principle. At the moment, we have a set of rules which has > > caused one country's NBO to produce guidance for implementing the rules > > which is the *diametric opposite* of the guidance produced by another > > country. Yet even this absurd situation is not enough to persuade those > > who make the rules that what they have at the moment does not, will not, > > and cannot work. > > > > > There are no two sets of guidances, or if you consider there to be, > those are not diametric opposites. Please tell us what you are > referring to, so that I can counter. > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Feb 12 18:30:33 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:30:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040462F8@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <00b601c2d2c4$da362640$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Thank you Robin. >Contract: Four Spades, played by North At this point, the remaining cards are S T 6 H K Q 8 5 D - C 9 S 9 8 S - H 9 7 3 H 6 4 2 D A J D T 8 C - C 7 6 S 7 5 H A J T D - C A Q at which point North claimed Result: 9 or 10 tricks The Facts: North claimed, saying "I take your last trump". >North had wished to speed up play by claiming when West had been thinking about the return. It was clear to North that he knew trumps had been 4-0. After all, he had noticed the bad break, and had already finessed once. If he had thought West had only one trump left, surely North would have cashed the S10 before playing the second round of Clubs. >When asked if he had claimed for 10 or 11 tricks, North stated he had not pronounced a number at the table. >West told the Committee that he had been thinking after taking the CK. Then North had claimed with the statement "I take your last trump". He had not wanted to call the Director then, but asked declarer "how may trumps do you think I have", to which North had replied "one". This fact had not been told to the Director at the table, but North did not dispute it before the Committee. Well, this North appears to have said both that it was obvious he thought there was more than one trump oustanding (in Committee), and that he thought there was only one trump outstanding (at the table). It is at least reasonable to assume that so confused a North in fact had no idea what was happening. A confused player who thought he had drawn all the trumps, but who had a reasonably high trump (the seven) with which he might draw any "lurkers", could easily play a spurious round of trumps. At least, there cannot possibly be "no doubt" that a confused player would abandon trumps at this point, principle or no principle. Therefore, in ruling that the declarer would in fact abandon trumps, the committee had resolved a doubtful point in favour of the claimer. This, as I hardly need point out, is illegal. >The Committee then had to decide whether or not there is any line of normal play that leads to the loss of the tenth trick. Claimer will take whichever card is returned, including a diamond, which can be ruffed in either hand. He will then cash the S10, as per his claim statement, and will then believe his cards to be high. There is a well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has high cards, any order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view of the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the trump suit, which is cashed last. There is no basis in Law or common sense for this view. It disregards the meaning of the English words of the laws. It cannot be considered "irrational" for a player who believes all his cards to be winners to fail to exercise any choice or care as to the order in which he plays them. To base a ruling on this absurd corruption of a perfectly valid pre-existing principle is not only illegal, it is close to the highest possible level of incompetence. David Burn London, England From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Feb 12 19:18:15 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:18:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040462F8@hotel.npl.co.uk> <00b601c2d2c4$da362640$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001c01c2d2cb$c3f9d780$363ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > > There is no basis in Law or common sense for > this view. It disregards the meaning of the English > words of the laws. It cannot be considered > "irrational" for a player who believes all his cards > to be winners to fail to exercise any choice or > care as to the order in which he plays them. To > base a ruling on this absurd corruption of a > perfectly valid pre-existing principle is not only > llegal, it is close to the highest possible level of > incompetence. > +=+ If you say so. The committee took the view that for a player who believes there are no more trumps out against him to play a trump, any trump, before he plays out his other winners is so grossly inferior as to be irrational in any player of the slightest competence. (By regulation EBL TACs are vested for EBL tournaments with the status of national authority, whence the mention I have seen somewhere of 'precedent'.) ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 12 19:53:50 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:53:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <200302121815.KAA24913@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002501c2d2d0$c2230260$d2d2193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > > If this is the case, then the penalty for a > mechanical error would seem to be more > severe at the 12th trick than at the previous 11. > +=+ The provision is designed to deal with a specific abuse. +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Feb 12 21:18:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: <002b01c2d2b3$6b79ab70$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> Message-ID: Mike asked > Holding the two of Clubs It will not be possible to create a case where > anything is suggested but make it the 3 with the DA.. and we are in > business - even if the 3C is the thirteenth of the suit .. if > partners card suggests I keep the Ace of D I have to discard it -- that > is how I read the laws - perhaps someone would like to come up with a > "difficult case" Help me out here. You hold the DA and the 13th club. What card can your partner possibly play that suggests keeping the DA? It doesn't matter if he places the card in middle of the table and does a war dance or sticks it in a sandwich and eats it - his card is totally irrelevant to your decision and can't suggest anything at all. If we do decide that "suggest" in a bridge context is to be interpreted more loosely then we have a whole host more problems around the "expected alert" issue than we thought. Tim From adam@irvine.com Wed Feb 12 21:41:05 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:41:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:18:00 GMT." Message-ID: <200302122141.NAA26882@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim wrote: > Help me out here. You hold the DA and the 13th club. What card can your > partner possibly play that suggests keeping the DA? It doesn't matter if > he places the card in middle of the table and does a war dance or sticks > it in a sandwich and eats it I think it does matter: the former action is probably a violation of Law 74A2, and the latter would inevitably result in a violation of Law 7C. :) :) -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Feb 12 22:48:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:48:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pauline versus Law 55 Message-ID: <4A256CCB.007B8714.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Peter Gill wrote: [snip] >she wondered why the defenders are allowed to >accept declarer's LOOT? All declarer has done >is unnecessarily show the defenders one of >her cards. She thinks that the right of >defenders to accept declarer's LOOT should be >removed from the Laws in order to make the >Laws more equitable. [snip] >Has she missed something obvious (and indeed >have I too), i.e. is there a good ( non-L55(b) >(iii) reason to allow the defenders to accept >declarer's LOOT? The good reason is one of consistency and bridge philosophy (the nature of the game). There is a general meta-rule interwoven throughout the Laws that the non-offending side has the option of accepting an irregularity by the offending side. Best wishes Richard From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 12 22:35:10 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:35:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040462F8@hotel.npl.co.uk> <00b601c2d2c4$da362640$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <001c01c2d2cb$c3f9d780$363ee150@endicott> Message-ID: <001e01c2d2e7$03cdea20$25b54351@noos.fr> Grattan, As I said before I have noticed what the AC decided and I have said they had the authority to decide whatever they wanted. So I cannot agree with David that whatever you decided is illegal. But then you say this: > The committee took the view > that for a player who believes there are no more > trumps out against him to play a trump, any trump, > before he plays out his other winners is so grossly > inferior as to be irrational in any player of the > slightest competence. For a player who thinks all his cards are high any order off cashing his winners cannot possibly be 'grossly inferior' or 'irrational' whatever the level of competence of the player and whatever twists you want to give to the English language. Actually your argument is so completely astonishing ridiculous that I cannot believe that someone serving on an EBL-AC can write this kind of crap let alone believe in it. But you are entiteld to this view (as you correctly said this AC is vested with the authority etc.). But by holding this view and defending it you support David's view that this AC is close to the highest possible level of incompetence. Which by the way is perfectly legal. And as a final thought, one might wonder what the highest possible level of incompetence might be. David is just too kind I guess. Jaap. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 8:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Where is the knowledge we have lost > in information?" ~ T S Eliot. > ============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 6:30 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > > > > > > There is no basis in Law or common sense for > > this view. It disregards the meaning of the English > > words of the laws. It cannot be considered > > "irrational" for a player who believes all his cards > > to be winners to fail to exercise any choice or > > care as to the order in which he plays them. To > > base a ruling on this absurd corruption of a > > perfectly valid pre-existing principle is not only > > llegal, it is close to the highest possible level of > > incompetence. > > > +=+ If you say so. The committee took the view > that for a player who believes there are no more > trumps out against him to play a trump, any trump, > before he plays out his other winners is so grossly > inferior as to be irrational in any player of the > slightest competence. (By regulation EBL TACs > are vested for EBL tournaments with the status > of national authority, whence the mention I have > seen somewhere of 'precedent'.) ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 13 07:51:25 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:51:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040462F8@hotel.npl.co.uk> <00b601c2d2c4$da362640$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <001c01c2d2cb$c3f9d780$363ee150@endicott> <001e01c2d2e7$03cdea20$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001301c2d334$d06d9d80$834187d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > > For a player who thinks all his cards are high any > order off cashing his winners cannot possibly be > 'grossly inferior' or 'irrational' whatever the level of > competence of the player and whatever twists you > want to give to the English language. Actually your > argument is so completely astonishing ridiculous > that I cannot believe that someone serving on an > EBL-AC can write this kind of crap let alone believe > in it. But you are entiteld to this view (as you correctly > said this AC is vested with the authority etc.). But by > holding this view and defending it you support David's > view that this AC is close to the highest possible level > of incompetence. Which by the way is perfectly legal. > And as a final thought, one might wonder what the > highest possible level of incompetence might be. > > Jaap. > +=+ My dear, sweet Jaap, Not even the honeyed elegance of your words charms me into believing that in practice you, or David, or many other friends who play the game well, being certain that all opponents' trumps are gone, will play your last trump before you tackle the plain suits. We learn from experience that we are all fallible, and only once in lifetime do we need to find that a suit springs an unexpected leak, requiring our trump to maintain control, to learn this lesson forever. We realize that we have been stupid to release our trump early and it would hurt to demonstrate our stupidity twice in a lifetime in the same way. So your most seductive efforts of persuasion do not prevail against what I have learnt, as it were, at my mother's knee, a little before you were born. Fondest regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 13 08:34:17 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:34:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000701c2d2ac$ce4a5120$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00f301c2d2b2$101023a0$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <3E4A8579.8010209@skynet.be> <008801c2d2c0$3d26c520$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E4B5889.1040500@skynet.be> I thought so. David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>There are no two sets of guidances, or if you consider there to be, >>those are not diametric opposites. Please tell us what you are >>referring to, so that I can counter. >> > > I referred to the notion that in France, "trumps first" was considered > normal, in the USA "trumps last". I believed this without checking it > because it was contained in one of the messages here. Is it not so? Or > is "first" not the diametric opposite of "last"? > Let me try and make one thing perfectly clear. We are not here to decide which line is considered normal, we are here to consider which lineS are considered normal. There is only one consideration about any line: is it normal or not. In the Tenerife case, we have to decide whether trumps first was normal. There are only two possible answers to that one, so your suggestion that France and America have diametrically opposed views, and that the Tenerife AC somehow managed to find a third option is ridiculous. If you believe that the "trumps first" from the French means "trumps last" is not normal, then the French are even more crazy than we already know. That would mean every small trump is always picked up. If you believe that the "trumps last" from the Americans means that "trumps first" is not normal, then that means that the Tenerife AC acted exactly like the ACBL would wish them. Saying that there are diametrically opposed views is however a distortion of the situation. I believe that neither the ACBL, nor the FFB, have ever issued a statement about a case like this, and I'd like to be proven wrong, rather than having to endure baseless statements like the one above. And that also goes for calling a ruling ridiculous and illegal and then ask for a reading of it in the next post. > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 13 08:39:02 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:39:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000701c2d2ac$ce4a5120$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002401c2d2be$4d7493a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E4B59A6.9050708@skynet.be> Exactly. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Sven: > > >>The fact must be that an unconditional rule of "trump first" >>or "trump last" can never be anything but meaningless. >> > > Any rule is meaningless if you call it that. But to assume a claim without > statement to start on trumps is as good or as bad a rule as any (actually it > is not that crazy). The lawmakers left us with undefined laws so 'we' have > to come up with all kind of interpretations. The big advantage of 'you get > it always wrong' or 'trumps first' or trumps last' is that at least there is > some 'objective' way to rule these claims. > Exactly. So a highly qualified AC issues an interpretation and rather than applaud the fact that at last there is some interpretation you criticise the decision because you disagree with it and you'd wish there would be some general guidance. So general guidance is good only if you agree with it, is it? You can't have it both ways. Either you believe the laws are clear, and this ruling is manifestly wrong, or you'd wish there'd be some guidance, and then you simply follow this guidance as given. > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 13 08:52:04 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:52:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000401c2d2b5$adaffa60$25b54351@noos.fr> <002a01c2d2c1$86bf4bc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005501c2d2c2$baaec720$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E4B5CB4.5030702@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Thanks Marvin, > > Every day I learn a little bit more. This doesn't change my argument of > course (in normal language these ACBL rules almost always make you get it > wrong) but it is always nice to get the facts as correct as possible. > > Jaap Great, Jaap. Marv posts something which IMO states that the EBLAC and ACBL guidelines are on the same ground, so you choose to disregard what he says and that does not change you argument. Great way of holding a discussion. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 13 09:03:36 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:03:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040462F8@hotel.npl.co.uk> <00b601c2d2c4$da362640$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E4B5F68.5080802@skynet.be> OK it seems as if David has taken up the gauntlet. I hope the rest of you have picked up on what pieces are write-up (snipped but not unrecognisably so) and what pieces are Davids: David Burn wrote: > Thank you Robin. > > >>Contract: Four Spades, played by North >> > > At this point, the remaining cards are > > S T 6 > H K Q 8 5 > D - > C 9 > S 9 8 S - > H 9 7 3 H 6 4 2 > D A J D T 8 > C - C 7 6 > S 7 5 > H A J T > D - > C A Q > > > at which point North claimed > > Result: 9 or 10 tricks > > The Facts: North claimed, saying "I take your last trump". > Those are indeed the facts. Below is NS' statement: > >>North had wished to speed up play by claiming when West had been >> > thinking about the return. It was clear to North that he knew trumps > had been 4-0. After all, he had noticed the bad break, and had already > finessed once. If he had thought West had only one trump left, surely > North would have cashed the S10 before playing the second round of > Clubs. > > >>When asked if he had claimed for 10 or 11 tricks, North stated he had >> > not pronounced a number at the table. > > >>West told the Committee that he had been thinking after taking the CK. >> > Then North had claimed with the statement "I take your last trump". He > had not wanted to call the Director then, but asked declarer "how may > trumps do you think I have", to which North had replied "one". This > fact had not been told to the Director at the table, but North did not > dispute it before the Committee. > Those are also statements in the committee: > Well, this North appears to have said both that it was obvious he > thought there was more than one trump oustanding (in Committee), and > that he thought there was only one trump outstanding (at the table). > That piece was David's, and I agree with him that North was trying to cover up his mistake. The AC ruled he had forgotten the second outstanding trump. > It is at least reasonable to assume that so confused a North in fact had > no idea what was happening. A confused player who thought he had drawn > all the trumps, but who had a reasonably high trump (the seven) with > which he might draw any "lurkers", could easily play a spurious round of > trumps. At least, there cannot possibly be "no doubt" that a confused > player would abandon trumps at this point, principle or no principle. > Yes, there is absolute proof that he would abandon. He said so. I draw your last trump. After that he considers his hand high and playing trumps first must now be considered in the light of him thinking they are all gone, no longer in the option of catching lurkers. I am not saying that he would not start on trumps again, but I am saying that he would abandon his "drawing" trumps and then start a whole new process, of which we have to decide whether starting on trumps would be normal. > Therefore, in ruling that the declarer would in fact abandon trumps, the > committee had resolved a doubtful point in favour of the claimer. This, > as I hardly need point out, is illegal. > Maybe, David, but there is another way of putting it. The Committee had no doubt as to whether or not he would start on trumps. That, as I hardly need point out, is not illegal. The write-up continues: > >>The Committee then had to decide whether or not there is any line of >> > normal play that leads to the loss of the tenth trick. Claimer will > take whichever card is returned, including a diamond, which can be > ruffed in either hand. He will then cash the S10, as per his claim > statement, and will then believe his cards to be high. There is a > well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has high > cards, any order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view > of the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not > include the trump suit, which is cashed last. > David: > There is no basis in Law or common sense for this view. It disregards > the meaning of the English words of the laws. It cannot be considered > "irrational" for a player who believes all his cards to be winners to > fail to exercise any choice or care as to the order in which he plays > them. To base a ruling on this absurd corruption of a perfectly valid > pre-existing principle is not only illegal, it is close to the highest > possible level of incompetence. > It is my opinion that there was no pre-existing principle here. I noted the principle that suits are cashed in random order, and that this principle applies to side suits. I believe we just added to that principle, saying it does not apply to a trump suit (maybe only to a trump suit divided in two hands and containing small trumps). I do not believe we changed a principle, merely appended to it. As to your use of words like absurd, illegal and incompetence, you are starting to annoy me and I might well join David and Ton rather than face you and yours. I won't. Not yet. > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 13 09:08:46 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:08:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040462F8@hotel.npl.co.uk> <00b601c2d2c4$da362640$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <001c01c2d2cb$c3f9d780$363ee150@endicott> <001e01c2d2e7$03cdea20$25b54351@noos.fr> <001301c2d334$d06d9d80$834187d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3E4B609E.2080905@skynet.be> Grattan, your words are way too kind. I find David's and Jaap's words in this thread to be only slightly=20 less harmful to blml than J=FCrgen's. I hope the readers of blml realize that in driving away people like=20 David, Ton, and who knows, us two, they will be left with a particular=20 kind of criticism of the WBF establishment that can do the game far=20 greater harm than mere discussion of the laws. >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 13 10:03:34 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:03:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pauline versus Law 55 In-Reply-To: <01d101c2d2a2$c52582e0$a38d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030213105557.00a7f550@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 01:26 13/02/2003 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >I was directing at the local club today when a declarer named >Pauline led out of turn from her hand when she was in dummy. >The defenders called me to the table and I explained that either >defender may accept the lead. Pauline accepted this graciously. > >At the end of the session, Pauline took me aside and said that she >thinks Law 55 is unfair. No problem with Law 55(b)(iii) about redress >of damage, but she wondered why the defenders are allowed to >accept declarer's LOOT? All declarer has done is unnecessarily show >the defenders one of her cards. She thinks that the right of defenders >to accept declarer's LOOT should be removed from the Laws in order >to make the Laws more equitable. AG : I think the mean reason for letting this law stand is that it is fairly common for the defender to follow suit over the LOOT by automatism. If L55 wera changed, one of those two problems would arise: a) one disallows covering the LOOT : the defenders would often find themselves in an infraction situation caused by the opposite side - not fair. b) one allows the mechanical covering of the LOOT, but not the conscient choice : then a quick defender could cover onsciously to condone the LOOT, something which will lead to all sorts of problems : mind reading, "could have known" principle etc. The present L55 is far more easy to handle. And about fairness ... didn't declarer do something irregular ? Best regards, Alain. >Also, it can be a messy process >for two defenders to decide whether to accept a lead or not, and in >her opinion there is no reason why they should be allowed to do so. > >Does anyone agree with her? Has she missed something obvious >(and indeed have I too), i.e. is there a good ( non-L55(b)(iii) reason >to allow the defenders to accept declarer's LOOT? > >Peter Gill >Sydney Australia. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Thu Feb 13 10:29:10 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:29:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040462F8@hotel.npl.co.uk> <00b601c2d2c4$da362640$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <001c01c2d2cb$c3f9d780$363ee150@endicott> <001e01c2d2e7$03cdea20$25b54351@noos.fr> <001301c2d334$d06d9d80$834187d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001f01c2d34a$bf2aa980$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> He he -- so to the next Law Book's definition of normal I suggest we add "anything Grattan has learned by bitter experience" My only problem with all this is that surely "we have all been wrong before" and its just as humiliating when the lurking miscounted trump is smaller than ours and one of our winners gets ruffed by a little bugger. I think it would be equally valid to suggest that we always play trumps first when we think we are the only player that has trumps and that is "normal". That is why I prefer the Burn-Neut position that the Law suggests declarer is assumed to play the cards in a normal fashion but one that is always disadvantageous to himself mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "Jaap van der Neut" Cc: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > > Grattan Endicott ======================================= > "Four things of paramount value are difficult to > obtain here by a living being: human birth, > instruction in the Law, belief in it, and energy > in self-control." [Jaina Sutras] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Bridge Laws" > > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:35 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > > > > > > For a player who thinks all his cards are high any > > order off cashing his winners cannot possibly be > > 'grossly inferior' or 'irrational' whatever the level of > > competence of the player and whatever twists you > > want to give to the English language. Actually your > > argument is so completely astonishing ridiculous > > that I cannot believe that someone serving on an > > EBL-AC can write this kind of crap let alone believe > > in it. But you are entiteld to this view (as you correctly > > said this AC is vested with the authority etc.). But by > > holding this view and defending it you support David's > > view that this AC is close to the highest possible level > > of incompetence. Which by the way is perfectly legal. > > And as a final thought, one might wonder what the > > highest possible level of incompetence might be. > > > > Jaap. > > > +=+ My dear, sweet Jaap, > Not even the honeyed elegance of your words > charms me into believing that in practice you, or David, > or many other friends who play the game well, being > certain that all opponents' trumps are gone, will > play your last trump before you tackle the plain suits. > We learn from experience that we are all fallible, and > only once in lifetime do we need to find that a suit > springs an unexpected leak, requiring our trump to > maintain control, to learn this lesson forever. We realize > that we have been stupid to release our trump early > and it would hurt to demonstrate our stupidity twice in > a lifetime in the same way. > So your most seductive efforts of persuasion do not > prevail against what I have learnt, as it were, at my > mother's knee, a little before you were born. > Fondest regards, > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 13 11:44:52 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:44:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 Message-ID: <5723157.1045136692568.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote > Grattan, your words are way too kind. Not if you know their author, they aren't. > I find David's and Jaap's words in this thread to be only slightly less h= armful to blml than J=FCrgen's. There are times when moderate language is simply not enough. When what is r= equired is to penetrate somehow the insufferable complacency of those who t= hink that there is nothing wrong with the current rules on claims, mild exp= ressions of disagreement do not work. I know this, for I have tried them, a= nd they have not worked. The current rules are ridiculous. People who have to implement them will th= erefore do ridiculous things. But I hope you will understand, as DWS could = never understand, that if I say "You have done (or said, or believed) a rid= iculous thing", this does not mean that I think you are a ridiculous person= . I also hope you will understand that if I say that Tenerife 41 was a ridicu= lous decision, and then ask for the report, this is because I wish to check= that I have the facts correct rather than rely on memory. My memory, as it= turned out, was accurate - the decision was every bit as bad as I had thou= ght. When adjudicating a claim, the question an appeals committee should not (bu= t almost invariably does) ask itself is not: "How would we have played this= hand?" I have not the slightest doubt that Jens Auken would have made four= spades. Even Herman de Wael would have made four spades. But that does not= matter in the least. We are not supposed to work out how the hand ought to= have been played. We are supposed to consider whether some failing line of= play is, or is not, irrational.=20 People rationally play off superfluous trumps all the time - to check for l= urkers, to see if an opponent discards something helpful, to demonstrate to= the opponents that there are no trumps left before claiming side suit winn= ers. Moreover, if you have a lot of winners in your hand, it is not irratio= nal to play any one of them as opposed to any other one of them. The word i= s nowhere defined as "something Grattan Endicott would not do" (although th= is may perhaps be an oversight on the part of the lexicographers). Of course, we ought not to be sitting around discussing what "rational" mea= ns (or "normal", or "careless", or anything else). But the ridiculous rules= make us do this. If we have got to do it, though, at least can we do it wi= th a dictionary in front of us, and not a text book on trump control? David Burn London, England From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 13 11:45:57 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:45:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000701c2d2ac$ce4a5120$6900a8c0@WINXP> <002401c2d2be$4d7493a0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4B59A6.9050708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004401c2d355$7a2ac760$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear friends, Before this thing gets completely out of hand I have to 'put something straight' about what I called the French way. There is no such thing as the French way. When I was checking the Dutch translation of 70C2 I also discovered that the French translation was wrong. More so than the Dutch one. In the proces I was told by a French senior TD about some French rulings on claims. These turned out to be isolated cases and they did not represent the official French position. I am told by now (most French prefer to discuss in French) that the 'official French position' is basically the same as the international one, excluding Tenerife-41. They will change the translation in the next version of the law. Jaap From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Feb 13 08:55:37 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:55:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <200302120048.TAA01585@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <000a01c2d26c$a87906c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030212134434.00a87b70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <007901c2d358$2f9ebc30$96c0f1c3@LNV> . That's why I support the > French view : trumps first, other suits indifferently, suits from the top. > > Best regards, > > Alain. Spades are trumps and LHO has spade 7 and a free diamond; all other outstanding cards are irrelevant. Declarer to lead. The TD is not sure that declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. case 1: declarer has spade Q and heart AK left case 2: declarer has spade 3 and heart AK left. With the current laws I would like the TD to decide that in both cases declarer looses one trick. Whatever 'Tenerife' did, I consider it within the range of being normal to start with hearts in case 1 (the play of any of his remaining cards being 'normal'). And in case 2 I consider it not being normal to play the 3 of trumps first. A question: Declarer has 10 trumps altogether, missing K74. Dummy has 4 small ones. Declarer plays 6 spades. Side suits are irrelevant. Declarer plays a small trump from dummy, gets the 7 from RHO and inserts the Q, LHO following with the 4. Declarer now shows his hand without saying anything. Anybody suggesting to award only 12 tricks to declarer? Let us assume a TD watching this table. Anybody suggesting he should warn declarer to make clear statements next time? ton From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 13 12:02:47 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:02:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000401c2d2b5$adaffa60$25b54351@noos.fr> <002a01c2d2c1$86bf4bc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <007201c2d357$d49bf000$25b54351@noos.fr> Marvin, Our friend Herman, seems to think that I didn't understand the ACBL way of handling claims. I don't think so but he might be right of course. And rather than to engage in a pointless discusion with Herman I prefer to put the question to you. In ACBL claims that don't pass for 70C2 (so the trump is supposed to be forgotten) declarer is not allowed to draw trumps. He is supposed to play of his side winners first. Even when holding AKQ of trumps. So far so good. But what about the opposite. If not drawing trumps (or trying to draw) happens to be the right thing to do, does ACBL claim resolving let him make the contract? The typical example is if someone claiming the rest with a master trump rather than a small trump outstanding. Or to put it even more straight. Declarer holds S9 (trumps) plus some winners. He claims the rest. If the S8 is outstanding it is clear. He is not allow to draw the trump. But if the S8 becomes the S10. Can he play all his winners or is he supposed to play his S10 early/earlier. I presume in ACBL land he has to play S9 at the worst possible moment but please correct if I am wrong. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > > > I am quite sure that in ACBL-land (ACBL-TD's please correct) > > Why ask the TDs to correct? Are they the only knowledgeable ones? > > > you will always > > get it wrong. They will let you play a trump when it is wrong and they > won't > > let you play a trump when it is wrong. > > But they won't always force you to play a trump when it is wrong. For > instance, if it is the 2 of trumps, the ACBLScor tech file says this: > > "The argument put forth that since declarer is convinced that all cards are > high, the Director should shuffle them and randomly select the 2. This line > of reasoning depends on the premise that all "good" cards are equal. However > it must be clear that trumps are intrinsically different and any value that > the deuce has a trump would be wasted by leading it...The only rational > purpose in playing the deuce is to execute some sort of squeeze. [otherwise] > the play of the 2 is not rational: It can do no good, and may be harmful." > > But if the card is an honor that declarer may think is high, "it is > considered normal for declarer to take a safety check with a 'high' trump." > > (Note the bureaucracy-typical weasel words "it is considered." What's wrong > with "is normal"?) > > For other cards, the Director must decide which principle applies, > recognizing that "there is a difference between a card that is thought to be > good because of rank and one that is thought to be good by virtue of being > the last remaining." > > Three more principles from the Tech files: > > --The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst possible, but > top-down within the suit. > > --Declarer may never attempt to draw any trumps of which hs was likely > unaware, if doing so would be to his advantage > > --Declarer should not be forced to play the remainder of his trumps to his > disadvantage if both opponents have shown out of the suit. > > The above is a 1992 "Direction" of the Chief Tournament Director to ACBL > TDs, which may not be followed by those outside his jurisdiction (e.g., ACs > and club TDs) > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 13 12:05:56 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:05:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000401c2d2b5$adaffa60$25b54351@noos.fr> <002a01c2d2c1$86bf4bc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005501c2d2c2$baaec720$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4B5CB4.5030702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <009001c2d358$44bcc580$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman, I have asked Marvin for a clarification. That makes more sense than this kind of discusions. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Thanks Marvin, > > > > Every day I learn a little bit more. This doesn't change my argument of > > course (in normal language these ACBL rules almost always make you get it > > wrong) but it is always nice to get the facts as correct as possible. > > > > Jaap > > > Great, Jaap. > Marv posts something which IMO states that the EBLAC and ACBL > guidelines are on the same ground, so you choose to disregard what he > says and that does not change you argument. > > Great way of holding a discussion. > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 tsvecfob@iol.ie Thu Feb 13 12:24:08 2003 From: tsvecfob@iol.ie (Fearghal O'Boyle) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:24:08 GMT Subject: [blml] claims forever Message-ID: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> Ton wrote: >Spades are trumps and LHO has spade 7 and a free diamond; all other >outstanding cards are irrelevant. Declarer to lead. The TD is not sure that declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. > >case 1: declarer has spade Q and heart AK left > >case 2: declarer has spade 3 and heart AK left. > > >With the current laws I would like the TD to decide that in both cases declarer looses one trick. >Whatever 'Tenerife' did, I consider it within the range of being normal to start with hearts in case 1 (the play of any of his remaining cards being 'normal'). And in case 2 I consider it not being normal to play the 3 of trumps first. > FOB: Agreed. Now consider Case 3: Spades are trumps and LHO has spade 10 and a free diamond; all other outstanding cards are irrelevant. Declarer to lead. The TD is not sure that declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. case 3: declarer has spade 9 and heart AK left What about 0 tricks to declarer? Fearghal. http://www.iol.ie From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Feb 12 13:29:02 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:29:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick References: <200302120045.QAA16141@mailhub.irvine.com> <007601c2d233$ed03a7c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003e01c2d29a$b5c24700$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C2D29A.B54CA1D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate trick > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Sven wrote: > > > ......... > > Still doesn't matter. Even if it's 20%, it's illogical to hold on = to > > the heart if holding onto the diamond is four times as likely to > > succeed. However, even for me (since I stated I suppress four-card > > majors more often than some players), I think that an auction that > > should deny a four-card major actually does deny a major = substantially > > more than 80% of the time. (Of course, this applies only to the > > hypothetical case I suggested; we don't know anything about the > > auction or preceding play in Tony's case.) > > > > > But more important is the principles of the laws in general, we > > > have a parallell in the claim statutes in Law 70E: > > > > > > The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line > > > of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent > > > rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent > > > failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was = made, > > > ......; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be > irrational. > > > > I disagree that this is the "principles of the Laws in general". = This > > is certainly the principle by which claims are adjudicated---if > > declarer makes a faulty claim, we don't allow it if there is any = line > > consistent with his statement that would allow declarer to take = fewer > > tricks than his claim, excluding any lines that are utterly stupid. > > > > However, this is *not* the principle by which UI situations are > > handled. In UI cases, we allow a play if there is no logical > > alternative; the WBF's "Code of Practice for Appeals Committees" > > defines a logical alternative as "a different action that, amongst = the > > class of players in question and using the methods of the = partnership, > > would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of > > such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt = it". > > If no players in the same class would adopt a play, then it's > > "illogical" and, even though it might be considered "careless" or > > "inferior" but not "irrational" by the claim standard, it's not > > considered an alternative for the purpose of dealing with a UI case. >=20 > The essential question is > (to partner of the revoking player): >=20 NO NO NO Grattan has told you what the law says its simple The Law says=20 (penalty) offender's partner may not choose the play that could possibly = have been suggested=20 by seeing the revoke card. Everything else tthats happened on the hand is irrelevant - keeping = count false signals psyches etc etc are all bollocks If partner shows the HJ that suggests I dont need the H10 therefore I = must throw it away - Its a penalty > "How can you be so sure of which card > you must hold on to?" >=20 > Unless the answer convinces the Director > that seing partners card "could not make > any difference for my choice" I shall rule > that it did, that he had a logical alternative > and that he may not hold on to his Diamond > rather than his Heart. (or wasn't it a she?) >=20 > (L70E IMO just establishes an example of > when a choice situation is no longer a choice > situation, that is what it takes to eliminate a > logical alternative) >=20 > period >=20 > Sven >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C2D29A.B54CA1D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran@online.no>
To: "blml" <blml@rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:13 = AM
Subject: Re: [blml] At the penultimate=20 trick

> From: "Adam Beneschan"
> = > Sven=20 wrote:
> >
> .........
> > Still doesn't = matter. =20 Even if it's 20%, it's illogical to hold on to
> > the heart if = holding=20 onto the diamond is four times as likely to
> > succeed.  = However,=20 even for me (since I stated I suppress four-card
> > majors = more often=20 than some players), I think that an auction that
> > should = deny a=20 four-card major actually does deny a major substantially
> > = more than=20 80% of the time.  (Of course, this applies only to the
> > = hypothetical case I suggested; we don't know anything about the
> = >=20 auction or preceding play in Tony's case.)
> >
> > = > But=20 more important is the principles of the laws in general, we
> > = >=20 have a parallell in the claim statutes in Law 70E:
> > = >
>=20 > > The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated = line
>=20 > > of play the success of which depends upon finding one = opponent
>=20 > > rather than the other with a particular card, unless an=20 opponent
> > > failed to follow to the suit of that card = before the=20 claim was made,
> > > ......; or unless failure to adopt = this line=20 of play would be
> irrational.
> >
> > I = disagree that=20 this is the "principles of the Laws in general".  This
> > = is=20 certainly the principle by which claims are adjudicated---if
> = >=20 declarer makes a faulty claim, we don't allow it if there is any = line
>=20 > consistent with his statement that would allow declarer to take=20 fewer
> > tricks than his claim, excluding any lines that are = utterly=20 stupid.
> >
> > However, this is *not* the principle = by which=20 UI situations are
> > handled.  In UI cases, we allow a = play if=20 there is no logical
> > alternative; the WBF's "Code of = Practice for=20 Appeals Committees"
> > defines a logical alternative as "a = different=20 action that, amongst the
> > class of players in question and = using the=20 methods of the partnership,
> > would be given serious = consideration by=20 a significant proportion of
> > such players, of whom it is = reasonable=20 to think some might adopt it".
> > If no players in the same = class=20 would adopt a play, then it's
> > "illogical" and, even though = it might=20 be considered "careless" or
> > "inferior" but not "irrational" = by the=20 claim standard, it's not
> > considered an alternative for the = purpose=20 of dealing with a UI case.
>
> The essential question = is
>=20 (to partner of the revoking player):
>
 
 
 
NO NO NO
 
Grattan has told you what the law says = its=20 simple
 
The Law says

(penalty) offender=92s partner may not choose the = play that=20 could possibly have been suggested

by seeing the revoke card.

 

Everything else tthats happened on the hand is irrelevant - = keeping count=20 false signals psyches etc etc are all bollocks

 

If=20 partner shows the HJ that suggests I dont need the H10 therefore I must = throw it=20 away - Its a penalty

 

 


> "How can = you be so sure=20 of which card
> you must hold on to?"
>
> Unless the = answer=20 convinces the Director
> that seing partners card "could not = make
>=20 any difference for my choice" I shall rule
> that it did, that he = had a=20 logical alternative
> and that he may not hold on to his = Diamond
>=20 rather than his Heart. (or wasn't it a she?)
>
> (L70E IMO = just=20 establishes an example of
> when a choice situation is no longer a = choice
> situation, that is what it takes to eliminate a
> = logical=20 alternative)
>
> period
>
> Sven
> =
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> blml = mailing=20 list
> blml@rtflb.org
> = http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
= >
------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C2D29A.B54CA1D0-- From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Wed Feb 12 18:08:40 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:08:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 Message-ID: <001b01c2d2c1$cddb0800$25b54351@noos.fr> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2D2CA.2734E580 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0016_01C2D2CA.2734E580" ------=_NextPart_001_0016_01C2D2CA.2734E580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David, always try the Swiss fed first at: http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appeals.html Appeal No. 41=20 Iceland v Norway=20 Appeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael = (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England)=20 Open Teams Round 35=20 =20 Board 9 E/W vul. Dealer North NORTH A K 10 6 3 K Q 8 5 2 9 8 2=20 WEST Q 9 8 2 9 7 3 A J 7 5 K 4 EAST - 6 4 2 K Q 10 8 6 4 7 6 5 3=20 SOUTH J 7 5 4 A J 10=20 9 3 A Q J 10 =20 =20 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH=20 Brogeland Ingimarsson S=E6lensminde Magnusson=20 - 1 Pass 2NT=20 Pass 3 Pass 4=20 All Pass=20 Contract: Four Spades, played by North=20 Lead: King of Diamonds=20 Play: K / Q / A / 2-10 / J-Q-K / 8-J-K=20 At this point, the remaining cards are=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 NORTH 10 6 K Q 8 5 - 9=20 WEST 9 8 9 7 3 A J - EAST - 6 4 2 10 8 7 6=20 SOUTH 7 5 A J 10=20 - A Q=20 at which point North claimed=20 Result: 9 or 10 tricks=20 The Facts: North claimed, saying "I take your last trump".=20 The Director: Ruled that North may well have forgotten about the = extra outstanding trump. The Director found that North would execute a = play that leads to 10 tricks 2 times in 3.=20 Ruling: Score adjusted to=20 Both sides receive: 66.7% of 4S=3D by North (NS +420) plus 33.3% = of 4S-1 by North (NS -50)=20 Relevant Laws: Law 70A, 70C3 Law12C3, Code of Practice enabling = Tournament Director to award Adjusted Scores under Law 12C3.=20 North/South appealed.=20 Present: All players except East, and the Captain of Iceland=20 The players: North/South spoke through their Captain, who was also = the scorer at the table, and he had witnessed the facts.=20 North had wished to speed up play by claiming when West had been = thinking about the return. It was clear to North that he knew trumps had = been 4-0. After all, he had noticed the bad break, and had already = finessed once. If he had thought West had only one trump left, surely = North would have cashed the 10 before playing the second round of Clubs. = When asked if he had claimed for 10 or 11 tricks, North stated he = had not pronounced a number at the table.=20 West told the Committee that he had been thinking after taking the = K. Then North had claimed with the statement "I take your last trump". = He had not wanted to call the Director then, but asked declarer "how may = trumps do you think I have", to which North had replied "one". This fact = had not been told to the Director at the table, but North did not = dispute it before the Committee.=20 The Committee: Began by stating that the Director's ruling was = wrong in Law. Since there is no assigned adjusted score to be given, Law = 12C3 cannot be applied. The Committee judged that North had, quite = probably, forgotten about the extra outstanding trump. In that case, Law = 70C3 says that claimer shall lose any trick that can be lost by normal = play.=20 The Committee then had to decide whether or not there is any line = of normal play that leads to the loss of the tenth trick. Claimer will = take whichever card is returned, including a diamond, which can be = ruffed in either hand. He will then cash the 10, as per his claim = statement, and will then believe his cards to be high. There is a = well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has high cards, = any order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view of the = Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the = trump suit, which is cashed last.=20 With that principle in mind, there is no order of play of the = cards that will not lead to 10 tricks. West will (to North's surprise) = ruff one of the tricks that North believes is his, but declarer or dummy = has a trump left to ruff the diamond return.=20 The Committee's Decision: Director's ruling changed. Score = adjusted to 4 by North, making 10 tricks, NS +420=20 Deposit: Returned=20 =20 ------=_NextPart_001_0016_01C2D2CA.2734E580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

David, always try the Swiss fed first at:

http://home.worldcom.ch= /fsb/appeals.html

 

Appeal No. 41

Iceland v Norway=20

Appeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), = Herman De=20 Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England)=20

Open Teams Round 35=20

     
Board 9
E/W vul.
Dealer North
 NORTH
3DS=20  A K 10 6 = 3
  K = Q 8=20 5
3DD =20 2
3DC  9 8=20 2
WEST
3DS=20  Q 9 8 = 2
  9 = 7 3
  A = J 7=20 5
3DC  K=20 4		 EAST
3DS=20  -
3DH=20  6 4 = 2
3DD=20  K Q 10 8 = 6=20 4
3DC  7 6=20 5 3
SOUTH
3DS=20  J 7 5 = 4
  A = J 10=20
3DD  9=20 3
3DC  A Q=20 J 10

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
Brogeland Ingimarsson S=E6lensminde Magnusson
- 13DS Pass 2NT
Pass 33DC Pass 43DS
All Pass

Contract: Four Spades, played by North=20

Lead: King of Diamonds=20

Play: K / Q / A / 3DC 2-10 / 3DS=20 J-Q-K / 3DC=20 8-J-K=20

At this point, the remaining cards are=20

     
 
 
 
 NORTH
3DS=20  10 = 6
  K Q 8=20 5
3DD=20  = -
  9
WEST
3DS=20  9 = 8
  9 7=20 3
3DD=20  A = J
  -		 EAST
3DS=20  = -
  6 4=20 2
3DD=20  10 = 8
  7=20 6
SOUTH
3DS=20  7 = 5
  A J 10=20
3DD=20  = -
  A=20 Q

at which point North claimed=20

Result: 9 or 10 tricks=20

The Facts: North claimed, saying =93I take = your last=20 trump=94.=20

The Director: Ruled that North may well have = forgotten=20 about the extra outstanding trump. The Director found that North = would=20 execute a play that leads to 10 tricks 2 times in 3.=20

Ruling: Score adjusted to=20

Both sides receive: 66.7% of 4S=3D by North (NS +420) plus = 33.3% of 4S-1=20 by North (NS -50)=20

Relevant Laws: Law 70A, 70C3 Law12C3, Code of = Practice=20 enabling Tournament Director to award Adjusted Scores under Law = 12C3.=20

North/South appealed.=20

Present: All players except East, and the = Captain of=20 Iceland=20

The players: North/South spoke through their = Captain,=20 who was also the scorer at the table, and he had witnessed the = facts.=20

North had wished to speed up play by claiming when West had = been=20 thinking about the return. It was clear to North that he knew = trumps had=20 been 4-0. After all, he had noticed the bad break, and had already = finessed once. If he had thought West had only one trump left, = surely=20 North would have cashed the 3DS=2010 before = playing the=20 second round of Clubs.=20

When asked if he had claimed for 10 or 11 tricks, North stated = he had=20 not pronounced a number at the table.=20

West told the Committee that he had been thinking after taking = the K. Then North = had claimed=20 with the statement =93I take your last trump=94. He had not wanted = to call the=20 Director then, but asked declarer =93how may trumps do you think I = have=94, to=20 which North had replied =93one=94. This fact had not been told to = the Director=20 at the table, but North did not dispute it before the Committee.=20

The Committee: Began by stating that the = Director=92s=20 ruling was wrong in Law. Since there is no assigned adjusted score = to be=20 given, Law 12C3 cannot be applied. The Committee judged that North = had,=20 quite probably, forgotten about the extra outstanding trump. In = that case,=20 Law 70C3 says that claimer shall lose any trick that can be lost = by normal=20 play.=20

The Committee then had to decide whether or not there is any = line of=20 normal play that leads to the loss of the tenth trick. Claimer = will take=20 whichever card is returned, including a diamond, which can be = ruffed in=20 either hand. He will then cash the 3DS=2010, as per his = claim=20 statement, and will then believe his cards to be high. There is a=20 well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has high = cards,=20 any order he can play them is deemed =93normal=94. It is the view = of the=20 Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include = the=20 trump suit, which is cashed last.=20

With that principle in mind, there is no order of play of the = cards=20 that will not lead to 10 tricks. West will (to North=92s surprise) = ruff one=20 of the tricks that North believes is his, but declarer or dummy = has a=20 trump left to ruff the diamond return.=20

The Committee's Decision: Director=92s ruling = changed.=20 Score adjusted to 43DS=20 by North, = making 10=20 tricks, NS +420=20

Deposit: Returned=20

------=_NextPart_001_0016_01C2D2CA.2734E580-- ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2D2CA.2734E580 Content-Type: image/gif; name="s.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appeals/s.gif R0lGODlhDQALALMAAAAAAL8AAAC/AL+/AAAAv78AvwC/v8DAwICAgP8AAAD/AP//AAAA//8A/wD/ /////yH5BAEAAAcALAAAAAANAAsAAAQc8MgJprUgX5z17uAFjtRIHuaZhpJXoa/ofeYUAQA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2D2CA.2734E580 Content-Type: image/gif; name="h.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appeals/h.gif R0lGODlhDQALALMAAAAAAL8AAAC/AL+/AAAAv78AvwC/v8DAwICAgP8AAAD/AP//AAAA//8A/wD/ /////yH5BAEAAAcALAAAAAANAAsAAAQd8JxE5ayS6ru5/kkGguLYeaRlYupovenbhrJMvxEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2D2CA.2734E580 Content-Type: image/gif; name="d.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appeals/d.gif R0lGODlhDQALALMAAAAAAL8AAAC/AL+/AAAAv78AvwC/v8DAwICAgP8AAAD/AP//AAAA//8A/wD/ /////yH5BAEAAAcALAAAAAANAAsAAAQa8MiZprUpX5z17uAFjtRISmYnmttxtmpLbREAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2D2CA.2734E580 Content-Type: image/gif; name="c.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appeals/c.gif R0lGODlhDQALALMAAAAAAL8AAAC/AL+/AAAAv78AvwC/v8DAwICAgP8AAAD/AP//AAAA//8A/wD/ /////yH5BAEAAAcALAAAAAANAAsAAAQe8EgJ6ry0Wpw1nx63ARnokRp5pOx4riFMleJWs1MEADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2D2CA.2734E580-- From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 13 12:45:11 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:45:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000401c2d2b5$adaffa60$25b54351@noos.fr> <002a01c2d2c1$86bf4bc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <007201c2d357$d49bf000$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E4B9357.9030602@skynet.be> Jaap, when I told you that the ACBL actually confirmed Tenerife, I was alluding to part of what Marv wrote, which I will leave in the underlying snip: Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Marvin, > > > In ACBL claims that don't pass for 70C2 (so the trump is supposed to be > forgotten) declarer is not allowed to draw trumps. He is supposed to play of > his side winners first. Even when holding AKQ of trumps. So far so good. > > But what about the opposite. If not drawing trumps (or trying to draw) > happens to be the right thing to do, does ACBL claim resolving let him make > the contract? The typical example is if someone claiming the rest with a > master trump rather than a small trump outstanding. Or to put it even more > straight. Declarer holds S9 (trumps) plus some winners. He claims the rest. > If the S8 is outstanding it is clear. He is not allow to draw the trump. But > if the S8 becomes the S10. Can he play all his winners or is he supposed to > play his S10 early/earlier. > > I presume in ACBL land he has to play S9 at the worst possible moment but > please correct if I am wrong. > > Jaap > > From: "Marvin French" >> >>Three more principles from the Tech files: >> >>--The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst possible, but >>top-down within the suit. >> non-trump suits !!!! Even if this says nothing about trump suits, it does acknowledge that there is a difference between non-trump suits and trumps. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 13 12:49:22 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:49:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <200302120048.TAA01585@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <000a01c2d26c$a87906c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030212134434.00a87b70@pop.ulb.ac.be> <007901c2d358$2f9ebc30$96c0f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <00b701c2d35e$5696b8a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Ton, Nice to hear from you again. Your second case seems too easy using current laws. Even using the American 70C2 IMHO it cannot be considered that 'it is at all likely that declarer is unaware of the remaining trump'. This might be different if the K was another trump (it was not claimable one trick ago). So the discussion about 'normal' in 70C3 doesn't come into play. Your first case is the well known discussion forever. First question, why don't you make it symmetric. The Q and the 4 or the K and the 3. Second question, why don't you give two more examples, like the 10 and the 6. Third question, why do you already give the answer you want to hear. This doesn't suggest that you are asking questions, this suggest you want to teach us something. But to give you some answers. 1. For someone who thinks or might think there is still a lower trump outstanding it is 'normal' to (try to) draw that trump. 2. For someone who needs the rest of the tricks it is even obvious to play the trump just in case (there is a lurker around). 3. For someone who needs two tricks and who is sure there cannot be two trumps outstanding it is normal not to play trump. 4. For someone who has no idea of the trump position and who has no idea how many tricks he has to/he wants to make it is impossible to guess what is normal. You might as well toss a coin. So without the form of scoring, the contract played, the current trick count, etc, the question cannot be answered anyway. Another way of looking at it. For a player of my level it is normal always to do the right thing in this kind of endings unless I miscounted the hand (or fell asleep or so). So any line can be considered normal (as long as the trump is not the A or the 2). I can remember (I am sure there are more) two cases where I actually took a trump trick with a 4, one of them on rama in 6C redoubled. So logically all trumps except the 2 and the A are equivalent. Either you know what you are doing or you don't. If not you don't know whether it is right to play the trump or not. And it is impossible to decide what is normal. Or you want to say that with a higher middle trump it is more likely to be correct to play trumps than with a lower middle trump? Great. Does it matter if there was a trick with J-Q-K-A (unlikely to be forgotton) ? Such a trick improves the chance of S9 or S8 being the master a lot you know. Wonderful this kind of math. But I just send Marvin a mail about this subject (asking what is the ACBL position on this issue) so I prefer to wait for his answer before I say anything more for the moment. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:55 AM Subject: [blml] claims forever > . That's why I support the > > French view : trumps first, other suits indifferently, suits from the top. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alain. > > > Spades are trumps and LHO has spade 7 and a free diamond; all other > outstanding cards are irrelevant. Declarer to lead. The TD is not sure that > declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. > > case 1: declarer has spade Q and heart AK left > > case 2: declarer has spade 3 and heart AK left. > > > With the current laws I would like the TD to decide that in both cases > declarer looses one trick. > Whatever 'Tenerife' did, I consider it within the range of being normal to > start with hearts in case 1 (the play of any of his remaining cards being > 'normal'). And in case 2 I consider it not being normal to play the 3 of > trumps first. > > > A question: > > Declarer has 10 trumps altogether, missing K74. Dummy has 4 small ones. > Declarer plays 6 spades. Side suits are irrelevant. Declarer plays a small > trump from dummy, gets the 7 from RHO and inserts the Q, LHO following with > the 4. Declarer now shows his hand without saying anything. > Anybody suggesting to award only 12 tricks to declarer? > > Let us assume a TD watching this table. Anybody suggesting he should warn > declarer to make clear statements next time? > > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 13 12:57:13 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:57:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <5723157.1045136692568.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E4B9629.3050307@skynet.be> David, I may or may not owe you an apology. You have said some harsh things=20 and I was not feeling kindly about them. Maybe I have calmed down. Anyway. dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote >=20 >=20 >>I find David's and Jaap's words in this thread to be only slightly less= harmful to blml than J=FCrgen's. >> >=20 > There are times when moderate language is simply not enough. When what = is required is to penetrate somehow the insufferable complacency of those= who think that there is nothing wrong with the current rules on claims, = mild expressions of disagreement do not work. I know this, for I have tri= ed them, and they have not worked. >=20 That does not excuse calling someone incompetent. > The current rules are ridiculous. People who have to implement them wil= l therefore do ridiculous things. But I hope you will understand, as DWS = could never understand, that if I say "You have done (or said, or believe= d) a ridiculous thing", this does not mean that I think you are a ridicul= ous person. >=20 David, as long as you are merely stating that the rules are=20 ridiculous, I have nothing against you. I may even agree with you,=20 although I would not favour going through a long process of change in=20 order to arrive at the kind of laws that you would not call ridiculous. But the laws being ridiculous does not render the ruling made under=20 those laws ridiculous. And you were criticising the ruling, not just=20 the laws. > I also hope you will understand that if I say that Tenerife 41 was a ri= diculous decision, and then ask for the report, this is because I wish to= check that I have the facts correct rather than rely on memory. My memor= y, as it turned out, was accurate - the decision was every bit as bad as = I had thought. >=20 Well, yes and no. You said it was illegal and ridiculous. Simply=20 speaking out of memory does not justify those words. > When adjudicating a claim, the question an appeals committee should not= (but almost invariably does) ask itself is not: "How would we have playe= d this hand?" I have not the slightest doubt that Jens Auken would have m= ade four spades. Even Herman de Wael would have made four spades. But tha= t does not matter in the least. We are not supposed to work out how the h= and ought to have been played. We are supposed to consider whether some f= ailing line of play is, or is not, irrational.=20 >=20 That is indeed true. But would you please allow that committee the lee-way it needs to make=20 that determination ? > People rationally play off superfluous trumps all the time - to check f= or lurkers, to see if an opponent discards something helpful, to demonstr= ate to the opponents that there are no trumps left before claiming side s= uit winners. Moreover, if you have a lot of winners in your hand, it is n= ot irrational to play any one of them as opposed to any other one of them= . The word is nowhere defined as "something Grattan Endicott would not do= " (although this may perhaps be an oversight on the part of the lexicogra= phers). >=20 True, but doesn't it strike you as silly to play off two possible=20 ruffing cards in the same trick ? If one has superfluous trumps,=20 playing them might make sense, but with one trump in each hand ? Anyway, the committee had the right to call this line normal or not,=20 and did so. > Of course, we ought not to be sitting around discussing what "rational"= means (or "normal", or "careless", or anything else). But the ridiculous= rules make us do this. If we have got to do it, though, at least can we = do it with a dictionary in front of us, and not a text book on trump cont= rol? >=20 The problem is that we shall never know what people do in these=20 circumstances, since they never come up - they claim instead. So indeed the laws are flawed. We don't know what "normal" really means. And there are but two ways out of that dilemma - change the laws, or=20 reach a consensus through careful analysis of examples. The WBF has=20 chosen the second way. May I reiterate that Tenerife-41 was a unanimous decision ? That ought to count for something. > David Burn > London, England >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 13 12:56:23 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:56:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] claims forever Message-ID: <1825624.1045140983866.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Ton wrote: > Whatever 'Tenerife' did, I consider it within the range of being normal to start with hearts in case 1 (the play of any of his remaining cards being 'normal'). And in case 2 I consider it not being normal to play the 3 of trumps first. Again, if you are declarer in seven spades with S3 and HA as your last two cards, and you are fairly sure that all trumps have gone but feel that there may perhaps be one outstanding, it is irrational (in the sense of "devoid of bridge reason", NOT in the legal sense) not to play the three of spades. This cannot cost the contract, and may be necessary if an opponent has the two of spades left. In six spades, however, it is irrational not to play the ace of hearts; this cannot cost the contract, and may be necessary if an opponent has the four of spades left. (The ace of hearts could cost the contract if there are actually two trumps outstanding, of course.) It follows from this (and a host of similar examples that I could construct if required) that the creation of a general principle to determine whether trumps should be deemed "played" first or last depending on how high they are is doomed to failure. > A question: > > Declarer has 10 trumps altogether, missing K74. Dummy has 4 small ones. Declarer plays 6 spades. Side suits are irrelevant. Declarer plays a small trump from dummy, gets the 7 from RHO and inserts the Q, LHO following with the 4. Declarer now shows his hand without saying anything. > Anybody suggesting to award only 12 tricks to declarer? A question. Declarer, in the above scenario, cashes the ace of spades and discards a heart from his hand. He then claims the rest of the tricks. Anybody suggesting awarding 13 tricks to declarer? Of course not. If you revoke, you pay. Nobody - *nobody* - has any problem with this at all. Well, if you misclaim, you should also pay. Why is this a difficulty? > Let us assume a TD watching this table. Anybody suggesting he should warn declarer to make clear statements next time? No. He should award a trick to the defenders. Then, there will be no need to issue a warning. You will find that next time, and every other time after that, the claim statements will be perfectly adequate. What you will not find, before Eric gets his oar in, is that the player won't claim again. People do not mind paying a penalty if it is a mechanical one. They will strive to avoid doing so, just as they strive to follow suit. But if they fail, they pay, and they pay without any sense of injustice, bias, or the impression that the law is an ass. What people do mind doing is paying a penalty that depends on someone's dubious interpretation of a dubious set of rules. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 13 13:17:44 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:17:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever In-Reply-To: <007901c2d358$2f9ebc30$96c0f1c3@LNV> References: <200302120048.TAA01585@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <000a01c2d26c$a87906c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030212134434.00a87b70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030213141237.00a7aab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:55 13/02/2003 +0100, Ton Kooijman wrote: >. That's why I support the > > French view : trumps first, other suits indifferently, suits from the top. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alain. > > >Spades are trumps and LHO has spade 7 and a free diamond; all other >outstanding cards are irrelevant. Declarer to lead. The TD is not sure that >declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. > >case 1: declarer has spade Q and heart AK left > >case 2: declarer has spade 3 and heart AK left. > > >With the current laws I would like the TD to decide that in both cases >declarer looses one trick. >Whatever 'Tenerife' did, I consider it within the range of being normal to >start with hearts in case 1 (the play of any of his remaining cards being >'normal'). And in case 2 I consider it not being normal to play the 3 of >trumps first. AG : why ? If LHO has an unsuspected S7, he might as well have an unsuspected SK. Thus, I fail to see why playing the SQ at 1st opportunity, or playing the S7 at the 1st opportunity, should be treated differently. >A question: > >Declarer has 10 trumps altogether, missing K74. Dummy has 4 small ones. >Declarer plays 6 spades. Side suits are irrelevant. Declarer plays a small >trump from dummy, gets the 7 from RHO and inserts the Q, LHO following with >the 4. Declarer now shows his hand without saying anything. >Anybody suggesting to award only 12 tricks to declarer? AG : I do. The moment when he claimed is some evidence that he knows what happens. >Let us assume a TD watching this table. Anybody suggesting he should warn >declarer to make clear statements next time? > AG : of course. Claiming imperfectly is an infraction, and the TD may intervene whenever he is aware of an infraction (81B6). From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 13 12:59:08 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:59:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000401c2d2b5$adaffa60$25b54351@noos.fr> <002a01c2d2c1$86bf4bc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <007201c2d357$d49bf000$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4B9357.9030602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00bd01c2d35f$b34829c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman, Please wait one moment for an answer by Marvin or another American. Herman said: > Even if this says nothing about trump suits, it does acknowledge that > there is a difference between non-trump suits and trumps. Of course there is a difference between trumps and non-trumps you moron. I have never suggested or said otherwise. And of course the ACBL uses the concept of a trump suit when discussing trump contracts. Hardly surprising. > Jaap, when I told you that the ACBL actually confirmed Tenerife, Depends what you mean by confirm (I would be flabbergasted if the ACBL agrees on that ruling) but please let the ACBL-ers speak for themselves. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > Jaap, when I told you that the ACBL actually confirmed Tenerife, I was > alluding to part of what Marv wrote, which I will leave in the > underlying snip: > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Marvin, > > > > > > In ACBL claims that don't pass for 70C2 (so the trump is supposed to be > > forgotten) declarer is not allowed to draw trumps. He is supposed to play of > > his side winners first. Even when holding AKQ of trumps. So far so good. > > > > But what about the opposite. If not drawing trumps (or trying to draw) > > happens to be the right thing to do, does ACBL claim resolving let him make > > the contract? The typical example is if someone claiming the rest with a > > master trump rather than a small trump outstanding. Or to put it even more > > straight. Declarer holds S9 (trumps) plus some winners. He claims the rest. > > If the S8 is outstanding it is clear. He is not allow to draw the trump. But > > if the S8 becomes the S10. Can he play all his winners or is he supposed to > > play his S10 early/earlier. > > > > I presume in ACBL land he has to play S9 at the worst possible moment but > > please correct if I am wrong. > > > > Jaap > > > > From: "Marvin French" > >> > >>Three more principles from the Tech files: > >> > >>--The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst possible, but > >>top-down within the suit. > >> > > > non-trump suits !!!! > > Even if this says nothing about trump suits, it does acknowledge that > there is a difference between non-trump suits and trumps. > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 13 13:15:44 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:15:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 Message-ID: <4991195.1045142144295.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman > I may or may not owe you an apology. You don't. An attack on my opinions about the rules of bridge is not an attack on me. And in any case, I owe you a beer, and that is a far more serious matter! > That does not excuse calling someone incompetent. Perhaps not. But even given a set of ridiculous rules, one would hope that competent people would do the least ridiculous thing possible with them. However, this kind of name-calling is, I agree, not helpful. I am sorry for intemperate language; I meant no personal slur. > David, as long as you are merely stating that the rules are ridiculous, I have nothing against you. I may even agree with you, although I would not favour going through a long process of change in order to arrive at the kind of laws that you would not call ridiculous. Long process? I've already written them. All the WBF has to do is print them. Shouldn't take more than a couple of hours, especially since some of them are now quite short. For example: Law 25 A call once made may not be changed. Law 26... > But the laws being ridiculous does not render the ruling made under those laws ridiculous. And you were criticising the ruling, not just the laws. True. The ruling was, in my opinion, the wrong interpretation of a ridiculous rule. You would think that this might create a sensible ruling, but it does not always work like that. > I also hope you will understand that if I say that Tenerife 41 was a ridiculous decision, and then ask for the report, this is because I wish to check that I have the facts correct rather than rely on memory. My memory, as it turned out, was accurate - the decision was every bit as bad as I had thought. > Well, yes and no. You said it was illegal and ridiculous. Simply speaking out of memory does not justify those words. Yes, I know. That's why I wanted the report. I had in my mind that Tenerife 41 had been both illegal and ridiculous, but there was the possibility that the facts were not as I had remembered them. Unfortunately, I had remembered them all too well. > That is indeed true. > But would you please allow that committee the lee-way it needs to make that determination ? What leeway? It needs someone who can understand English, that is all. > True, but doesn't it strike you as silly to play off two possible ruffing cards in the same trick ? Silly, yes. Poor play, yes. Irrational, no. If you use a word, you should know what it means, not go around redefining it to fit your notion of justice. > If one has superfluous trumps, playing them might make sense, but with one trump in each hand ? > Anyway, the committee had the right to call this line normal or not, and did so. The committee had the "right" to call a spade a pumpkin. That would also have been ridiculous. > So indeed the laws are flawed. We don't know what "normal" really means. > And there are but two ways out of that dilemma - change the laws, or reach a consensus through careful analysis of examples. The WBF has chosen the second way. And I am supposed to applaud? > May I reiterate that Tenerife-41 was a unanimous decision ? > That ought to count for something. It does. It means that there are at least three people in the world capable of arriving at a ridiculous conclusion, and that on at least one occasion, those people were all in the same place at the same time. David Burn London, England From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Feb 13 13:03:46 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:03:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000701c2d2ac$ce4a5120$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00f301c2d2b2$101023a0$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <012701c2d363$3e31cf70$96c0f1c3@LNV> . At the moment, we have a set of rules which has > caused one country's NBO to produce guidance for implementing the rules > which is the *diametric opposite* of the guidance produced by another > country. Isn't this a too easy being helpful remark? The country I know of did translate the laws wrongly and then made a consequent guidance: going wrong too. >Yet even this absurd situation is not enough to persuade those > who make the rules that what they have at the moment does not, will not, > and cannot work. > > "Normal", "careless", "irrational" and the entire caboodle must > disappear. A claimer must be given those tricks that he could take by > playing the cards specified in his claim in the order specified. He must > lose all other tricks. It should by now be completely obvious even to... > well, even to a member of a Laws Commission that where claims are > concerned *no subjective law will work*. 'irrational', using the dictionary meaning, seems not useful indeed. Did Jaap mention already that the Dutch 'experts' translated this word wrongly by 'dwaas', which translated again appears as 'ridiculous' ? (I remember using that word once in a while in my messages). Let me confess that this was done by purpose. But it does not solve the subjectivity-problem described by David. To be honest I don't have big problems with some laws not being described in a way to give a mechanical ruling. We have L16, L 64C, L62D2 and some others. If we consider 'equity' more important than 'punishment' this is one of the consequences I guess. Saying it with other words: I prefer some subjectivity above mechanical rulings causing ridiculous results. ton > > David Burn > London, England From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 13 13:35:11 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:35:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <200302120048.TAA01585@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <000a01c2d26c$a87906c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030212134434.00a87b70@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030213141237.00a7aab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00e401c2d364$bccdf600$25b54351@noos.fr> > >Let us assume a TD watching this table. Anybody suggesting he should warn > >declarer to make clear statements next time? > > > > AG : of course. Claiming imperfectly is an infraction, and the TD may > intervene whenever he is aware of an infraction (81B6). > I see I skipped a question. Well this one depends on culture and level of play. At high level I would consider it normal if declarer just showed his hand. The hand is over (and at high level this is obvious to opps as well) so why spend any more time on it. Playing lets say Dutch national league probably his opponents would consider it normal as well. End of story. There might be some subcomminication like showing the trump suit first or pointing at the SA or whatever. At lower level it would be very silly and very inconsiderate to claim like that. And the TD. I think he should back-up the reaction of the opponents. So if it is fine for them the TD should not intervene. This said, I am not against stricter claiming laws. But the current habits are a function of the current laws. Jaap From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 13 13:43:48 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:43:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <38.35703f1d.2b7a3716@aol.com> <001a01c2d1d5$97fa55c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A08C2.7010401@skynet.be> <003201c2d277$091afce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A27A9.1010405@skynet.be> <001401c2d2a0$14504380$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E4A656E.8040009@skynet.be> <000701c2d2ac$ce4a5120$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00f301c2d2b2$101023a0$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <012701c2d363$3e31cf70$96c0f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <00ea01c2d365$f12b4e60$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton, Funny mail. I did never check the laws on language just for fun. But I don't agree on your example you give in this mail. irrational is 'irrationeel' in Dutch (easy isn't it) ridiculous is 'ridicuul' in Dutch (easy isn't it) But of course it is never exactly the same. Now our 'expert' translators have used the word 'dwaas' (= foolish and not ridiculous as Ton says). For me foolish this is nearer to ridiculous than to irrational. But all three words can be interchanged (in Dutch) because all three (can) have roughly the same meaning (but often depending on context). This is not true for the translation of 70C2. There the translation is really different from the original. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > . At the moment, we have a set of rules which has > > caused one country's NBO to produce guidance for implementing the rules > > which is the *diametric opposite* of the guidance produced by another > > country. > > > Isn't this a too easy being helpful remark? The country I know of did > translate the laws wrongly and then made a consequent guidance: going wrong > too. > > > > > >Yet even this absurd situation is not enough to persuade those > > who make the rules that what they have at the moment does not, will not, > > and cannot work. > > > > "Normal", "careless", "irrational" and the entire caboodle must > > disappear. A claimer must be given those tricks that he could take by > > playing the cards specified in his claim in the order specified. He must > > lose all other tricks. It should by now be completely obvious even to... > > well, even to a member of a Laws Commission that where claims are > > concerned *no subjective law will work*. > > 'irrational', using the dictionary meaning, seems not useful indeed. Did > Jaap mention already that the Dutch 'experts' translated this word wrongly > by 'dwaas', which translated again appears as 'ridiculous' ? (I remember > using that word once in a while in my messages). Let me confess that this > was done by purpose. But it does not solve the subjectivity-problem > described by David. > > To be honest I don't have big problems with some laws not being described in > a way to give a mechanical ruling. We have L16, L 64C, L62D2 and some > others. If we consider 'equity' more important than 'punishment' this is one > of the consequences I guess. > Saying it with other words: I prefer some subjectivity above mechanical > rulings causing ridiculous results. > > ton > > > > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 13 14:11:28 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:11:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <1825624.1045140983866.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E4BA790.1010807@skynet.be> dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Ton wrote: > > > A question. Declarer, in the above scenario, cashes the ace of spades and discards a heart from his hand. He then claims the rest of the tricks. > > Anybody suggesting awarding 13 tricks to declarer? > > Of course not. If you revoke, you pay. Nobody - *nobody* - has any problem with this at all. > > Well, if you misclaim, you should also pay. Why is this a difficulty? > > >>Let us assume a TD watching this table. Anybody suggesting he should warn declarer to make clear statements next time? >> > > No. He should award a trick to the defenders. Then, there will be no need to issue a warning. You will find that next time, and every other time after that, the claim statements will be perfectly adequate. > > What you will not find, before Eric gets his oar in, is that the player won't claim again. People do not mind paying a penalty if it is a mechanical one. They will strive to avoid doing so, just as they strive to follow suit. But if they fail, they pay, and they pay without any sense of injustice, bias, or the impression that the law is an ass. What people do mind doing is paying a penalty that depends on someone's dubious interpretation of a dubious set of rules. > Yes, this declarer will have learnt and will never claim like this again. There are 1,000,000 bridge players around the world. By the time they have all claimed once like this, your perfect bridge place will have arrived. Sorry if I am not in favour of such a law change, David - even if the final result will be worthwhile. I just don't have the time and willingness to go around ruling like this 1,000,000 times and having to explain each and every time that this rule change is needed so that DB won't have to call the former claim law ridiculous. Rather I'd rule under a ridiculous law. > 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 Feb 13 14:38:56 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:38:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] claims forever Message-ID: <2380853.1045147136318.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: >Yes, this declarer will have learnt and will never claim like this again. There are 1,000,000 bridge players around the world. There are indeed. But, you see: Four of them will have been at the table where this ruling was given.... Each of these four will tell all his friends: "Did you see this hand? The director gave our opponents a trick!" And the friends will tell their friends, and so on... Eventually, the story will reach the bridge press. Jeff Rubens will write an Editorial saying that it is all inequitable. But readers will know that if you claim without making a statement, the opponents get a trick... The story will reach France, where they will not care and carry on with what the French do anyway... The story will reach the Netherlands, where it will be mistranslated... The story will reach Belgium, where someone will spill beer over it... > By the time they have all claimed once like this, your perfect bridge place will have arrived. What do you reckon, Herman? Six months? And how long has it taken to arrive at the present appallingly sloppy travesty of this plain and simple Law: A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. > Sorry if I am not in favour of such a law change, David - even if the final result will be worthwhile. I just don't have the time and willingness to go around ruling like this 1,000,000 times. We won't make you do it all, Herman. Tell you what. You do the first half million, and I'll rely on the grapevine for the rest. Come to think of it, I'll be eeven more generous - you only need do 499,999. You see, I know how to claim already. David Burn London, England From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Feb 13 15:17:53 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:17:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever In-Reply-To: <3E4BA790.1010807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5269FCDD-3F66-11D7-ABBF-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 02:11 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > There are 1,000,000 bridge players around the world. You must be using a very narrow interpretation of the term "bridge player" if you think there are only one million. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gester@lineone.net Thu Feb 13 15:39:56 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:39:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <2380853.1045147136318.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <003401c2d376$4c9610e0$e11e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > > The story will reach the Netherlands, where it will be mistranslated... > +=+ To be fair, ton has told me in two or three matters that there is no word in Dutch to convey the precise meaning of one or other of the words in the English text. It would not surprise me if this were also the case with some other languages. What is clear is that the language of the laws will have a good going over between ton, the rumbling Kojak, myself and other cognoscenti, whilst standing quietly back for now is John Wignall whose qualification in English (MA ? ) may gain him a seat at the table. So on to fresh triumphs.+=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 13 16:19:59 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:19:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever In-Reply-To: <2380853.1045147136318.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030213162852.00a8fd40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:38 13/02/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >What do you reckon, Herman? Six months? And how long has it taken to >arrive at the present appallingly sloppy travesty of this plain and simple Law: > >A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as >to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence >through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. AG : this Law is good. It is understandable. It is clever. And it countains the word "should", which means that when it isn't done, we need another Law or Laws to tell us how to extricate ourselves from the mess caused by the flawed claims. I pretend that there are two kinds of flawed claims : a) the claimer doesn't explain his line or play, or does it too roughly, because he thinks it is obvious. And it is obvious. The example treated in the present thread is a good one. You don't specifically say that you'll play the 2nd round, but that's obvious to everyone. Or you pull the cards in your hand in the order in which you will play them, without saying any word. This isn't an "explanation", strictly said. But your intention is obvious [to the Dutch who read us : "duidelijk" is the perfect word, I can't find a fitting translation]. b) the claimer doesn't explain his line of play, or does it too roughly, because he has missed some important parameter of the deal (outstanding trump, blocking suit, possibility of a strange break ...). Now there are two possible attitudes for TDs : 1) fairness-oriented : allow a) but not b), resolving any dubious case with a bias towards b). That is the actual Law. 2) punishment-oriented : disallow both a) and b). That is what David would like. In accordance with the first paragraph of the Laws, I prefer 1). Both positions are compatible with the "plain and simple law" you mention, because the object here is not what should be done (which is IOTTMCO) but what to do when it isn't done. This problem is common to all regulations. First you say what should be done, then you decide how to deal with the trespassers. As long as the "fairness principle" will be the basis for the whole set of Laws, 1) is the obvious answer. If you select 2), you are stating that the Laws are made to let suffer anybody who makes any slight error in the procedure, because he made it and for no other reason. That's not my cup of tea, and I guess it's not Herman's either. I don't think people who were decided against in a type a) case will remember it and act accordingly ; suffices to see how many players are disconcerted by revoke rules (especially when the trick they've been "robbed" of was theirs on any line of play) to understand they'd be by David's suggested revoke rules. Remember that faulty claims, as well as revokes, usually aren't voluntary. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 13 16:56:56 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:56:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever In-Reply-To: <003401c2d376$4c9610e0$e11e2850@pacific> References: <2380853.1045147136318.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030213172050.00a9b1e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:39 13/02/2003 +0000, gester@lineone.net wrote: >Grattan Endicott^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >"After all, I think I will not hang myself > today." - G.K.Chesterton >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 2:38 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > > > > > > The story will reach the Netherlands, where it will be mistranslated... > > >+=3D+ To be fair, ton has told me in two or three matters that there >is no word in Dutch to convey the precise meaning of one or other >of the words in the English text. It would not surprise me if this >were also the case with some other languages. AG : of course it is. French has always be at a loss to translate words=20 like "shallow" or "early" (as in "early bird"). And the same happens of=20 course in the other direction. But the main danger is not the absence of a= =20 word (something we are conscious of); it is the use of the wrong one ;=20 especially with "false friends", which may pass unnoticed. One of those has been put forward : the three-step gradation=20 'likely-probable-possible' corresponds to a 2-step gradation=20 'probable-possible', so that English 'probable' will not always be=20 translated as French 'probable'. Another problem which one should be conscious of is the use or 'may',=20 'might', 'could' and the like, and especially "may not". The French "doit" and "peut" have an asymmetrical use. And "peut" has a=20 double sense (at least in France ; the situation is different in Belgium) := =20 "is allowed to" / "is able to". "doit" =3D "has to" "ne doit pas" =3D "is not compelled to, but is allowed to" "peut" =3D "may" "ne peut pas" =3D "is not allowed to" "peut ne pas" is similar to "ne doit pas" You may not interfere Vous ne pouvez pas intervenir It may be true, or it may not be Cela peut =EAtre vrai, ou=20 cela peut ne pas l'=EAtre What's true is that an effort towards sound translation is necessary in the= =20 next edition. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 13 17:07:49 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:07:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <2380853.1045147136318.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20030213172050.00a9b1e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E4BD0E5.5020607@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > What's true is that an effort towards sound translation is necessary in > the next edition. Traduction du Son ? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Feb 13 18:31:01 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:31:01 -0600 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > Ton wrote: > >Spades are trumps and LHO has spade 7 and a free diamond; all other > >outstanding cards are irrelevant. Declarer to lead. The TD is not sure > that declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. > > > >case 1: declarer has spade Q and heart AK left > > > >case 2: declarer has spade 3 and heart AK left. > > > > > >With the current laws I would like the TD to decide that in both cases > declarer looses one trick. > >Whatever 'Tenerife' did, I consider it within the range of being normal to > start with hearts in case 1 (the play of any of his remaining cards being > 'normal'). > And in case 2 I consider it not being normal to play the 3 of > trumps first. Last time I looked, the law says that the range of things to consider was [a] normal and [b] careless and [c] inferior. Now it is probably bad technique to play off the S3 first and as such not normal to do so; but to do so is careless and when the suggestion is that the S3 will take a trick it is not irrational. And here with the three cards specified, when three tricks are claimed it was suggested that the S3 will take one of those tricks. > FOB: > Agreed. I disagree. Strongly. THe ruling [assuming a claim is contested] depends on what was claimed and the holdings. The conditions given here are insufficient to yield a finding. for instance, for declarer in [2] that claims defender is to get his spade it is irrational to not play off hearts first. for a declarer that claims his hand is good it is valid to object that a trump lead is careless but not irrational and will lose to the S7 and the good diamond is also worth a trick. regards roger pewick > Now consider Case 3: > Spades are trumps and LHO has spade 10 and a free diamond; all other > outstanding cards are irrelevant. Declarer to lead. The TD is not sure that > declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. > > case 3: declarer has spade 9 and heart AK left > > What about 0 tricks to declarer? > > Fearghal. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Feb 13 22:28:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:28:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 Message-ID: <4A256CCC.0079AA5B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Herman De Wael wrote: [big snip] >So indeed the laws are flawed. We don't know what >"normal" really means. > >And there are but two ways out of that dilemma - >change the laws, or reach a consensus through >careful analysis of examples. The WBF has chosen >the second way. I prefer the first way. Almost every club TD throughout the world has easy access to a copy of the Laws. Very few club TDs have easy access to the WBF careful analysis of Tenerife 41. If indicative examples by the WBF are to be Lawful, those examples should be incorporated in the 2005 Laws as binding instructions to TDs (as already has occurred with the Lawful indicative examples in the footnote to Law 75). >May I reiterate that Tenerife-41 was a unanimous >decision ? That ought to count for something. I scorn both a majority decision and a unanimous decision as equally invalid, if that decision is inconsistent with a higher authority, the Laws. Whether such an inconsistency has occurred is the key issue, not whether the vote was unanimous. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 13 23:25:37 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:25:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <2380853.1045147136318.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20030213172050.00a9b1e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3E4BD0E5.5020607@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005d01c2d3b7$37276600$d09527d9@pbncomputer> > > What's true is that an effort towards sound translation is necessary in > > the next edition. > Traduction du Son ? The chair, alas, is twisted, and the loo is full of leaves... David Burn London, England From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Feb 13 23:39:54 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:39:54 -0800 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> Message-ID: <002001c2d3b9$37d34b80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Danny Kleinman has two rules for his clients/students about claims, which are: 1. Never claim 2. Never concede. He follows the rules himself in order to set a good example, but has modified the claim rule slightly because of an occurrence at the club last week. With the defensive book taken against a 4S contract, he led the ace of diamonds to make sure of the setting trick. His partner had read something about trumping partner's ace in order to lead through declarer's hand, so after some thought he trumped the ace. "No diamonds, partner?" (as permitted in ACBL-land) "No diamonds." Danny waited a while before turning his card over, because he knew partnert had to have at least a couple of diamonds. Too ethical to do more, he finally turned his card over, partner led to the next trick, and the revoke was established, contract made. So now Danny says he will henceforth claim in a situation like this, to avoid any such accident. I might have said, "Look among your hearts," but I guess that is illegal. Or is it? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Fri Feb 14 00:15:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:15:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> <002001c2d3b9$37d34b80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <006701c2d3be$3eabd210$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Marvin French" .......... > "No diamonds, partner?" (as permitted in ACBL-land) > > "No diamonds." > > Danny waited a while before turning his card over, because he knew partnert > had to have at least a couple of diamonds. Too ethical to do more, he > finally turned his card over, partner led to the next trick, and the revoke > was established, contract made. > > So now Danny says he will henceforth claim in a situation like this, to > avoid any such accident. > > I might have said, "Look among your hearts," but I guess that is illegal. Or > is it? I really cannot see why that should be illegal once ACBL permits defenders to ask each other. There is nothing in Law 61B that says you must accept no for an answer and may not follow up with a statement like "are you sure?", "look among your hearts" or similar phrases if you are convinced that partner might be about to commit a revoke. Personally I do not like such "harassment" of ones partner at all, but which law should make it illegal? L74A2? regards Sven From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Fri Feb 14 00:47:31 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:47:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: from "Sven Pran" at Feb 14, 2003 01:15:56 AM Message-ID: <200302140047.h1E0lVF31219@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "Sven Pran" > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:15:56 +0100 > > From: "Marvin French" > .......... > > "No diamonds, partner?" (as permitted in ACBL-land) > > > > "No diamonds." > > > > Danny waited a while before turning his card over, because he knew > partnert > > had to have at least a couple of diamonds. Too ethical to do more, he > > finally turned his card over, partner led to the next trick, and the > revoke > > was established, contract made. > > > > So now Danny says he will henceforth claim in a situation like this, to > > avoid any such accident. > > > > > > I might have said, "Look among your hearts," but I guess that is illegal. > Or > > is it? > > I really cannot see why that should be illegal once ACBL permits defenders > to ask each other. There is nothing in Law 61B that says you must accept > no for an answer and may not follow up with a statement like "are you > sure?", > "look among your hearts" or similar phrases if you are convinced that > partner > might be about to commit a revoke. > > Personally I do not like such "harassment" of ones partner at all, but which > law should make it illegal? L74A2? > I would think that L74B1 might cover this: "Partners shall not communicate...through extraneous remarks or gestures..." One can say that once one has asked "No diamonds, partner?" and gotten a reply, that one cannot continue asking partner because you "know" partner has some more. Personally, I think that this lesson is best learned by an error and penalty, but I wouldn't question a director who chooses to allow such a question. I wouldn't but I also wouldn't disagree with a director who allowed it. -Ted. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Feb 14 01:53:05 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:53:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> <002001c2d3b9$37d34b80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00c601c2d3cb$d14cfa60$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Marvin wrote: > I might have said, "Look among your hearts," but I guess that is illegal. Or > is it? Yes. Law 73A1: Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. It is bad enough that Americans can still ask "No diamonds?", in contravention of the above law. It is intolerable that they (or anyone else) should ask "Are you sure?" What Kleinman did, moreover, was also in direct contravention of the above Law (which, you will not be surprised to hear, is one that does not merit the epithet "ridiculous"). David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Feb 14 02:00:07 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 02:00:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> <002001c2d3b9$37d34b80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00de01c2d3cc$ccaa57e0$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Marvin wrote: > "No diamonds, partner?" (as permitted in ACBL-land) > "No diamonds." > Danny waited a while before turning his card over, because he knew partner > had to have at least a couple of diamonds. Too ethical to do more I would rephrase this as "Not quite enough of a cheat to do more". This is truly shocking behaviour. Would anyone actually condone it? David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Feb 14 03:37:54 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:37:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman Message-ID: <4A256CCD.001224F4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Marvin wrote: >>"No diamonds, partner?" (as permitted in ACBL-land) >> >>"No diamonds." >> >>Danny waited a while before turning his card over, >>because he knew partner had to have at least a couple >>of diamonds. Too ethical to do more David Burn rephrased: >I would rephrase this as "Not quite enough of a cheat >to do more". This is truly shocking behaviour. Would >anyone actually condone it? Yes and no. I would not call Kleinman a deliberate cheat. I would not suggest Kleinman engaged in deliberate truly shocking behaviour. Kleinman merely made an error in exercising his rights under Law 66A. Kleinman obviously did not realise that his rights under Law 66A were not absolute, but were instead limited rights due to the overarching requirements of Law 73A1. Best wishes Richard From nancy@dressing.org Fri Feb 14 02:49:54 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:49:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> <002001c2d3b9$37d34b80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002201c2d3d3$c105acd0$6401a8c0@hare> There is a story in the bridge world about a famous player whose partner was known to mix up his suits and would often find a missing card mixed in with the suit of the same color. He often would ask his partner to look among his same color suit when partner failed to follow suit. There was never any mention of a director call in this story. I find no problem with the extraneous remark. ( I wish I could remember who the player was!) Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:39 PM Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman > Danny Kleinman has two rules for his clients/students about claims, which > are: > > 1. Never claim > 2. Never concede. > > He follows the rules himself in order to set a good example, but has > modified the claim rule slightly because of an occurrence at the club last > week. With the defensive book taken against a 4S contract, he led the ace of > diamonds to make sure of the setting trick. His partner had read something > about trumping partner's ace in order to lead through declarer's hand, so > after some thought he trumped the ace. > > "No diamonds, partner?" (as permitted in ACBL-land) > > "No diamonds." > > Danny waited a while before turning his card over, because he knew partnert > had to have at least a couple of diamonds. Too ethical to do more, he > finally turned his card over, partner led to the next trick, and the revoke > was established, contract made. > > So now Danny says he will henceforth claim in a situation like this, to > avoid any such accident. > > I might have said, "Look among your hearts," but I guess that is illegal. Or > is it? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Feb 14 03:23:40 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 03:23:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <4A256CCD.001224F4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <011801c2d3d8$78c70220$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: >"No diamonds, partner?" (as permitted in ACBL-land) >"No diamonds." >Danny waited a while before turning his card over, >because he knew partner had to have at least a couple >of diamonds. Too ethical to do more > David Burn rephrased: >I would rephrase this as "Not quite enough of a cheat >to do more". This is truly shocking behaviour. Would >anyone actually condone it? > Yes and no. I would not call Kleinman a deliberate > cheat. I would not suggest Kleinman engaged in > deliberate truly shocking behaviour. You are a kinder man than I. But I suppose that in a culture where "no diamonds?" is a legitimate question, "are you sure you have no diamonds?" might be viewed, as Marvin apparently views it, as equally legitimate behaviour. In passing, I have looked at (but not fully digested) some message to the effect that if you are allowed to ask "no diamonds?", you are therefore allowed to ask "are you sure you have no diamonds?" This I have assumed to be the work of a lunatic, but it may be that I will have to re-examine it. Be it said that Kleinman was not merely checking. He knew that his partner had some diamonds. His actions were simply and solely to direct his partner's attention to the fact that he or she actually had some diamonds. They were a deliberate attempt to communicate with partner other than by means of a call or play. Danny Kleinman is a player of the first rank, or close to the first rank, if his excellent and amusing articles in the "Bridge World" are anything to go by. As a player of the first rank, one presumes that he knows his responsibilities under the rules. If he does not, then the more general comments I have made about "the rules" are to some extent proven. That is to say: if a given player of the first rank does not know how to behave in accordance with the rules, and behaves instead in accordance with his own views, then the rules are so opaque that anyone playing the game at a sensible level thinks that he is better off ignoring the rules than playing by them. This is "shocking behaviour" in the sense that the player thinks, with justification, that he is above the rules. If he does, then he is cheating - knowingly contravening the rules. This, for obvious reasons, is also shocking behaviour. > Kleinman merely made an error in exercising his > rights under Law 66A. Kleinman obviously did not > realise that his rights under Law 66A were not > absolute, but were instead limited rights due to the > overarching requirements of Law 73A1. Richard, your email address ends .gov.au. This does not surprise me. You will rise very high indeed in your chosen political career. David Burn London, England From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Feb 14 03:58:52 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:58:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Phoenix Case 2 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030211122752.00a7cd80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 2/11/03, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : very strange. The alert of 2C doesn't say anything to the >opponents (the classical alert says "there is something >unexpectedabout this bid"); One would get the same result by *never* >alerting 2C. I do'nt understand which purposes the alert might serve. I may be wrong, but it appears to me the answer is "neither. It serves the purpose of simplifying the alert regulations." From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Feb 14 04:24:46 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:24:46 -0800 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> <002001c2d3b9$37d34b80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <00de01c2d3cc$ccaa57e0$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001301c2d3e1$04a7bfc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> David Burn wrote: > Marvin wrote: > > > "No diamonds, partner?" (as permitted in ACBL-land) > > > "No diamonds." > > > Danny waited a while before turning his card over, because he knew > partner > > had to have at least a couple of diamonds. Too ethical to do more > > I would rephrase this as "Not quite enough of a cheat to do more". This > is truly shocking behaviour. Would anyone actually condone it? > I have lost Danny's e-mail to me relating the story, and will have him resend it. This emphasis on Danny's slowness in turning the card is perhaps my fault, as "waited a while" was probably about two seconds. I was telling the story from memory, which is dangerous at my age. Danny Kleinman is the most ethical player I have ever met, by far, and I'm very sorry if my poor selection of words has brought out this surprising accusation. I hope he doesn't sue me. Customs differ among countries, David. Over here the right to inquire of partner whether s/he is really void seems to include the right to say something like "Are you sure?" when the answer is negative. Since the option itself violates L73A1, it is difficult to see why this should be so bad. Even so, it is a bit much, and Danny is probably the only ACBL person who has realized that. Of course this option of questioning by defenders should never have been permitted by the Laws, since it violates L73A1, as does the global right of dummy to question declarer. The Laws ought to be internally consistent. However, the player training necessary for either change would be just too difficult to implement successfully. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Feb 14 04:39:35 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:39:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever In-Reply-To: <00e401c2d364$bccdf600$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: On 2/13/03, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >I see I skipped a question. Well this one depends on culture and level >of play. At high level I would consider it normal if declarer just >showed his hand. The hand is over (and at high level this is obvious >to opps as well) so why spend any more time on it. Playing lets say >Dutch national league probably his opponents would consider it normal >as well. End of story. There might be some subcomminication like >showing the trump suit first or pointing at the SA or whatever. At >lower level it would be very silly and very inconsiderate to claim >like that. And the TD. I think he should back-up the reaction of the >opponents. So if it is fine for them the TD should not intervene. This >said, I am not against stricter claiming laws. But the current habits >are a function of the current laws. The other day, playing in an open club game, albeit one with few players I would consider beyond the novice level, I was declaring a 4S contract. At trick 8, holding S XX D X C XX in hand and S XXX H XX in dummy, I faced my hand, with the statement "Cross ruff." LHO immediately objected with "but I have the ace of hearts." Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I figure anyone who's played bridge more than a couple of times knows what a cross ruff is. Was I "silly" or "inconsiderate"? Should the TD, had she been called (she wasn't - RHO said to her partner "yes, and he's going to ruff it"), "back up the reaction of the opponents"? BTW, what does that mean? From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Feb 14 06:42:27 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 06:42:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <4A256CCC.0079AA5B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000f01c2d3f5$22f6c0c0$5b22e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 41 > > Whether such an inconsistency has occurred is the > key issue, not whether the vote was unanimous. > +=+ The issue is whether, having drawn one round of trumps, as he said he would, the player should be deemed to play another round. That he would not might be inferred from his statement, but the AC went down another route - judging that to do so would be irrational. Insofar as the AC has given a reason for its decision that is wholly valid under the laws, it has not acted illegally. What we have are opinions of others that to play a further trump is not irrational, a simple disagreement with the judgement of the AC - not with its performance of the law. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 14 08:30:58 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:30:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: Message-ID: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> Maybe it is an altogether different approach, but don't you think this case is similar to Tenerife 41 ? Allow me to explain: Ed Reppert wrote: > > The other day, playing in an open club game, albeit one with few players > I would consider beyond the novice level, I was declaring a 4S contract. > At trick 8, holding S XX D X C XX in hand and S XXX H XX in dummy, I > faced my hand, with the statement "Cross ruff." LHO immediately objected No-one would doubt Ed's claim is complete, would they? Few would even rule against Ed if he hadn't said anything, would they? (yes I'm sure some would) What now if some trump were still out - how would we rule? Certainly we would rule that Ed had forgotten it, and we would be looking for a way the trump can make a trick. But we most certainly would not force Ed to play off a trump first. Now look at Tenerife 41 again. At the crucial moment (after the cashing of one trump) the hands are: 7 AJ10 - AQ opposite 6 KQ85 - 9 now this is not a cross-ruff but it is the same thing high cards and remaining trumps. Ed had the same thing, only his number of high cards was reduced to zero. When a declarer claims in such a position, he means that he believes he has a number of high cards to take the first few tricks, and a number of trumps to take the last ones. He believes the two numbers add up to something more than the number of tricks left to be played for. He doesn't mean he suddenly starts playing no-trump and he has tricks in four suits. So maybe all our talk about normal lines is beside the point. Maybe we ought to interpret the claim statement as meaning "high cards first, trumps at the end". In that sense, the line that the hawks would want the Tenerife declarer play in ruling him two down is not included in the claim statement and the discussion about whether it is normal or not, moot. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From toddz@att.net Fri Feb 14 09:47:30 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 04:47:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <001301c2d3e1$04a7bfc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin French > Subject: Re: [blml] Claim by Kleinman > > However, the player training necessary for either > change would be just too > difficult to implement successfully. I doubt it. But I suppose bridge players are sheep or mules as suits an argument, *shrug* I never did this playing bridge in college. When I started playing duplicate I thought it was part of the custom and adopted it myself while still thinking it a bit silly. Then I had a partner tell me not to do it as it is an "annoying habit." I have managed to train, with only 1 or 2 mentions a piece, every partner I've ever had since not to ask if I'm void. -Todd From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Feb 14 10:37:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:37 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <00de01c2d3cc$ccaa57e0$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David wrote: > Marvin wrote: > > > "No diamonds, partner?" (as permitted in ACBL-land) > > > "No diamonds." > > > Danny waited a while before turning his card over, because he knew > > partner had to have at least a couple of diamonds. Too ethical to do > > more > > I would rephrase this as "Not quite enough of a cheat to do more". This > is truly shocking behaviour. Would anyone actually condone it? I must admit that it had never occurred to me that the right to inquire (in those areas where the ZO grants specific exception to L73 in this situation, or at rubber bridge) was in any way limited. The purpose of asking is to prevent establishment of a revoke - why should one be satisfied with an incorrect answer? As far as I recall the follow up question has the precise form "Herta, have you checked to make sure you have no diamonds?". Tim From svenpran@online.no Fri Feb 14 11:18:08 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:18:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: Message-ID: <004d01c2d41a$c27f5c40$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Tim West-Meads" ......... > I must admit that it had never occurred to me that the right to inquire > (in those areas where the ZO grants specific exception to L73 in this > situation, or at rubber bridge) was in any way limited. The purpose of > asking is to prevent establishment of a revoke - why should one be > satisfied with an incorrect answer? Exactly! > > As far as I recall the follow up question has the precise form "Herta, > have you checked to make sure you have no diamonds?". I'd say any follow-up remark in the form of a question should do. Sven From axman22@hotmail.com Fri Feb 14 12:44:00 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 06:44:00 -0600 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > Maybe it is an altogether different approach, but don't you think this > case is similar to Tenerife 41 ? Allow me to explain: Well, here declarer claimed he was not pulling trump. In Tenerife 41 he claimed pulling all the defender's trump and the AC ruled that all the trump must not be pulled. This concept of similar eludes me. regards roger pewick > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > The other day, playing in an open club game, albeit one with few players > > I would consider beyond the novice level, I was declaring a 4S contract. > > At trick 8, holding S XX D X C XX in hand and S XXX H XX in dummy, I > > faced my hand, with the statement "Cross ruff." LHO immediately objected > > > No-one would doubt Ed's claim is complete, would they? > > Few would even rule against Ed if he hadn't said anything, would they? > (yes I'm sure some would) > What now if some trump were still out - how would we rule? > > Certainly we would rule that Ed had forgotten it, and we would be > looking for a way the trump can make a trick. But we most certainly > would not force Ed to play off a trump first. > > Now look at Tenerife 41 again. At the crucial moment (after the > cashing of one trump) the hands are: > > 7 AJ10 - AQ opposite 6 KQ85 - 9 > > now this is not a cross-ruff but it is the same thing high cards and > remaining trumps. Ed had the same thing, only his number of high cards > was reduced to zero. > > When a declarer claims in such a position, he means that he believes > he has a number of high cards to take the first few tricks, and a > number of trumps to take the last ones. He believes the two numbers > add up to something more than the number of tricks left to be played > for. He doesn't mean he suddenly starts playing no-trump and he has > tricks in four suits. > > So maybe all our talk about normal lines is beside the point. Maybe we > ought to interpret the claim statement as meaning "high cards first, > trumps at the end". In that sense, the line that the hawks would want > the Tenerife declarer play in ruling him two down is not included in > the claim statement and the discussion about whether it is normal or > not, moot. > Herman DE WAEL From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 14 13:17:47 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:17:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3E4CEC7B.8020406@skynet.be> Sorry Roger, that's not exactly true. Roger Pewick wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:30 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > > > >>Maybe it is an altogether different approach, but don't you think this >>case is similar to Tenerife 41 ? Allow me to explain: >> > > Well, here declarer claimed he was not pulling trump. In Tenerife 41 he > claimed pulling all the defender's trump and the AC ruled that all the > trump must not be pulled. This concept of similar eludes me. > Claimer stated he would pull (the/one) remaining trump. That much is clear, and the difficult decision comes after that. The situation would be similar to him actually drawing the one trump and then claiming without a statement. The only reason why he did not do it like that was that he needed to take the lead first, and he saw no reason (actually that bit was correct) in waiting for opponent to play a card. Actually my listing of the cards held by the Tenerife declarer: 7 AJ10 - AQ opposite 6 KQ85 - 9 is not completely right, as opponent still has to play another one first. We also need to consider holdings such as: 7 AJ - AQ opposite 6 Q85 - 9 (defender having played hearts) or 7 AJ10 - Q opposite 6 KQ85 - - (defender having played clubs) or 7 AJ10 - A opposite - KQ85 - 9 (defender having played diamonds) as well as the original 7 AJ10 - AQ opposite 6 KQ85 - 9 (defender having played spades) in our true analysis. But I believe they are all similar (except for the diamond return which leads to only one down, not two - if we have declarer indeed play spades). My views on similarity stand therefor. > regards > roger pewick > > >>Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> >>>The other day, playing in an open club game, albeit one with few >>> > players > >>>I would consider beyond the novice level, I was declaring a 4S >>> > contract. > >>>At trick 8, holding S XX D X C XX in hand and S XXX H XX in dummy, I >>>faced my hand, with the statement "Cross ruff." LHO immediately >>> > objected > >> >>No-one would doubt Ed's claim is complete, would they? >> >>Few would even rule against Ed if he hadn't said anything, would they? >>(yes I'm sure some would) >> > >>What now if some trump were still out - how would we rule? >> >>Certainly we would rule that Ed had forgotten it, and we would be >>looking for a way the trump can make a trick. But we most certainly >>would not force Ed to play off a trump first. >> >>Now look at Tenerife 41 again. At the crucial moment (after the >>cashing of one trump) the hands are: >> >>7 AJ10 - AQ opposite 6 KQ85 - 9 >> >>now this is not a cross-ruff but it is the same thing high cards and >>remaining trumps. Ed had the same thing, only his number of high cards >>was reduced to zero. >> >>When a declarer claims in such a position, he means that he believes >>he has a number of high cards to take the first few tricks, and a >>number of trumps to take the last ones. He believes the two numbers >>add up to something more than the number of tricks left to be played >>for. He doesn't mean he suddenly starts playing no-trump and he has >>tricks in four suits. >> >>So maybe all our talk about normal lines is beside the point. Maybe we >>ought to interpret the claim statement as meaning "high cards first, >>trumps at the end". In that sense, the line that the hawks would want >>the Tenerife declarer play in ruling him two down is not included in >>the claim statement and the discussion about whether it is normal or >>not, moot. >> > >>Herman DE WAEL >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 14 13:56:23 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:56:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever In-Reply-To: <3E4CEC7B.8020406@skynet.be> References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030214144007.00a8c970@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:17 14/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Claimer stated he would pull (the/one) remaining trump. That much is >clear, and the difficult decision comes after that. The situation would be >similar to him actually drawing the one trump and then claiming without a >statement. The only reason why he did not do it like that was that he >needed to take the lead first, and he saw no reason (actually that bit was >correct) in waiting for opponent to play a card. AG : this concept of "pulling trumps" leaves me uncomfortable. Say you hold AKxx QJxx Axx xx Kx AQJ109 AKx xxx and are in 6S. You take the HK lead, play two rounds of trumps, and at this moment some cow (or pretty barmaid) comes flying. You don't see whether everyone follows to the second round. So you table your cards, saying "pulling trumps, then DK first", and : -if only one more round is needed, you are awarded all the tricks (one trump, then high cards, then ruffs) ; - if two more trups are needed, you are awarded all the tricks but one (all high cards) ; which in both cases is the optimal number of tricks you were entitled to, without having to pay for your being negligent. I'm sure it isn't what most of us would like to be the ruling ; however, it is the consequence of the majority interpretation of how to rule claims. What is wrong ? Best regards, Alain. From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Fri Feb 14 13:50:10 2003 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:50:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030214144007.00a8c970@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <007701c2d42f$fe20a960$2de2f9c1@olivier> > At 14:17 14/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Claimer stated he would pull (the/one) remaining trump. That much is > >clear, and the difficult decision comes after that. The situation would be > >similar to him actually drawing the one trump and then claiming without a > >statement. The only reason why he did not do it like that was that he > >needed to take the lead first, and he saw no reason (actually that bit was > >correct) in waiting for opponent to play a card. > > AG : this concept of "pulling trumps" leaves me uncomfortable. Say you hold > > AKxx QJxx > Axx xx > Kx AQJ109 > AKx xxx > > and are in 6S. You take the HK lead, play two rounds of trumps, and at this > moment some cow (or pretty barmaid) comes flying. You don't see whether > everyone follows to the second round. So you table your cards, saying > "pulling trumps, then DK first", and : > -if only one more round is needed, you are awarded all the tricks (one > trump, then high cards, then ruffs) ; > - if two more trups are needed, you are awarded all the tricks but one (all > high cards) ; > which in both cases is the optimal number of tricks you were entitled to, > without having to pay for your being negligent. > > I'm sure it isn't what most of us would like to be the ruling ; however, it > is the consequence of the majority interpretation of how to rule claims. > > What is wrong ? > > Best regards, > > Alain. Let's try 'director" first, do you always claim when you are 12-14 cards between you & dummy? lol anyway, basically, that's a problem, may be opponents be clever enough to ask "how many trumps" before showing cards ... Kenavo A+ Olivier Beauvillain > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22@hotmail.com Fri Feb 14 14:18:29 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:18:29 -0600 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> <3E4CEC7B.8020406@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 7:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > Sorry Roger, that's not exactly true. Whether trump is singular or plural depends upon the context, I guess it is something like the word 'you'. Well, declarer has proved that W holds two trumps once east shows out. When declarer says pull your last trump it can only mean pulling the two remaining trump [it literally means to pull trump until there are none outstanding]...irrespective of what he might have meant or believed at the time. regards roger pewick > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:30 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > > > > > > > >>Maybe it is an altogether different approach, but don't you think this > >>case is similar to Tenerife 41 ? Allow me to explain: > >> > > > > Well, here declarer claimed he was not pulling trump. In Tenerife 41 he > > claimed pulling all the defender's trump and the AC ruled that all the > > trump must not be pulled. This concept of similar eludes me. > > > > > Claimer stated he would pull (the/one) remaining trump. That much is > clear, and the difficult decision comes after that. The situation > would be similar to him actually drawing the one trump and then > claiming without a statement. The only reason why he did not do it > like that was that he needed to take the lead first, and he saw no > reason (actually that bit was correct) in waiting for opponent to play > a card. > > Actually my listing of the cards held by the Tenerife declarer: > > 7 AJ10 - AQ opposite 6 KQ85 - 9 > > is not completely right, as opponent still has to play another one > first. We also need to consider holdings such as: > > 7 AJ - AQ opposite 6 Q85 - 9 (defender having played hearts) > > or > > 7 AJ10 - Q opposite 6 KQ85 - - (defender having played clubs) > > or > > 7 AJ10 - A opposite - KQ85 - 9 (defender having played diamonds) > > as well as the original > > 7 AJ10 - AQ opposite 6 KQ85 - 9 (defender having played spades) > > in our true analysis. But I believe they are all similar (except for > the diamond return which leads to only one down, not two - if we have > declarer indeed play spades). > > My views on similarity stand therefor. > > regards > > roger pewick > > > > > >>Ed Reppert wrote: > >> > >> > >>>The other day, playing in an open club game, albeit one with few > >>> > > players > > > >>>I would consider beyond the novice level, I was declaring a 4S > >>> > > contract. > > > >>>At trick 8, holding S XX D X C XX in hand and S XXX H XX in dummy, I > >>>faced my hand, with the statement "Cross ruff." LHO immediately > >>> > > objected > > > >> > >>No-one would doubt Ed's claim is complete, would they? > >> > >>Few would even rule against Ed if he hadn't said anything, would they? > >>(yes I'm sure some would) > >> > > > >>What now if some trump were still out - how would we rule? > >> > >>Certainly we would rule that Ed had forgotten it, and we would be > >>looking for a way the trump can make a trick. But we most certainly > >>would not force Ed to play off a trump first. > >> > >>Now look at Tenerife 41 again. At the crucial moment (after the > >>cashing of one trump) the hands are: > >> > >>7 AJ10 - AQ opposite 6 KQ85 - 9 > >> > >>now this is not a cross-ruff but it is the same thing high cards and > >>remaining trumps. Ed had the same thing, only his number of high cards > >>was reduced to zero. > >> > >>When a declarer claims in such a position, he means that he believes > >>he has a number of high cards to take the first few tricks, and a > >>number of trumps to take the last ones. He believes the two numbers > >>add up to something more than the number of tricks left to be played > >>for. He doesn't mean he suddenly starts playing no-trump and he has > >>tricks in four suits. > >> > >>So maybe all our talk about normal lines is beside the point. Maybe we > >>ought to interpret the claim statement as meaning "high cards first, > >>trumps at the end". In that sense, the line that the hawks would want > >>the Tenerife declarer play in ruling him two down is not included in > >>the claim statement and the discussion about whether it is normal or > >>not, moot. > >> > > > >>Herman DE WAEL From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 14 14:27:51 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:27:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030214144007.00a8c970@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E4CFCE7.10803@skynet.be> I'm not certain what you are getting to, Alain: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 14:17 14/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Claimer stated he would pull (the/one) remaining trump. That much is >> clear, and the difficult decision comes after that. The situation >> would be similar to him actually drawing the one trump and then >> claiming without a statement. The only reason why he did not do it >> like that was that he needed to take the lead first, and he saw no >> reason (actually that bit was correct) in waiting for opponent to play >> a card. > I don't see what this statement has to do with the example below. In Tenerife, the player explicitely states he would draw one remaining trump (singular). > > AG : this concept of "pulling trumps" leaves me uncomfortable. Say you hold > > AKxx QJxx > Axx xx > Kx AQJ109 > AKx xxx > > and are in 6S. You take the HK lead, play two rounds of trumps, and at > this moment some cow (or pretty barmaid) comes flying. You don't see > whether everyone follows to the second round. So you table your cards, > saying "pulling trumps, then DK first", and : I fail to see the reason for the "So". Are you saying that - the player knew he had not seen if they had followed; - he had turned his own card and so had the others; - he's not the typical Belgian who asks to turn the cards again; - he doesn't realize that he can draw four rounds of trumps if needed; - he knows enough of claim rulings to try something on; "So" he claims without stating that he is not really sure how many rounds of trumps are needed. Are you asking how we can catch cheaters? We sometimes can't, that much we know. > -if only one more round is needed, you are awarded all the tricks (one > trump, then high cards, then ruffs) ; > - if two more trups are needed, you are awarded all the tricks but one > (all high cards) ; > which in both cases is the optimal number of tricks you were entitled > to, without having to pay for your being negligent. > > I'm sure it isn't what most of us would like to be the ruling ; however, > it is the consequence of the majority interpretation of how to rule claims. > > What is wrong ? Only that sometimes cheats get through. In the case above, and if we suspect something, I would ask why he did not claim after the lead "12 tricks if trumps are 4-1, 13 otherwise", or after the third round. I don't see what this has to do with the discussion, except as an argument in favour of David's utopian claims laws. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Feb 14 15:25:48 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:25:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> <002001c2d3b9$37d34b80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <00c601c2d3cb$d14cfa60$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <007a01c2d43d$5e8c45e0$727e870a@sabre.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim by Kleinman > Marvin wrote: > > > I might have said, "Look among your hearts," but I guess that is > illegal. Or > > is it? > > Yes. Law 73A1: > > Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be > effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. > > It is bad enough that Americans can still ask "No diamonds?" I agree. For the same reason I have never been able to understand why we have L42B1. But we do and this brings up a question: when declarer shows up in, say, diamonds, dummy asks "no diamonds, partner?" and declarer replies "no diamonds" then is it legal for dummy to ask "are you sure"? I would say no because of L73A1 but others may view things differently. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Feb 14 15:37:31 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:37:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> <002001c2d3b9$37d34b80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <008501c2d43f$0425ced0$727e870a@sabre.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 12:39 AM Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman > Danny Kleinman has two rules for his clients/students about claims, which > are: > > 1. Never claim L74B4 says that this is illegal. I suggest that this law should be shot down as soon as possible. If Danny Kleinman openly admits that he never claims "in order to set a good example" i.e. he openly admits that he has been breaking and will be breaking a particular law and nothing ever happens to him (no suspension, no PP, not even a warning etc.) then it means that L74B4 is a dead law. All laws that are unenforceable (either because of their nature or because nobody cares) should be removed because the existence of laws that regularly get broken has a devastating effect on the player's respect for the Laws. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Feb 14 18:35:51 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:35:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick Message-ID: <200302141835.NAA19561@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > In applying Law 62D2 we are concerned only > with fact; which of two cards is possibly > suggested by sight of the revoke card. This > is a question of fact and the fact is determined > by the Director - the player has no say in it. > Having determined the fact the Director orders > the player to play the other card. Questions of > rationality, normality, logicality are not relevant > and not involved; the Director is executing a > penalty. ~ G ~ +=+ Just a quick comment: the common saying "no penalty for a revoke at trick 12" is a myth. Perhaps it's akin to "dummy can't revoke." Note to Grattan: although the current law is simple enough, maybe the wording should be changed. It seems some blml readers, at least, find it hard to understand. I like the suggestion along the lines of "must play the least favorable card," getting rid of "suggested" altogether. Also, might it be worth an exception if the lead will be in dummy at trick 13? From kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Feb 13 14:40:18 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 06:40:18 -0800 Subject: [blml] ACBL Land Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0087_01C2D32A.C5EA29A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am a new subscriber to the blml, not a TD nor a committee member, just = an American bridge player who is interested in the Laws and rulings and = developments therein. I enjoy reading the discussions, food for thought. Question: Some European participants in these blml discussions, when talking about = ACBL, call it the "ACBL Land". Is that nickname given in derision or = affection? From the context, it sure sounds like the former to me. I = hope I am mistaken, and if not, anyone care to elaborate upon this? ------=_NextPart_000_0087_01C2D32A.C5EA29A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am a new subscriber to the blml, not = a TD=20 nor a committee member, just an American bridge player = who is=20 interested in the Laws and rulings and developments therein. I = enjoy=20 reading the discussions, food for thought.
 
Question:
Some European participants in = these blml=20 discussions, when talking about ACBL, call it the "ACBL=20 Land".  Is that nickname given in derision or affection? From = the=20 context, it sure sounds like the former to me. I hope I am mistaken, and = if not,=20 anyone care to elaborate upon this?
 
------=_NextPart_000_0087_01C2D32A.C5EA29A0-- From henk@ripe.net Fri Feb 14 19:34:11 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 20:34:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] ACBL Land In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, kaima wrote: > I am a new subscriber to the blml, not a TD nor a committee member, just > an American bridge player who is interested in the Laws and rulings and > developments therein. I enjoy reading the discussions, food for thought. > > Question: Some European participants in these blml discussions, when > talking about ACBL, call it the "ACBL Land". The ACBL is the organization, ACBL land refers to events in places where ACBL regulations apply: USA, Canada, Bermuda, Mexico (and handful of ACBL affiliated clubs at US army bases and such elsewhere in the world). 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Feb 15 06:15:01 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 01:15:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <001301c2d3e1$04a7bfc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 2/13/03, Marvin French wrote: >However, the player training necessary for either change would be just >too difficult to implement successfully. I don't believe we should consider that a valid excuse. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Feb 15 07:41:14 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:41:14 -0800 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: Message-ID: <002501c2d4c5$adaae860$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" > I must admit that it had never occurred to me that the right to inquire > (in those areas where the ZO grants specific exception to L73 in this > situation, or at rubber bridge) was in any way limited. The purpose of > asking is to prevent establishment of a revoke - why should one be > satisfied with an incorrect answer? > > As far as I recall the follow up question has the precise form "Herta, > have you checked to make sure you have no diamonds?". > It strikes me just now that internet bridge will not allow a revoke. If revoking is part of the game, it should be allowed. If it is not part of the game, extraneous, then it makes sense that partners should be allowed to prevent each other from revoking. If a partnership decides to do this, the question should be asked every time when defending, not just when the out-show surprises. Since most players would violate such a rule, it now seems wise to me for SOs to forego the questioning option for defenders. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Feb 15 07:55:22 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:55:22 -0800 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> <002001c2d3b9$37d34b80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <008501c2d43f$0425ced0$727e870a@sabre.com> Message-ID: <003501c2d4c7$992340c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > From: "Marvin French" > Danny Kleinman has two rules for his clients/students about claims, which > are: > > 1. Never claim > L74B4 says that this is illegal. I don't think so. Danny does not do this "for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent," so it is legal. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Feb 15 08:17:04 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 00:17:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: Message-ID: <003b01c2d4ca$a3177120$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > Marv wrote: > >However, the player training necessary for either change would be just > >too difficult to implement successfully. > > I don't believe we should consider that a valid excuse. > Consideration of what players want has always been a factor in writing the Laws and regulations. It is pointless to create a rule that isn't going to be followed, even if it's a good one. Besides, it could be said that asking partner about a possible revoke is part of the "real" game of bridge, an allowable exception to L73A1. The parent game is rubber bridge, the rules for which should be retained for duplicate to the greatest extent possible. The Laws of rubber bridge permit such questioning of any player by any player, except that dummy can only ask declarer. I see no reason why duplicate Laws should be different. Note that dummy may attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer (e.g., turning a trick in the wrong direction), despite L73A1. If that is all right for the declaring side, perhaps it should be okay for defenders also. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Feb 15 09:32:03 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:32:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Land References: Message-ID: <3E4E0913.9070208@skynet.be> kaima wrote: > > > Question: > > Some European participants in these blml discussions, when talking about > ACBL, call it the "ACBL Land". Is that nickname given in derision or > affection? From the context, it sure sounds like the former to me. I > hope I am mistaken, and if not, anyone care to elaborate upon this? > > Henk has explained the term. It is, in some contexts, indeed used in derision. Not out of any malice, but because we Europeans naturally assume that anything we do differently from you guys must be better. We are lucky that the Americans have not yet come up with a derogatory name for us so they can show that they feel the same way (ie that they presume their way is better). I hope you realize this is all tongue-in-cheek :-) Many Americans have derogatory comments about the ACBL as well. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Feb 15 10:17:20 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 11:17:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> Message-ID: <005201c2d4e1$6d264570$d7def1c3@LNV> > > Now consider Case 3: > > Spades are trumps and LHO has spade 10 and a free diamond; all other > > outstanding cards are irrelevant. Declarer to lead. The TD is not sure > that > > declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. > > > > case 3: declarer has spade 9 and heart AK left > > > > What about 0 tricks to declarer? Fearghal. I agree, not pleasing David probably but getting to the same decision in a claim case for once. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Feb 15 10:58:55 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 11:58:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 41 References: <5723157.1045136692568.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <005301c2d4e1$6d774ba0$d7def1c3@LNV> . Even Herman de Wael would have made four spades. But that does not matter in the least. We are not supposed to work out how the hand ought to have been played. We are supposed to consider whether some failing line of play is, or is not, irrational. Of course, we ought not to be sitting around discussing what "rational" means (or "normal", or "careless", or anything else). But the ridiculous rules make us do this. If we have got to do it, though, at least can we do it with a dictionary in front of us, and not a text book on trump control? David Burn London, England These are very helpful statements. Let me try to describe my position in the drafting committee concerning this issue. Yes the present laws on claims are incorrect, mainly because of a footnote that seems to say that all not normal things have to be considered irrational. It not necessarily does so, the footnote gives room for something between 'normal' and 'irrational' but then the laws do not explain what to do in such a case. I think, contrary to David, that bridge is served by allowing (or better: by not severely penalizing) sloppy claims. The criterion to judge on such claims should be the conviction of the TD that the claimer will make the tricks he claimed. And 'conviction' implies that any doubtful points should be ruled against the claimer. Exactly what is in the laws already. Which for example means that in the cross ruff case given by Ed Reppert the claim should be allowed even without any statement, it being 100% sure that declarer was going to win all remaining tricks (unless he had to play the hand out, I can't forget it David). Conclusion: we remove 'but not irrational' in the footnote. This removes also the possibility for David to use 'ridiculous' when describing the claim laws (in this respect). It does not remove the difference in opinion about how to deal with claims. There David and I will never meet I am afraid. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Feb 15 11:21:00 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:21:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Land References: Message-ID: <006a01c2d4e4$72f3af80$d7def1c3@LNV> > > The ACBL is the organization, ACBL land refers to events in places where > ACBL regulations apply: USA, Canada, Bermuda, Mexico (and handful of ACBL > affiliated clubs at US army bases and such elsewhere in the world). > I don't think this was the kind of answer Kaima asked for. Let me try: Though politeness is not a strong quality in this group I have the experience that 'ACBL-land' is not used as a derision in this forum but by some people from this 'land' themselves. I am sure that Jaap used it the way Henk describes, just referring to the jurisdiction. Welcome to WBF-land. ton From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Feb 15 15:06:40 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:06:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Land In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <168331BC-40F7-11D7-B455-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 02:40 PM, kaima wrote: > I am a new subscriber to the blml, not a TD nor=A0a committee=20 > member,=A0just an=A0American bridge player who is interested in the = Laws=20 > and rulings and developments therein.=A0I enjoy reading the = discussions,=20 > food for thought. > =A0 > Question: > Some=A0European participants=A0in these blml discussions, when talking=20= > about ACBL, call it the=A0"ACBL Land".=A0=A0Is that nickname given in=20= > derision or affection? =46rom the context, it sure sounds like the=20 > former to me. I hope I am mistaken, and if not, anyone care to=20 > elaborate upon this? > =A0 > The phrase "EBU land" is also used, to indicate that the ruling is=20 subject to the regulations of the EBU's Orange Book. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From axman22@hotmail.com Sat Feb 15 15:58:29 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 09:58:29 -0600 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> <005201c2d4e1$6d264570$d7def1c3@LNV> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Roger Pewick" ; Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 4:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > > > > Now consider Case 3: > > > Spades are trumps and LHO has spade 10 and a free diamond; all other > > > outstanding cards are irrelevant. Declarer to lead. The TD is not sure > > that > > > declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. > > > > > > case 3: declarer has spade 9 and heart AK left > > > > > > What about 0 tricks to declarer? > > > Fearghal. > > > > I agree, not pleasing David probably but getting to the same decision in a > claim case for once. > > ton What is of interest is how the ruling came to be. Surely it is not enough to arrive at an end result without knowing that the path to the result is correct [that it may be emulated in future occurences]. Now, for case 3 we are told that declarer has a low trump and two winning hearts while an opponent has a high trump and a winning diamond- all other cards are irrelevant. Well, taken on its face I can only envision two possible winners for the defender. But, as when I commented on case [2] I do not have sufficient facts upon which to rule assuming there is something to rule upon. For me I am not sure what your brief note means and am puzzled why it was directed to me. regards roger pewick From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Feb 15 18:29:56 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:29:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] ACBL Land References: <3E4E0913.9070208@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001701c2d520$470b7c40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Herman De Wael" . > We are lucky that the Americans have not yet come up with a derogatory > name for us so they can show that they feel the same way (ie that they > presume their way is better). > I suggest "the old country," a term for Europe used over here by older immigrants and their descendants. "Maybe you could do that in the old country, but not over here." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From rwilley@mit.edu Sat Feb 15 18:48:03 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:48:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACBL Land In-Reply-To: <001701c2d520$470b7c40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <3E4E0913.9070208@skynet.be> <001701c2d520$470b7c40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <1045334883.3e4e8b63d2f5f@webmail.mit.edu> From: "Herman De Wael" > We are lucky that the Americans have not yet come up with a derogatory > name for us so they can show that they feel the same way (ie that they > presume their way is better). Arround here "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey's" is currently in vogue, however, That is specifically in reference to the French, and, of course, is being used in a political context. Richard [who is in strong agreement with the French position regarding Iraq, and likes cheese in general] From ehaa@starpower.net Sat Feb 15 22:53:04 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 17:53:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <003501c2d4c7$992340c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> <002001c2d3b9$37d34b80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <008501c2d43f$0425ced0$727e870a@sabre.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030215172625.00a30070@pop.starpower.net> At 02:55 AM 2/15/03, Marvin wrote: >From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > > > From: "Marvin French" > > > Danny Kleinman has two rules for his clients/students about claims, > which > > are: > > > > 1. Never claim > > > L74B4 says that this is illegal. > >I don't think so. Danny does not do this "for the purpose of disconcerting >an opponent," so it is legal. As loud a proponent I am of claiming, and as often as I have argued that we shouldn't word or interpret the laws so as to overly discouraged claims, I support Marv's view here. This is a recent conversion; a few months ago I would have argued, with Konrad, that L74B4 forbade a player from refusing ever to claim in any situation whatsoever. But I see* inexperienced duplicate players who just don't want to claim, not to disconcert, not to gain advantage, not to keep the game from moving along, not out of mulish impoliteness (at least not usually), but simply because thay have learned that claiming is one of those things that is likely to bring the director to the table, and they'd prefer to avoid that. I find that view distasteful, but understandable. [* now, having been sensitized by the vigorous debates on the subject which have been engaged in repeatedly in this forum] While I believe philosophically that Mr. Kleinman's teaching on this particular subject will be ultimately detrimental to the game and his students, in today's climate it does, admittedly, have a ring of practicality. I give Mr. Kleinman the benefit of the doubt assuming that he is teaching students who will take their learning to the duplicate table; if his students intend to play with their friends in their homes, teaching them never to claim is doing them a very serious disservice. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Feb 16 00:04:15 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:04:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] ACBL Land References: <3E4E0913.9070208@skynet.be> <001701c2d520$470b7c40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <1045334883.3e4e8b63d2f5f@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <003901c2d54f$1e168440$4811e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Marvin French" Cc: "blml" Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Land > > Arround here "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey's" > is currently in vogue, however, That is specifically > in reference to the French, and, of course, is being > used in a political context. > > Richard > > [who is in strong agreement with the French position > regarding Iraq, and likes cheese in general] > +=+ Please cite the relevant Clause from the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1997. < 'Land' (figurative): a realm or domain, as in "America, the land of political equality"> - I quote. Actually I believe Bush, Blair has each a primary responsibility to protect his own nation, and if he knows of a peril to its people each is answerable for his action, not to me, to you, or to France, but to history. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Feb 16 08:59:29 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:59:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <4A256CCD.001224F4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <011801c2d3d8$78c70220$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <003601c2d59a$8f0b2f70$6743e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 3:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim by Kleinman > > In passing, I have looked at (but not fully digested) some > message to the effect that if you are allowed to ask "no > diamonds?", you are therefore allowed to ask "are you > sure you have no diamonds?" This I have assumed to be > the work of a lunatic, but it may be that I will have to >re-examine it. > +=+ It is, of course, now quite common to label a different point of view from one's own as 'lunatic', at least on blml. In sharing the opinion that "are you sure you have no diamonds?" is unacceptable in law even where it is permitted to ask "no diamonds?", perhaps I may abstain from a judgement on the mental health of anyone who disagrees. It may be that if the original enquiry were framed in those words it would squeeze past the Examiner, but a repeated enquiry in such terms is not to be contemplated. +=+ > > Be it said that Kleinman was not merely checking. He > knew that his partner had some diamonds. His actions > were simply and solely to direct his partner's attention > to the fact that he or she actually had some diamonds. > +=+ In my opinion, on which I base my earlier comment above, an action with such intent is "commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence" (Law 74C4). Of course there will be those who contend it is unrealistic to base a law upon judgement of a player's state of mind, even as they judge some of us 'lunatic' in suggesting that valid conclusions may be drawn from a bridge judgement of a player's actions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Feb 16 09:53:38 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:53:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> <005201c2d4e1$6d264570$d7def1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <006801c2d5a6$468b58e0$a9fef1c3@LNV> > > > > Now consider Case 3: > > > > Spades are trumps and LHO has spade 10 and a free diamond; all other > > > > outstanding cards are irrelevant. Declarer to lead. The TD is not sure > > > > that declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. > > > > case 3: declarer has spade 9 and heart AK left > > > > What about 0 tricks to declarer? > > > > Fearghal. > > I agree, not pleasing David probably but getting to the same decision > > in a claim case for once. > > ton > What is of interest is how the ruling came to be. Surely it is not > enough to arrive at an end result without knowing that the path to the > result is correct [that it may be emulated in future occurences]. > > Now, for case 3 we are told that declarer has a low trump and two > winning hearts while an opponent has a high trump and a winning diamond- > all other cards are irrelevant. Well, taken on its face I can only > envision two possible winners for the defender. You are right. I tried to say that a decision based on declarer playing his trump now and then deciding how many tricks will be left seems right to me. > For me I am not sure what your brief note means and am puzzled why it > was directed to me. No specific reason, forgot to remove your address. You apparently did react in this thread somewhere. ton > > regards > roger pewick From jkljkl@gmx.de Sun Feb 16 11:40:18 2003 From: jkljkl@gmx.de (stefan filonardi) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:40:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: ACBL Land In-Reply-To: <20030215110007.16947.3058.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <3E4F86B2.2417.7487E0@localhost> Hi, On 15 Feb 2003 at 12:00, blml-request@rtflb.org wrote: > We are lucky > that the Americans have not yet come up with a derogatory name for us > so they can show that they feel the same way (ie that they presume > their way is better). Well their task is much more difficult, suppose one could not address ACBL but had to address Alabama, Texas, Arkansas .... to know 51+ different regulations, translations of laws etc etc Maybe, when needed, Kaima (sometimes I wonder about the deep need to hide identity amongst people living in the country of free speech) you will find a nice list of terms for instance at (Anti-Europeanism in America) http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16059 or actual newspapers ;-) ciao stefan filonardi germany From axman22@hotmail.com Sun Feb 16 15:19:43 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 09:19:43 -0600 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> <005201c2d4e1$6d264570$d7def1c3@LNV> <006801c2d5a6$468b58e0$a9fef1c3@LNV> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Roger Pewick" ; Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 3:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > > > > > Now consider Case 3: > > > > > Spades are trumps and LHO has spade 10 and a free diamond; all other > > > > > outstanding cards are irrelevant. Declarer to lead. The TD is not > sure > > > > > that declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. > > > > > case 3: declarer has spade 9 and heart AK left > > > > > What about 0 tricks to declarer? > > > > > > Fearghal. > > > > > > I agree, not pleasing David probably but getting to the same decision > > > in a claim case for once. > > > > ton > > > > What is of interest is how the ruling came to be. Surely it is not > > enough to arrive at an end result without knowing that the path to the > > result is correct [that it may be emulated in future occurences]. > > > > Now, for case 3 we are told that declarer has a low trump and two > > winning hearts while an opponent has a high trump and a winning diamond- > > all other cards are irrelevant. Well, taken on its face I can only > > envision two possible winners for the defender. > > You are right. I tried to say that a decision based on declarer playing his > trump now and then deciding how many tricks will be left seems right to me. Apparently you do not need complete facts such as what was claimed, what the cards are, and what the objections are to produce a ruling. To have such a view appears to rely on a premise that what is important is what can be done with the cards, as opposed to what players have done. To me this is worrisome. Why should players show up at all if they are not needed? David Burn's solution to claim adjudication while superior to the WBF approach is unsatisfactory. It relies on what claimer has done...'the TD does what claimer says and figures out what the tricks are'. For all that accomplishes at least one serious flaw is present. It lacks practicality- opponents have strong reason to contest every claim because they do not have to demonstrate they are capable of finding more tricks than claimer has given them credit for. That the opponents do not need to produce one or more legitimate lines to their tricks is the primary failing of Burn's approach, and less so the WBF's. regards roger pewick > > For me I am not sure what your brief note means and am puzzled why it > > was directed to me. > > No specific reason, forgot to remove your address. You apparently did react > in this thread somewhere. > > ton > > regards > > roger pewick From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Feb 16 16:50:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:50 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <011801c2d3d8$78c70220$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David Burn wrote: > You are a kinder man than I. But I suppose that in a culture where "no > diamonds?" is a legitimate question, "are you sure you have no > diamonds?" might be viewed, as Marvin apparently views it, as equally > legitimate behaviour. In passing, I have looked at (but not fully > digested) some message to the effect that if you are allowed to ask "no > diamonds?", you are therefore allowed to ask "are you sure you have no > diamonds?" This I have assumed to be the work of a lunatic, but it may > be that I will have to re-examine it. I think you should re-examine it David. The right to ask is a Zonal option (bloody silly concept I agree). By granting such a right the Zone is clearly creating an explicit permitted exception to L73 et al. The law itself sets no bounds on the extent of such a right (it certainly doesn't limit the enquiry to a single question). Assuming the purpose of a Zone is to allow defenders to prevent the establishment of revokes (what other purpose would there be?) it would, surely, be within the powers of that Zone to permit multiple questions, or indeed to limit such enquiry to a single question of a set format. The ACBL election reads "The restriction that otherwise would prohibit defenders from asking one another whether they have a card of the suit led shall not apply, unless otherwise specified by action of the ACBL Board of Directors." I see nothing in this to restrict repeated asking. Tim From svenpran@online.no Sun Feb 16 17:25:33 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:25:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <4A256CCD.001224F4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <011801c2d3d8$78c70220$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <003601c2d59a$8f0b2f70$6743e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001201c2d5e0$69c2a630$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Grattan Endicott" ......... > > In passing, I have looked at (but not fully digested) some > > message to the effect that if you are allowed to ask "no > > diamonds?", you are therefore allowed to ask "are you > > sure you have no diamonds?" ....... > In sharing the opinion that "are you sure you have no > diamonds?" is unacceptable in law even where it is > permitted to ask "no diamonds?",......... ......... > > Be it said that Kleinman was not merely checking. He > > knew that his partner had some diamonds. His actions > > were simply and solely to direct his partner's attention > > to the fact that he or she actually had some diamonds. > > > +=+ In my opinion, on which I base my earlier comment > above, an action with such intent is "commenting or acting > during the auction or play so as to call attention to a > significant occurrence" (Law 74C4). ....... In principle I share your opinion, at least as how we should want to have our bridge. But I am not convinced this is what the laws say. Let us turn to Law 42B2 (leaving the special problems with different ZO regulations on Law 61B): He (Dummy) may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. How much power does this law give to dummy when dummy ia sure that declarer is about to violate some law? Don't tell me that Law 42B1 (Dummy may ask declarer ....) suspends Law 42B2 when L42B1 is applicable? Let us assume that dummy can be absolutely sure declarer must have another diamond (I don't bother here how he can be sure, that is beside my point!) Is the following communication permissible under Law 42B? (If not please explain why!) Dummy: No diamonds partner? Declarer: No Dummy: Are you sure? Declarer: Yes Dummy: Have you counted your cards to be sure there cannot be a diamond missing? Declarer: Oops - I am one card short! regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Feb 16 23:11:41 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:11:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Divided by a common language Message-ID: <4A256CCF.007D88E2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "claims forever", Roger Pewick wrote: >Whether trump is singular or plural depends >upon the context, I guess it is something >like the word 'you'. [snip] Roger's assertion is true for American English speakers. Americans use the claim formula, "drawing trump." Americans play the contract of Three No Trump. Australian English speakers are more old- fashioned, retaining the specific distinction between a singular trump, and plural trumps. Australians use the claim formula, "drawing trumps." Australians play the contract of Three No Trumps. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Feb 16 23:22:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:22:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick Message-ID: <4A256CCF.007E8E91.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner liked a Law 62D2 revision: [snip] >I like the suggestion along the lines of "must >play the least favorable card," getting rid of >"suggested" altogether. [snip] Disagree. Law 62D2 does not currently penalise the revoking side if *neither* of the cards of the revoker's partner are suggested by the revoke card. In my opinion, that is as it should be - the OS should not be arbitrarily penalised when no damage has occurred. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sun Feb 16 23:34:21 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:34:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3e4b8e68.2490.0@iol.ie> <005201c2d4e1$6d264570$d7def1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <004a01c2d613$ef12bae0$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Ton wrote: > > > Now consider Case 3: > > > Spades are trumps and LHO has spade 10 and a free diamond; all other > > > outstanding cards are irrelevant. Declarer to lead. The TD is not sure > > that > > > declarer is aware of the outstanding trump. > > > > > > case 3: declarer has spade 9 and heart AK left > > > > > > What about 0 tricks to declarer? > I agree, not pleasing David probably but getting to the same decision in a > claim case for once. No particular reason for me to be displeased about that :) 0 tricks to declarer is correct, and would be correct even were declarer's spade the two (or even if there were no trumps). What bothers me about the whole thing is (as usual) the lack of consistency. Consider this position: declarer (at no trumps) claims with SK, HKQ. The hearts are good, the spade is not; if the spade were played first, the opponents would make the rest. O tricks to declarer. Right? Right. What if the hearts were AK? Now, one might say that it would be irrational for declarer to play the spade first. Perhaps it would, though I do not think so, and insofar as I have understood the ACBL guidance, declarer would be deemed to play the spade first (order of suits irrelevant, but suits from the top down). However, one could imagine a principle to the effect that, with SK HAK, "spade first" is considered irrational. I would not have any difficulty accepting this, though it does not coincide with my own view, *provided that the principle could be worded unambiguously". And this is really very difficult to do. You could make a stab at it, I suppose: claimer is deemed to play his highest remaining card in whatever suit. But what of SK, HKJ? Again, the spade is not good but the hearts are. How many tricks? And with SK HAQ? The spade is not good, and neither is the queen of hearts, but the ace of hearts will (as it happens) drop the king. How many tricks now? And so on, and so forth. The difficulty I have with all this "guidance" is not so much that it is unhelpful in illustrating what is and is not considered "irrational", but that it barely begins to constitute a principle or set of principles that can be applied in all (or most) cases. For that reason, any "guidance" applied to an actual case is likely to require subjective interpretation in addition to the already present need to interpret the rules. And you know what I think about subjective rulings already. David Burn London, England From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Feb 16 23:40:23 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:40:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> <3E4CEC7B.8020406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001501c2d615$31c7cc30$4632e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > Well, declarer has proved that W holds two trumps > once east shows out. When declarer says pull your > last trump it can only mean pulling the two remaining > trump [it literally means to pull trump until there are > none outstanding]...irrespective of what he might > have meant or believed at the time. > > regards > roger pewick > +=+ Dictionary: 'trump' (noun) a playing card of the trump suit. I think you may be entering into an interpretative area where you are insufficiently informed to go. In committee it was established in Tenerife 41 that claimer believed only one trump card remained with opponent to be drawn. His words were consistent with that and were intended to say that precisely one round of the trump suit was to be drawn. ~ G ~ +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 17 00:39:00 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 00:39:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> <3E4CEC7B.8020406@skynet.be> <001501c2d615$31c7cc30$4632e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000801c2d61c$f6b6d200$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Grattan wrote: > +=+ Dictionary: 'trump' (noun) a playing card of > the trump suit. > I think you may be entering into an interpretative > area where you are insufficiently informed to go. In > committee it was established in Tenerife 41 that > claimer believed only one trump card remained > with opponent to be drawn. His words were > consistent with that and were intended to say that > precisely one round of the trump suit was to be > drawn. Meting a friend in a corridor, Wittgenstein asked him why people said that it was "natural" for our ancestors to assume that the sun went round the earth, and not that the earth was rotating on its own axis. "I suppose", said the friend, "because it looked as though the sun went round the earth." "What would it have looked like", asked the philosopher, "if it had looked as though the earth was rotating?" By the same token, what are we to make of a man who says "I will draw the last trump?" Because we are English, it sounds to us as though he intends to play only one round of the trump suit. But an American will spread his cards and announce "Drawing trump" – does this mean he intends to play only one round? I would conjecture that it does not, at least in the general case. Perhaps – I do not know – an American may even announce that he will "draw the remaining trump", fully intending to play as many rounds as are necessary, and not just one. But what, to an English tournament director, does it look as though he was going to do? In the Tenerife case, there appears little doubt that the declarer did in fact intend, thinking that only one card of the trump suit remained in enemy hands, to play only one round of trumps. But "little doubt" is not "no doubt". And in the general case? What will a Chinese tournament director make of a statement by a Russian to an Italian in English that he intends to "draw trump"? I have myself been informed by a Polish declarer, trying to be as careful as possible, that he would "cash a spade and give you heart". Indeed, he had given me heart, for I knew that if he cashed only one of his three winning spades before conceding a heart trick, he would go down in a cold game. By "a spade", he meant "the rest of the spades" – you see, his English was not all that good, and he had confused "a spade" with "the spades". (Lest anyone should wonder, we put our cards back in the board and wrote 630 in the minus column.) It is for this reason – as well as the host of other reasons I have already given – that the only formula for claims that will work, in terms of ensuring a fair and consistent game for all, is one in which the claimer stipulates, so as to leave no ambiguity, the cards he intends to play in order to win the tricks he claims. He may, as players do, rapidly put his cards on the table one at a time. He may show his cards and point to the order in which they will be played. He may say such as "spade ace, spade ten, spade nine, heart for you", or "I have three spade tricks, then you make a heart", or anything that will be unambiguous. But unambiguous he must be; if any play is not expressly covered by his statement, he should lose all tricks he could legally lose from the moment at which his statement becomes inconsistent with reality. I am aware that this is not compatible with Ton's view that claimers should make the tricks they would have made if they played on. But – well, here is a story that may provide a momentary diversion. The other day at the club, a declarer claimed against me (South) in this position: None 3 872 K105 None None None J10 AKQJ6 43 42 QJ7 7 Q5 1095 63 Spades were trumps; declarer, not knowing about my spade, announced that he would cash his diamonds and concede the last two tricks. I objected, saying that I would ruff the fourth diamond. Dutiful souls that we were, the director was summoned. He ruled that I would indeed ruff the fourth diamond, but we would then have to give dummy either a heart or a club at the finish, so the defence would make three tricks. Make up your minds about this decision before reading on. At the time, the board was scored as three tricks to the defence – down one. It was not until three boards later that I realised - dummy would be squeezed when I ruffed the fourth round of diamonds. Now then: Just how good are directors at deciding how many tricks declarer would have made had he played the hand out? And, more importantly – what are the rules regarding a player's right to reclaim a trick that he has conceded to the director? David Burn London, England From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon Feb 17 00:59:37 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:59:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever In-Reply-To: <000801c2d61c$f6b6d200$d09527d9@pbncomputer> References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> <3E4CEC7B.8020406@skynet.be> <001501c2d615$31c7cc30$4632e150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030216195409.00ba0100@mail.comcast.net> At 07:39 PM 2/16/2003, David Burn wrote: >The other day at the club, a declarer claimed against me (South) in this >position: > > None > 3 > 872 > K105 >None None >None J10 >AKQJ6 43 >42 QJ7 > 7 > Q5 > 1095 > 63 > >Spades were trumps; declarer, not knowing about my spade, announced that >he would cash his diamonds and concede the last two tricks. I objected, >saying that I would ruff the fourth diamond. Dutiful souls that we were, >the director was summoned. He ruled that I would indeed ruff the fourth >diamond, but we would then have to give dummy either a heart or a club >at the finish, so the defence would make three tricks. > >Make up your minds about this decision before reading on. I didn't see the squeeze, but is it irrational for dummy to go down to two= =20 clubs and one heart, or two hearts and one club? I don't think either line of play is=20 irrational, and thus I would rule that dummy throws a heart at trick 10, making it easy= =20 for South to cash two hearts. >At the time, the board was scored as three tricks to the defence =AD down >one. It was not until three boards later that I realised - dummy would >be squeezed when I ruffed the fourth round of diamonds. Now then: > >Just how good are directors at deciding how many tricks declarer would >have made had he played the hand out? > >And, more importantly =AD what are the rules regarding a player's right to >reclaim a trick that he has conceded to the director? I would treat this as an appeal of the director's ruling (rather than of an acquiescence in a claim), and thus it can be appealed up to the point at= which you could appeal any other ruling. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 17 01:37:17 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 01:37:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> <3E4CEC7B.8020406@skynet.be> <001501c2d615$31c7cc30$4632e150@endicott> <5.1.1.6.0.20030216195409.00ba0100@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <002c01c2d625$1b1fd440$d09527d9@pbncomputer> David wrote: >>The other day at the club, a declarer claimed against me (South) in this >>position: >> >> None >> 3 >> 872 >> K105 >>None None >>None J10 >>AKQJ6 43 >>42 QJ7 >> 7 >> Q5 >> 1095 >> 63 >> >>Spades were trumps; declarer, not knowing about my spade, announced that >>he would cash his diamonds and concede the last two tricks. I objected, >>saying that I would ruff the fourth diamond. Dutiful souls that we were, >>the director was summoned. He ruled that I would indeed ruff the fourth >>diamond, but we would then have to give dummy either a heart or a club >>at the finish, so the defence would make three tricks. >>Make up your minds about this decision before reading on. >I didn't see the squeeze, but is it irrational for dummy to go down to two clubs and one heart, or two hearts and one club? I don't think either line of play is irrational, and thus I would rule that dummy throws a heart at trick 10, making it easy for South to cash two hearts. I think you may be missing the point. If play had continued with dummy keeping hearts, it would have been just as easy for me to cash a heart and play a club - playing a second heart would clearly be nonsense. In any case, I knew the position; but because there was a claim, and a ruling, and the rest of it, I had temporarily exited analysis mode. Something worried me, though. It is fair to say that about two people in the club that evening would ever have realised that the defence was due another trick. It is pure happenstance that one of them happened to be at my table. If this claim had occurred at the Little Festering under Lyme Bridge Club, the wrong ruling would have been both given and accepted. Of course, if Burn claims were in force, declarer would be considered to pitch all dummy's hearts (or CQJ) on the diamonds, making it unnecessary for the director to mess up the analysis or for me to have to work it out. >And, more importantly what are the rules regarding a player's right to >reclaim a trick that he has conceded to the director? >I would treat this as an appeal of the director's ruling (rather than of an acquiescence in a claim), and thus it can be appealed up to the point at which you could appeal any other ruling. Perhaps. But the point I was trying to make is this: would it be up to me as a player to analyse the director's analysis? I do not think that players should be placed in that kind of position. For a start, very few bridge players indeed are capable of the level of analysis required in this case (not a boast; a lot of people on this list can do it, but we forget that we are "very few bridge players indeed"). Moreover, if - as Ton wishes - claims are to be in effect decided by a director determining what would have happened, injustices will probably be rectified at championship level (where the players are all miles better than the directors, and the appeals committees have got some world-class players on them), but an awful lot of them will go undetected at lower levels (where the director may very well be among the best players). It will not work. It really will not work. In a world championship, you can have directors and expert consultants and appeals committees and the entire paraphernalia (and still things will get messed up). But in the rest of the world, where bridge is played by people who only want a fair shake of the dice, Ton's method is simply not going to give them one. Neither is mine, of course, if "fairness" is a function of "what would have happened"; but at least my method will give everyone the same unfair shake of the dice, and thereby ensure at least equality for all concerned. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 17 01:59:31 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 01:59:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw Message-ID: <003a01c2d628$364c4840$d09527d9@pbncomputer> I have just returned from a tournament among (supposedly) the leading players in England; teams representing each of 35 counties enter a qualifying round from which the leading eight proceed to a final. The standard, then, would be described as "expert" in English terms. One of our players was a trifle mystified by the actions of his partner on a particular deal. He asked, among other things, why partner had not redoubled during the auction. The answer was swift: "I did not see the double. How could I expect anyone to double? What did he have, anyway?" [grabs hand records] "He doubled with that? Ridiculous!" (Lest anyone should pick up on a particular phraseology here, it was not I). Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more of: Normal Careless Inferior Irrational David Burn London, England From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon Feb 17 02:17:25 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 21:17:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw In-Reply-To: <003a01c2d628$364c4840$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030216211427.02584df0@mail.comcast.net> At 08:59 PM 2/16/2003, David Burn wrote: >Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's >double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more of: > >Normal >Careless >Inferior >Irrational Irrational, just as failing to notice a discard would be. If declarer with AQTxx opposite K9xx of hearts claims, it is irrational for him not to notice that someone discarded a diamond on the first round of hearts and thus that he should take the finesse (assuming that it is still possible). From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 17 02:31:18 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 02:31:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <4A256CCD.001224F4.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <011801c2d3d8$78c70220$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <003601c2d59a$8f0b2f70$6743e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000001c2d62c$d9625340$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Grattan wrote: > > In passing, I have looked at (but not fully digested) some > > message to the effect that if you are allowed to ask "no > > diamonds?", you are therefore allowed to ask "are you > > sure you have no diamonds?" This I have assumed to be > > the work of a lunatic, but it may be that I will have to > >re-examine it. > +=+ It is, of course, now quite common to label a different > point of view from one's own as 'lunatic', at least on blml. Oh. I've been doing it for years. You see, I am a member of various English committees. Glad to see that it may finally have caught on elsewhere. > In > sharing the opinion that "are you sure you have no > diamonds?" is unacceptable in law even where it is > permitted to ask "no diamonds?", perhaps I may abstain > from a judgement on the mental health of anyone who > disagrees. It may be that if the original enquiry were > framed in those words it would squeeze past the Examiner, > but a repeated enquiry in such terms is not to be > contemplated. Quite so. In the days before bidding boxes were in general use, but after the "Stop" procedure ("Skip Bid" procedure in ACBL land) was introduced, people adopted various approaches. Some would say merely "Stopthreehearts", while others would announce "I am about to make a skip bid. Please wait. Three hearts." All perfectly right and proper, the latter perhaps more courteous and more obvious than the former. If I were to play in America, and I were to show out of diamonds, and my partner were to ask me "Are you sure you have no diamonds?" I would think little of it – provided, of course, that this formula was followed every time I discarded on some diamond trick or other. Contributions to another thread might cause me to wonder whether, if I were to show out of the trump suit, partner would ask "Are you sure you have no trump?" But this is only because I wonder about stuff like that. But "no diamonds?" "No diamonds." "Are you sure you have no diamonds?" is cheating. I do not need to re-examine anything to be sure of this, whatever TWM may suggest that I do. There is no question of its being allowed by the rules. If rubber bridge players in a particular circle wish to indulge themselves and one another, that is fine with me – it would be an impertinence for any busybody to interfere. But in the general case, "no diamonds?" is a permissible question per L61B; "are you sure you have no diamonds?" is not a question at all but a statement to the effect that "I know you really do have some diamonds", and thus illegal per L73A1 (as well as being a breach of L74C4, as Grattan has pointed out). David Burn London, England From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <001401c2d62f$390f34a0$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Careless - the man is asleep :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 1:59 AM Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw > I have just returned from a tournament among (supposedly) the leading > players in England; teams representing each of 35 counties enter a > qualifying round from which the leading eight proceed to a final. The > standard, then, would be described as "expert" in English terms. > > One of our players was a trifle mystified by the actions of his partner > on a particular deal. He asked, among other things, why partner had not > redoubled during the auction. The answer was swift: "I did not see the > double. How could I expect anyone to double? What did he have, anyway?" > [grabs hand records] "He doubled with that? Ridiculous!" (Lest anyone > should pick up on a particular phraseology here, it was not I). > > Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's > double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more of: > > Normal > Careless > Inferior > Irrational > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003 From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Mon Feb 17 06:22:11 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:22:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw In-Reply-To: <003a01c2d628$364c4840$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030217172116.00b17fa0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> At 01:59 AM 17/02/2003 +0000, you wrote: >I have just returned from a tournament among (supposedly) the leading >players in England; teams representing each of 35 counties enter a >qualifying round from which the leading eight proceed to a final. The >standard, then, would be described as "expert" in English terms. > >One of our players was a trifle mystified by the actions of his partner >on a particular deal. He asked, among other things, why partner had not >redoubled during the auction. The answer was swift: "I did not see the >double. How could I expect anyone to double? What did he have, anyway?" >[grabs hand records] "He doubled with that? Ridiculous!" (Lest anyone >should pick up on a particular phraseology here, it was not I). > >Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's >double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more of: >Normal yes >Careless yes >Inferior yes >Irrational no easy, next question please >David Burn >London, England > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 17 10:04:57 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:04:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the penultimate trick In-Reply-To: <200302141835.NAA19561@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030217110203.00a94ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:35 14/02/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >Just a quick comment: the common saying "no penalty for a revoke at >trick 12" is a myth. Perhaps it's akin to "dummy can't revoke." AG : the true sentences should be "no revoke penalty for a revoke at trick 12" and "dummy is not liable to revoke penalties" (64B3). And I think that's how the "common sayings" are understood by the majority. The formulation might be wrong, but the principles are there. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 17 10:18:33 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:18:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Divided by a common language In-Reply-To: <4A256CCF.007D88E2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030217111736.00a27080@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:11 17/02/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Australian English speakers are more old- >fashioned, retaining the specific distinction >between a singular trump, and plural trumps. >Australians use the claim formula, "drawing >trumps." Australians play the contract of >Three No Trumps. AG : interesting. But the second part is strange. If there is no trump, the plural form shouldn't be used. From jurgenr@t-online.de Mon Feb 17 10:12:58 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:12:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw Message-ID: I have just returned from a tournament among (supposedly) the leading players in England; teams representing each of 35 counties enter a qualifying round from which the leading eight proceed to a final. The standard, then, would be described as "expert" in English terms. One of our players was a trifle mystified by the actions of his partner on a particular deal. He asked, among other things, why partner had not redoubled during the auction. The answer was swift: "I did not see the double. How could I expect anyone to double? What did he have, anyway?" [grabs hand records] "He doubled with that? Ridiculous!" (Lest anyone should pick up on a particular phraseology here, it was not I). Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more of: Normal Careless Inferior Irrational David Burn London, England =============================================== Normal or inferior? In terms of which measure? Relative to which reference point? The standard of play is not the same in Old England and New England. Careless or irrational? We are to ascertain the state of mind of a person, whom - in general and in this instance - we do not know, and whose identity a fair TD and an impartial AC must not take into account? Jürgen From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Feb 17 10:14:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:14 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw In-Reply-To: <003a01c2d628$364c4840$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David wrote. > Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's > double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more of: > > Normal - no, it is normal to watch the bidding. > Careless - yes > Inferior - no, I think this implies a degree of conscious choice > Irrational - definitely, both the laws and common sense require us to pay attention. What reason could there be for not doing so? Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Feb 17 10:14:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:14 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <000001c2d62c$d9625340$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David Burn wrote: > But "no diamonds?" "No diamonds." "Are you sure you have no diamonds?" > is cheating. I do not need to re-examine anything to be sure of this, > whatever TWM may suggest that I do. It seems you do David. There is nothing in L61 to support your assertion. As a proponent of unambiguous legislation I am surprised you find the current wording adequate. Note that for the revoke to become established (under L63B) a violation of L61B is required. Even if you treat the second (third, fourth..) question as a violation of L73 the revoke is not established and must be corrected. Surely we are better off just scrapping the Zonal option. Tim From xbridge@online.no Mon Feb 17 10:31:39 2003 From: xbridge@online.no (Tommy Sandsmark) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:31:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <000001c2d62c$d9625340$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001e01c2d66f$c9011340$0a646464@siri> Dear friends, I am sorry to say that I have not participated actively in the discussions, even though I have read (with interest) most of the arguments forwarded here. I would like to submit a TD decision (and subsequently an appeals committee decision) which has more than upset me. I am probably going to write some lines about this problem in the NBF Bulletin, and would like to hear what you think and what you would rule. This is the West hand: East dealer, EW vulnerable. Teams. No screens. West Q 8 3 K J T 9 8 7 4 Q 9 K West North East South 1D pass 1H 3C x (*) pass 3H pass 4H pass pass pass (*) No hesitation, and no alert from West. West lost 2 tricks and South called the TD, maintaining that “if he had known that East’s double was not a penalty double, he would have sacrificed in 5C”. The TD found out that East had believed the double to be a support double. West did not agree - his opinion was that the double was for penalty. The TD ascertained, that the E/W convention card stated that support doubles were only applied on the two-level. Thus, West’s explanation of the double (no alert) was found to be correct. Thereafter the TD ruled that the contract was to be 5Cx down 1. E/W appealed. So far, no good. Out of the fog, the AC returned with the verdict that most good players would pass 3Cx on the West hand, and consequently, this was a logical alternative and 3Cx with 10 tricks was ruled to be the final result. When I inquired into the matter, the chairman of the AC said that they had had great problems with this hand because they regarded it a hand where poor judgement from West led to a surprisingly good result, and this could not be accepted. He later maintained that 4H from West would have been acceptable but not 3H(!) Am I totally out of bounds here or are both of these rulings just horrible? I have a lot of questions, but evidently not the ones posed by the TD/AC. a) What would you rule and why? b) If you support the decisions made by the TD and/or the AC, please give me the law reference allowing this kind of ruling. c) If West has done nothing wrong, how can he be ruled against and how can he be forced to make the very wrong bid of passing 3Cx? d) Do you think that passing 3Cx is an obvious bid for West? e) Can pass to partner’s double of 3C be regarded “a logical alternative”? f) Can the term “logical alternative” be used as to limiting West’s action after the double? g) Would in your opinion 4H be acceptable for West to bid, while 3H should be barred? h) Should East be allowed to bid 4H? i) Isn’t it East’s action when bidding 4H that should be scrutinized in the light of “logical alternatives”? j) Wouldn’t pass be a logical alternative for him since he had heard no alert from his partner when he doubled 3C? k) Can South see from the club holding in his hand that Easts double can hardly be for penalty? l) When South did not bid 5C, could the calling of the TD and South’s subsequent argumentation be regarded as an effort to get it both ways; either 4H is down, or N/S will be able to rely upon the TD and/or the AC to rebid South’s hand in a better way than South did himself at the table? The lay-out looked like this: E/EW vul. J T 9 7 6 Q - A J T 7 6 4 2 Q 8 3 A 5 K J T 9 8 7 4 A 5 2 Q 9 A J T 6 5 3 K 5 3 K 4 3 6 3 K 8 7 4 2 Q 9 8 I hope you will give this hand some of your time, and am looking very much forward to reading your argumentation. Yours (most) friendly, Tommy Sandsmark www.xbridge.no Bridge & Kryss/Bridgens Bokklubb, Tommy Sandsmark, Bygdøy Allé 73 B, 0268 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: 00-47-22 43 02 14. Fax: 00-47-22 43 42 99. E-Mail: xbridge@online.no. Have a nice day! _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Feb 17 10:33:24 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:33:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: Message-ID: <005a01c2d670$5559e0b0$727e870a@sabre.com> ----- Original Message ----- > > Surely we are better off just scrapping the Zonal option. > > Tim ... and scraping the possibility of dummy asking declarer "No diamonds?", too. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 17 10:54:45 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:54:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman Message-ID: <7353173.1045479285405.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> TWM wrote: > > But "no diamonds?" "No diamonds." "Are you sure you have no diamonds?" is cheating. I do not need to re-examine anything to be sure of this, whatever TWM may suggest that I do. > It seems you do David. There is nothing in L61 to support your assertion. Don't be absurd. There is nothing in L61 to support the assertion that coughing to show extra values is not permitted, but this is also cheating. David Burn London, England From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Feb 17 10:50:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:50 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <000001c2d62c$d9625340$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David Burn wrote: > There is no question of its being allowed by the rules. If rubber bridg= e > players in a particular circle wish to indulge themselves and one > another, that is fine with me =96 it would be an impertinence for any > busybody to interfere. Probst (currently glchienfou@hotmail.com), due to the inadequacy of=20 hotmail asked me to post the following (with apologies to Sven for=20 double-post). > "Look Herta, you demented old bat, everyone at the table, the bar staff= =20 > and the porter know you've got another diamond. Would you unearth it=20 > from beneath the cigarette ash, whisky glass and shmaltz herring on rye= =20 > and play it please" is just as valid as "having none ?", which is a=20 > mantra which Herta completely ignores as she assumes it is addressed to= =20 > the next table. Just for the record this interpretation is indeed given under L61 of the=20 rubber bridge laws, not the L61b election of the duplicate laws. Herta=20 does not play duplicate, indeed some would question whether she even play= s=20 bridge. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 17 10:59:39 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:59:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw Message-ID: <2241413.1045479579129.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> TWM wrote: >Irrational - definitely, both the laws and common sense require us to pay attention. What reason could there be for not doing so? Does the phrase "careless but not irrational" mean anything to you? Or would you say that it is a contradiction in terms? David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 17 11:01:44 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:01:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw Message-ID: <3467709.1045479704826.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Jurgen wrote: > Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more of: > Normal > Careless > Inferior > Irrational > Normal or inferior? > In terms of which measure? Relative to which reference point? > The standard of play is not the same in Old England and New England. > Careless or irrational? > We are to ascertain the state of mind of a person, whom - in general and in this instance - we do not know, and whose identity a fair TD and an impartial AC must not take into account? Most helpful, Jurgen. Try imagining that you did it yourself. How would you classify your own action? David Burn London, England From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Feb 17 11:13:58 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:13:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Divided by a common language In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030217111736.00a27080@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 10:18 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 09:11 17/02/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Australian English speakers are more old- >> fashioned, retaining the specific distinction >> between a singular trump, and plural trumps. >> Australians use the claim formula, "drawing >> trumps." Australians play the contract of >> Three No Trumps. > > AG : interesting. But the second part is strange. If there is no > trump, the plural form shouldn't be used. > We would not say "there is no trump". What are trumps? There are no trumps. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Feb 17 11:20:46 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:20:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <001e01c2d66f$c9011340$0a646464@siri> Message-ID: <3E50C58E.4010804@skynet.be> Hello Tommy, Indeed - horrible. I don't think we need to say more than that. I'm even a bit confused as to why to rule 5C (apparently the non-alert was correct information), but surely no reason for 3Cx (there is no UI to West). Tommy Sandsmark wrote: > Dear friends, > [snip] > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Feb 17 11:18:52 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:18:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw In-Reply-To: <003a01c2d628$364c4840$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <98548DDE-4269-11D7-90B7-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 01:59 AM, David Burn wrote: > Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's > double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more of: > > Normal > Careless > Inferior > Irrational Certainly it is careless. Such carelessness might cause one to make an irrational decision or an inferior choice, but the terms "inferior" and "irrational" do not comfortably apply to the failure to notice the double of itself . -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From xbridge@online.no Mon Feb 17 11:25:24 2003 From: xbridge@online.no (Tommy Sandsmark) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:25:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <3E50C58E.4010804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001f01c2d677$4b4b3ef0$0a646464@siri> Sorry, Herman, but since it is the Norwegian Laws Committee who made the AC decision and they refused to listen to common sence, I think it is necessary to say something more, which I hope many of you will. Tommy www.xbridge.no Bridge & Kryss/Bridgens Bokklubb, Tommy Sandsmark, Bygdoy Alle 73 B, 0268 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: 00-47-22 43 02 14. Fax: 00-47-22 43 42 99. E-Mail: xbridge@online.no. Have a nice day! -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 12:21 PM To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? Hello Tommy, Indeed - horrible. I don't think we need to say more than that. I'm even a bit confused as to why to rule 5C (apparently the non-alert was correct information), but surely no reason for 3Cx (there is no UI to West). Tommy Sandsmark wrote: > Dear friends, > [snip] > -- 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 Mon Feb 17 11:37:28 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:37:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <001f01c2d677$4b4b3ef0$0a646464@siri> Message-ID: <3E50C978.4080900@skynet.be> OK, I will. Tommy Sandsmark wrote: > Sorry, Herman, but since it is the Norwegian Laws Committee who made the AC > decision and they refused to listen to common sence, I think it is necessary > to say something more, which I hope many of you will. > > Tommy > > www.xbridge.no Bridge & Kryss/Bridgens Bokklubb, > Tommy Sandsmark, Bygdoy Alle 73 B, 0268 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: 00-47-22 43 02 > 14. Fax: 00-47-22 43 42 99. E-Mail: xbridge@online.no. Have a nice day! > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 12:21 PM > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > > > Hello Tommy, > > Indeed - horrible. > > I don't think we need to say more than that. > > I'm even a bit confused as to why to rule 5C (apparently the non-alert > was correct information), but surely no reason for 3Cx (there is no UI > to West). > > > Tommy Sandsmark wrote: > > >>Dear friends, >> >> > [snip] > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Feb 17 11:45:19 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:45:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <001e01c2d66f$c9011340$0a646464@siri> Message-ID: <3E50CB4F.2000505@skynet.be> As announced, I will say more. Tommy Sandsmark wrote: > Dear friends, >=20 >=20 > I would like to submit a TD decision (and subsequently an appeals commi= ttee > decision) which has more than upset me. I am probably going to write so= me > lines about this problem in the NBF Bulletin, and would like to hear wh= at > you think and what you would rule. This is the West hand: >=20 > East dealer, EW vulnerable. Teams. No screens. >=20 > West > Q 8 3 > K J T 9 8 7 4 > Q 9 > K >=20 > West North East South > 1D pass > 1H 3C x (*) pass > 3H pass 4H pass > pass pass >=20 > (*) No hesitation, and no alert from West. >=20 > West lost 2 tricks and South called the TD, maintaining that "if he had > known that East's double was not a penalty double, he would have sacrif= iced > in 5C". The TD found out that East had believed the double to be a supp= ort > double. West did not agree - his opinion was that the double was for > penalty. The TD ascertained, that the E/W convention card stated that > support doubles were only applied on the two-level. Thus, West's explan= ation > of the double (no alert) was found to be correct. Thereafter the TD ru= led > that the contract was to be 5Cx down 1. E/W appealed. >=20 According to the CC and West's explanations, there was no MI. According to East's explanation (and hand), there was MI. It is possible for the TD to rule MI. If he does, then 5Clx-1 becomes a possible ruling. > So far, no good. Out of the fog, the AC returned with the verdict that = most > good players would pass 3Cx on the West hand, and consequently, this wa= s a > logical alternative and 3Cx with 10 tricks was ruled to be the final re= sult. >=20 Impossible. West does not have any piece of UI (unless there is something you are=20 not telling us) so his actions cannot be ruled upon. East does have UI (West's non-alert) so he should realize that West=20 does not know east has shown his heart support, so he might be obliged=20 to pass 3He. > When I inquired into the matter, the chairman of the AC said that they = had > had great problems with this hand because they regarded it a hand where= poor > judgement from West led to a surprisingly good result, and this could n= ot be > accepted. He later maintained that 4H from West would have been accepta= ble > but not 3H(!) >=20 Totally horrible. > Am I totally out of bounds here or are both of these rulings just horri= ble? > I have a lot of questions, but evidently not the ones posed by the TD/A= C. >=20 > a) What would you rule and why? Either 5Clx-1 or 3He+2. > b) If you support the decisions made by the TD and/or the AC, please gi= ve me > the law reference allowing this kind of ruling. > c) If West has done nothing wrong, how can he be ruled against and how = can > he be forced to make the very wrong bid of passing 3Cx? he cannot > d) Do you think that passing 3Cx is an obvious bid for West? irrelevant. He can do as he pleases. > e) Can pass to partner's double of 3C be regarded "a logical alternativ= e"? > f) Can the term "logical alternative" be used as to limiting West's act= ion > after the double? > g) Would in your opinion 4H be acceptable for West to bid, while 3H sho= uld > be barred? irrelevant. > h) Should East be allowed to bid 4H? possibly not. > i) Isn't it East's action when bidding 4H that should be scrutinized in= the > light of "logical alternatives"? exactly. > j) Wouldn't pass be a logical alternative for him since he had heard no > alert from his partner when he doubled 3C? exactly. > k) Can South see from the club holding in his hand that Easts double ca= n > hardly be for penalty? possibly - but he does not need to second-guess non-alerts. > l) When South did not bid 5C, could the calling of the TD and South's > subsequent argumentation be regarded as an effort to get it both ways; > either 4H is down, or N/S will be able to rely upon the TD and/or the A= C to > rebid South's hand in a better way than South did himself at the table? >=20 It might - but the WBF requires stronger actions - wild, irrational or=20 gambling - and I don't believe this comes even close. > The lay-out looked like this: >=20 > E/EW vul. J T 9 7 6 > Q > - > A J T 7 6 4 2 > Q 8 3 A 5 > K J T 9 8 7 4 A 5 2 > Q 9 A J T 6 5 3 > K 5 3 > K 4 3 > 6 3 > K 8 7 4 2 > Q 9 8 >=20 > I hope you will give this hand some of your time, and am looking very m= uch > forward to reading your argumentation. >=20 > Yours (most) friendly, > Tommy Sandsmark >=20 > www.xbridge.no Bridge & Kryss/Bridgens Bokklu= bb, > Tommy Sandsmark, Bygd=F8y All=E9 73 B, 0268 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: 00-47-= 22 43 02 > 14. Fax: 00-47-22 43 42 99. E-Mail: xbridge@online.no. Have a nice day! > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=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 svenpran@online.no Mon Feb 17 11:54:06 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:54:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <001e01c2d66f$c9011340$0a646464@siri> Message-ID: <006401c2d67b$4666aa10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Hei Tommy! (Resten av mine kommentarer på engelsk) So far I have only read down to the beginning of your list of questions, and I am just astonished! The TD ascertains that North/South have been given the correct information on agreements and then rules against East/West??? OK Now I drop down to the list of questions again and insert my comments there. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tommy Sandsmark" To: "'bridge laws mailing list'" Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 11:31 AM Subject: [blml] Horrible? > Dear friends, > > I am sorry to say that I have not participated actively in the discussions, > even though I have read (with interest) most of the arguments forwarded > here. > > I would like to submit a TD decision (and subsequently an appeals committee > decision) which has more than upset me. I am probably going to write some > lines about this problem in the NBF Bulletin, and would like to hear what > you think and what you would rule. This is the West hand: > > East dealer, EW vulnerable. Teams. No screens. > > West > Q 8 3 > K J T 9 8 7 4 > Q 9 > K > > West North East South > 1D pass > 1H 3C x (*) pass > 3H pass 4H pass > pass pass > > (*) No hesitation, and no alert from West. > > West lost 2 tricks and South called the TD, maintaining that “if he had > known that East’s double was not a penalty double, he would have sacrificed > in 5C”. The TD found out that East had believed the double to be a support > double. West did not agree - his opinion was that the double was for > penalty. The TD ascertained, that the E/W convention card stated that > support doubles were only applied on the two-level. Thus, West’s explanation > of the double (no alert) was found to be correct. Thereafter the TD ruled > that the contract was to be 5Cx down 1. E/W appealed. > > So far, no good. Out of the fog, the AC returned with the verdict that most > good players would pass 3Cx on the West hand, and consequently, this was a > logical alternative and 3Cx with 10 tricks was ruled to be the final result. WHAT !?!?!?!?!?! > > When I inquired into the matter, the chairman of the AC said that they had > had great problems with this hand because they regarded it a hand where poor > judgement from West led to a surprisingly good result, and this could not be > accepted. He later maintained that 4H from West would have been acceptable > but not 3H(!) > > Am I totally out of bounds here or are both of these rulings just horrible? > I have a lot of questions, but evidently not the ones posed by the TD/AC. > > a) What would you rule and why? Correct information given to North/South - result stands. > b) If you support the decisions made by the TD and/or the AC, please give me > the law reference allowing this kind of ruling. Not applicable > c) If West has done nothing wrong, how can he be ruled against and how can > he be forced to make the very wrong bid of passing 3Cx? Strikes me! > d) Do you think that passing 3Cx is an obvious bid for West? It is certrainly an alternative, but obvious? Vul against non vul? NO! > e) Can pass to partner’s double of 3C be regarded “a logical alternative”? Yes, of course. > f) Can the term “logical alternative” be used as to limiting West’s action > after the double? NO, of course not - there is no UI present. > g) Would in your opinion 4H be acceptable for West to bid, while 3H should > be barred? I just do not understand the argument, I would allow either bid. > h) Should East be allowed to bid 4H? That depends on his holdings. And coming back from deciphering the complete layout below I would rule that East cannot possibly be forced to stop in a part-score undoubled contract. So my answer is YES - he may bid 4H. > i) Isn’t it East’s action when bidding 4H that should be scrutinized in the > light of “logical alternatives”? Sure. If anybody has UI it must be East who understands that he has made a call not in accordance with their agreements. > j) Wouldn’t pass be a logical alternative for him since he had heard no > alert from his partner when he doubled 3C? Possibly, but not necessarily. > k) Can South see from the club holding in his hand that Easts double can > hardly be for penalty? I'd rule this is an irrelevant question until some violation of laws has been established on Esat/West. In this case (after looking at the complete hands below) I just do not understand how he could see that. (But as I have already said: I see no ground for ruling against East/West). > l) When South did not bid 5C, could the calling of the TD and South’s > subsequent argumentation be regarded as an effort to get it both ways; > either 4H is down, or N/S will be able to rely upon the TD and/or the AC to > rebid South’s hand in a better way than South did himself at the table? That is the way I see it. > > The lay-out looked like this: > > E/EW vul. J T 9 7 6 > Q > - > A J T 7 64 2 > Q 8 3 A 5 > K J T 9 8 7 4 A 5 2 > Q 9 A J T 6 5 3 > K 5 3 > K 4 3 > 6 3 > K 8 7 4 2 > Q 9 8 > Oh oh. Enciphered layout? Well, I managed to sort it out. regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Feb 17 11:56:14 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:56:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <7353173.1045479285405.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <006c01c2d67b$929895b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim by Kleinman > TWM wrote: > > > > But "no diamonds?" "No diamonds." "Are you sure you have no diamonds?" is cheating. I do not need to re-examine anything to be sure of this, whatever TWM may suggest that I do. > > > It seems you do David. There is nothing in L61 to support your assertion. > > Don't be absurd. There is nothing in L61 to support the assertion that coughing to show extra values is not permitted, but this is also cheating. > > David Burn > London, England There is a major difference between trying to prevent a violation of laws and coughing to show extra values. Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Feb 17 12:05:14 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:05:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <001e01c2d66f$c9011340$0a646464@siri> <3E50CB4F.2000505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008401c2d67c$d49887d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ........... > According to the CC and West's explanations, there was no MI. > According to East's explanation (and hand), there was MI. > It is possible for the TD to rule MI. I am used to a general rule that if there is any contradiction between the CC and spoken explanation on any agreement then (unless both players convincingly agree upon the spoken explanation) the CC is to be taken as correct. According to this there is no MI here, just a misbid by East (and of course subsequent UI from West to East). Do you practise a different handling on MI cases in your areas? regards Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 17 12:21:55 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:21:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman Message-ID: <3544272.1045484515191.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Sven wrote: > > Don't be absurd. There is nothing in L61 to support the assertion that coughing to show extra values is not permitted, but this is also cheating. > There is a major difference between trying to prevent a violation of laws and coughing to show extra values. There may very well be, but what has that to do with anything? I assert that communication between partners other than by means of calls or plays is illegal. I further assert that drawing partner's attention to a significant occurrence by means of a remark is illegal. To do those things knowing that it is wrong to do them (as Danny Kleinman assuredly knows) is cheating. But it is not Law 61B that makes these things illegal. To argue, as TWM did, that something must be legal because it isn't prohibited by Law 61 is... well, it isn't remotely sensible. As has been pointed out, there is a conflict between Law 61B and Law 73A1 that ought to be resolved (another consequence of putting the Proprieties into the Laws without putting brains into gear). This is not to say, however, that Law 61 supersedes Law 73, any more than Law 20F supersedes Law 73. You may ask questions where the law says you may ask questions. But you may not use questions as a vehicle for giving partner information. This is really so obvious that I am at a loss to understand how there can be any doubt about it. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Feb 17 12:28:45 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:28:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <001e01c2d66f$c9011340$0a646464@siri> <3E50CB4F.2000505@skynet.be> <008401c2d67c$d49887d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E50D57D.3000701@skynet.be> Hello Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > ........... > >>According to the CC and West's explanations, there was no MI. >>According to East's explanation (and hand), there was MI. >> > >>It is possible for the TD to rule MI. >> > > I am used to a general rule that if there is any contradiction > between the CC and spoken explanation on any agreement > then (unless both players convincingly agree upon the > spoken explanation) the CC is to be taken as correct. > > According to this there is no MI here, just a misbid by East > (and of course subsequent UI from West to East). > > Do you practise a different handling on MI cases in your areas? > No I don't, Sven. But in this comedy of errors, this decision is one of the least horrible. It is possible to rule MI even when the CC confirms the explanation. Do note that the FLB only mentions what the TD should do in the absence of evidence, not what he should do in the presence of it! Personally, I prefer to rule "MI-no damage", rather than a much too simple "CC confirms, no MI", whenever a player makes a bid that he obviously intends in some manner. I have been called a softie on many issues, but not on this one. However, to reiterate, Tommy asked for criticism on the ruling and appeal. That part of the ruling could withstand scrutiny. > 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 damian.hassan@lineone.net Mon Feb 17 12:51:36 2003 From: damian.hassan@lineone.net (Damian Hassan) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:51:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw References: <003a01c2d628$364c4840$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <004801c2d683$4eb156e0$0308a8c0@HassanFamily> > Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's > double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more of: > > Normal > Careless > Inferior > Irrational > > David Burn > London, England > > > I remember making the opposite mistake. During an auction towards 6S, partner cuebid 5C. This was doubled by RHO, and I passed to show second round control. I was astonished to find that 5C became the final contract, and there had been no double. We were using bidding boxes. And no, I wasn't drunk, or otherwise more incapable than normal. My only excuse is that RHO was Alan Mayo, and the consequent time distortions could result in deep trance-like states for all at the table :) This was, undoubtedly, irrational. Like the monk in Douglas Adams' novel, I believed something that was directly contradicted by my senses. Was it careless? Back to the current problem: Normal, no. Inferior, yes. Irrational: I think this applies only if he saw the double card, but still concluded that RHO had passed. Careless: He did not notice the double card, or registered it without thinking about it. Damian Hassan From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 17 13:15:22 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:15:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <001e01c2d66f$c9011340$0a646464@siri> References: <000001c2d62c$d9625340$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030217140616.00a8d170@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:31 17/02/2003 +0100, Tommy Sandsmark wrote: >Dear friends, > >I am sorry to say that I have not participated actively in the discussions, >even though I have read (with interest) most of the arguments forwarded >here. > >I would like to submit a TD decision (and subsequently an appeals committee >decision) which has more than upset me. I am probably going to write some >lines about this problem in the NBF Bulletin, and would like to hear what >you think and what you would rule. This is the West hand: > >East dealer, EW vulnerable. Teams. No screens. > > West > Q 8 3 > K J T 9 8 7 4 > Q 9 > K > > West North East South > 1D pass > 1H 3C x (*) pass > 3H pass 4H pass > pass pass > >(*) No hesitation, and no alert from West. > >West lost 2 tricks and South called the TD, maintaining that "if he had >known that East's double was not a penalty double, he would have sacrificed >in 5C". The TD found out that East had believed the double to be a support >double. West did not agree - his opinion was that the double was for >penalty. The TD ascertained, that the E/W convention card stated that >support doubles were only applied on the two-level. Thus, West's explanation >of the double (no alert) was found to be correct. Thereafter the TD ruled >that the contract was to be 5Cx down 1. E/W appealed. > >So far, no good. Out of the fog, the AC returned with the verdict that most >good players would pass 3Cx on the West hand, and consequently, this was a >logical alternative and 3Cx with 10 tricks was ruled to be the final result. > >When I inquired into the matter, the chairman of the AC said that they had >had great problems with this hand because they regarded it a hand where poor >judgement from West led to a surprisingly good result, and this could not be >accepted. He later maintained that 4H from West would have been acceptable >but not 3H(!) > >Am I totally out of bounds here or are both of these rulings just horrible? >I have a lot of questions, but evidently not the ones posed by the TD/AC. > >a) What would you rule and why? AG : 5CX-1 is plausible, provided that the support double was alertable (no double is alertable in Belgium). But see also h). The other part is absurd : West failed to alert, but is allowed to bid according to his own system. He is not compelled to bid according to the non-alerted meaning. >b) If you support the decisions made by the TD and/or the AC, please give me >the law reference allowing this kind of ruling. AG : L40C. >c) If West has done nothing wrong, how can he be ruled against and how can >he be forced to make the very wrong bid of passing 3Cx? AG : he can't >d) Do you think that passing 3Cx is an obvious bid for West? AG : do snakes make pushups ? >e) Can pass to partner's double of 3C be regarded "a logical alternative"? AG : barely. What are you up to ? That East's quick double gave UI ? Then West should be *disallowed*, not compelled, to pass 3C. >f) Can the term "logical alternative" be used as to limiting West's action >1after the double? AG : irrelevant. >g) Would in your opinion 4H be acceptable for West to bid, while 3H should >be barred? AG : perhaps. It would be bending backwards after the quick double. >h) Should East be allowed to bid 4H? AG : I'd say no. He got UI that his partner believed the double was for penalties, thus that West has a very long suit, not just 5 cards. >i) Isn't it East's action when bidding 4H that should be scrutinized in the >light of "logical alternatives"? AG : indeed. >j) Wouldn't pass be a logical alternative for him since he had heard no >alert from his partner when he doubled 3C? AG : indeed. See above. >k) Can South see from the club holding in his hand that Easts double can >hardly be for penalty? AG : irrelevant. >l) When South did not bid 5C, could the calling of the TD and South's >subsequent argumentation be regarded as an effort to get it both ways; >either 4H is down, or N/S will be able to rely upon the TD and/or the AC to >rebid South's hand in a better way than South did himself at the table? AG : depends on table feel, but possible. AG : summary : the two most reasonable rulings would be 5CX-1 or 3H+1. 4C= is also plausible if you deem it possible that, after East passes, South bids 4C. I don't think so, but some ACs might decide it is "the most favorable result that as at all plausible" without the infraction. >The lay-out looked like this: > >E/EW vul. J T 9 7 6 > Q > - > A J T 7 6 4 2 > Q 8 3 A 5 > K J T 9 8 7 4 A 5 2 > Q 9 A J T 6 5 3 > K 5 3 >7 K 4 3 > 6 3 > K 8 7 4 2 > Q 9 8 > >I hope you will give this hand some of your time, and am looking very much >forward to reading your argumentation. From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Feb 17 13:13:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:13 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <7353173.1045479285405.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: > TWM wrote: > > > > But "no diamonds?" "No diamonds." "Are you sure you have no > > > diamonds?" is cheating. I do not need to re-examine anything to be > sure of this, whatever TWM may suggest that I do. > > > It seems you do David. There is nothing in L61 to support your > > assertion. > > Don't be absurd. There is nothing in L61 to support the assertion that > coughing to show extra values is not permitted, but this is also > cheating. Law 61 deals with inquiries as to revokes (including restrictions on making them). One would hardly expect anything about coughing extra values to appear there (why duplicate L73b2?). One would expect to find any additional restrictions (were they to exist) on such enquiries under Law61. The Zonal option in L61 is incompatible with a strict reading of L73a (as are alerts/explanations, L42b1/2, stop cards, customary politeness such as saying good luck/thank you when dummy goes down). Most of these situations have specific laws available to address them. When we are outside L73 territory it is surely necessary to follow the specific. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Feb 17 13:13:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:13 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw In-Reply-To: <2241413.1045479579129.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: David Burn wrote: TWM wrote: > Careless - yes > >Irrational - definitely, both the laws and common sense require us to > pay attention. What reason could there be for not doing so? > > Does the phrase "careless but not irrational" mean anything to you? Or > would you say that it is a contradiction in terms? During the auction? Claims during the auction are so bizarre that I really don't think it matters. Even in the claims law the words are neither adequate nor particularly helpful (IMO). Thus we need case law/interpretations to tell us that failure to see a player show out is deemed irrational. By the same token we would deem failure to see a bid as irrational. However that is using context to impart meaning. Taken out of context (such as during the auction) we are left with normal English meanings and I not believe that careful/rational are mutually exclusive descriptions of an action (likewise an action can be neither careful nor rational). In fact my best shot at interpreting the footnote (with regards to these words) would be "normal includes a degree of carelessness but not carelessness to the extent of irrationality" (feel free to substitute inferiority for carelessness for the other half of it). Tim From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Feb 17 13:30:52 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:30:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw References: <003a01c2d628$364c4840$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <00e401c2d688$cfa21f00$727e870a@sabre.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" > Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's > double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more of: > > Normal No > Careless Yes > Inferior Yes > Irrational It depends on what you mean player's actions. The adjectives rational / irrational can only be applied to reasoning. Seeing or failing to see something cannot be rational / irrational per se. So the question "is not seeing the double irrational?" makes as much sense to me as "is this slice of bread conclusive?" or "Is this penalty kick deadlock-prone?". However it makes sense to ask if failing to redouble was rational or not. If a player doesn't see the double & bids 5C then his actions are quite rational - we make decisions by gathering information and then reasoning. If our reasoning is valid (in terms of deductive logic) then our actions are rational even though it might turn out in the end that we were operating on false presumptions. So I wouldn't label the player's actions as irrational. Only seeing the double & failing to redouble would be irrational. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Mon Feb 17 13:51:59 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:51:59 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <003301c2d68b$bdc863e0$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "mamos" To: "Tommy Sandsmark" Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tommy Sandsmark" > To: "'bridge laws mailing list'" > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 10:31 AM > Subject: [blml] Horrible? > > > > Dear friends, > > > > I am sorry to say that I have not participated actively in the > discussions, > > even though I have read (with interest) most of the arguments forwarded > > here. > > > > I would like to submit a TD decision (and subsequently an appeals > committee > > decision) which has more than upset me. I am probably going to write some > > lines about this problem in the NBF Bulletin, and would like to hear what > > you think and what you would rule. This is the West hand: > > > > East dealer, EW vulnerable. Teams. No screens. > > > > West > > Q 8 3 > > K J T 9 8 7 4 > > Q 9 > > K > > > > West North East South > > 1D pass > > 1H 3C x (*) pass > > 3H pass 4H pass > > pass pass > > > > (*) No hesitation, and no alert from West. > > > > West lost 2 tricks and South called the TD, maintaining that “if he had > > known that East’s double was not a penalty double, he would have > sacrificed > > in 5C”. The TD found out that East had believed the double to be a support > > double. West did not agree - his opinion was that the double was for > > penalty. The TD ascertained, that the E/W convention card stated that > > support doubles were only applied on the two-level. Thus, West’s > explanation > > of the double (no alert) was found to be correct. Thereafter the TD ruled > > that the contract was to be 5Cx down 1. E/W appealed. > > > > So far, no good. Out of the fog, the AC returned with the verdict that > most > > good players would pass 3Cx on the West hand, and consequently, this was a > > logical alternative and 3Cx with 10 tricks was ruled to be the final > result. > > I at least can see where the AC are coming from ... > > If we accept for the moment that the EW patnership agreement is that Double > here is penalties then indeed West should not have alerted - and it can be > concluded that East has misbid .... Now in this situation we can look at > West's actions and decide if they are appropriate - much as we would if East > had psyched - we need to be consider if West has fielded the psyche / > misbid. Surely it is not inappropriate to ask if East has ever forgotten > the partnership agreement about support doubles before. Now if good players > (and I of course being a TD cannot by definition be one :)) decide that it > is normal action to pass with West's hand then EWs actions are suspicious > and adjustment could be appropriate -- (is this what is sometimes in > ACBL-land is described as the law of coincidence? - West says that the > partnership agreement is penalty double but then acts as if it were not -- > EW cannot have their cake and eat it entirely. So we must ask West if he > thought his partner had a penalty double why he bid 3H -- it does look a > little odd even to my poor bridge-brain - surely if we are going to pull 4H > seems much much more likely - the issues are of disclosure and a possible > CPU - > > In EBU land we catergorise misbids in the same way as psyches as green, > amber and red and if we deem a misbid to have been fielded then we would > cancel the score on the board and award average plus to non offenders and > average minus to offenders so +3/-3 at teams (See EBU Orange Book for > details) > > MIke > > > > > > > > > > When I inquired into the matter, the chairman of the AC said that they had > > had great problems with this hand because they regarded it a hand where > poor > > judgement from West led to a surprisingly good result, and this could not > be > > accepted. He later maintained that 4H from West would have been acceptable > > but not 3H(!) > > > > Am I totally out of bounds here or are both of these rulings just > horrible? > > I have a lot of questions, but evidently not the ones posed by the TD/AC. > > > > a) What would you rule and why? > > b) If you support the decisions made by the TD and/or the AC, please give > me > > the law reference allowing this kind of ruling. > > c) If West has done nothing wrong, how can he be ruled against and how can > > he be forced to make the very wrong bid of passing 3Cx? > > d) Do you think that passing 3Cx is an obvious bid for West? > > e) Can pass to partner’s double of 3C be regarded “a logical alternative”? > > f) Can the term “logical alternative” be used as to limiting West’s action > > after the double? > > g) Would in your opinion 4H be acceptable for West to bid, while 3H should > > be barred? > > h) Should East be allowed to bid 4H? > > i) Isn’t it East’s action when bidding 4H that should be scrutinized in > the > > light of “logical alternatives”? > > j) Wouldn’t pass be a logical alternative for him since he had heard no > > alert from his partner when he doubled 3C? > > k) Can South see from the club holding in his hand that Easts double can > > hardly be for penalty? > > l) When South did not bid 5C, could the calling of the TD and South’s > > subsequent argumentation be regarded as an effort to get it both ways; > > either 4H is down, or N/S will be able to rely upon the TD and/or the AC > to > > rebid South’s hand in a better way than South did himself at the table? > > > > The lay-out looked like this: > > > > E/EW vul. J T 9 7 6 > > Q > > - > > A J T 7 6 4 2 > > Q 8 3 A 5 > > K J T 9 8 7 4 A 5 2 > > Q 9 A J T 6 5 3 > > K 5 3 > > K 4 3 > > 6 3 > > K 8 7 4 2 > > Q 9 8 > > > > I hope you will give this hand some of your time, and am looking very much > > forward to reading your argumentation. > > > > Yours (most) friendly, > > Tommy Sandsmark > > > > www.xbridge.no Bridge & Kryss/Bridgens Bokklubb, > > Tommy Sandsmark, Bygdøy Allé 73 B, 0268 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: 00-47-22 43 > 02 > > 14. Fax: 00-47-22 43 42 99. E-Mail: xbridge@online.no. Have a nice day! > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 axman22@hotmail.com Mon Feb 17 14:20:33 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:20:33 -0600 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> <3E4CEC7B.8020406@skynet.be> <001501c2d615$31c7cc30$4632e150@endicott> <5.1.1.6.0.20030216195409.00ba0100@mail.comcast.net> <002c01c2d625$1b1fd440$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 19:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > David wrote: > > >>The other day at the club, a declarer claimed against me (South) in > >>this position: -s- > But the point I was trying to make is this: would it be up to > me as a player to analyse the director's analysis? > I do not think that > players should be placed in that kind of position. In two words, 'I concur.' But two words are not enough. I think it is better for the players to do the analysis and for the TD to rule, when asked, on its validity. And in case you are wondering why, I pose the question, just who is getting the score- the players or the TD? regards roger pewick > David Burn > London, England From svenpran@online.no Mon Feb 17 14:22:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:22:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <3544272.1045484515191.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000d01c2d68f$f50d1d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim by Kleinman > Sven wrote: > > > > Don't be absurd. There is nothing in L61 to support the assertion that coughing to show extra values is not permitted, but this is also cheating. > > > There is a major difference between trying to prevent a violation of laws and coughing to show extra values. > > There may very well be, but what has that to do with anything? I assert that communication between partners other than by means of calls or plays is illegal. I further assert that drawing partner's attention to a significant occurrence by means of a remark is illegal. To do those things knowing that it is wrong to do them (as Danny Kleinman assuredly knows) is cheating. OK, so let me cross the zeroes and dot the I-s: Law 61 explicitly allows attempts in the form of questions to avoid revokes before they are established (subject to certain specified limitations) Law 42B1 explicitly allows dummy the equivalent option. Law 42B2 explicitly allows dummy to try preventing irregularities by declarer. All these three laws implement certain exempts from Law 73 on what is legal communication between partners. Coughing to show extra values can in no way be constructed as an activity allowed under L61 (or L42). So there is no need looking for any law prohibiting coughing with this purpose, it already exists in Law 73 etc. But there is every need to search for a law limiting the extent to which a player may execute his rights under any of the laws L61, L42B1 and L42B2. At present I (for one) am unable to find any such limiting law. Sven .......(remainder of original post snipped - redundant?) From svenpran@online.no Mon Feb 17 14:27:41 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:27:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <000001c2d62c$d9625340$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20030217140616.00a8d170@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001701c2d690$bb0cfb20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Alan: Please don't waste time by getting off the wrong track. You seem to assume that the agreement is support double (as indeed it was intended), but the message clearly identifies the agreement as being double for penalty above the two-level. So did also TD establish. Thus you should rule according to misbid, not according to misinformation. regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "'bridge laws mailing list'" Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 2:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > At 11:31 17/02/2003 +0100, Tommy Sandsmark wrote: > >Dear friends, > > > >I am sorry to say that I have not participated actively in the discussions, > >even though I have read (with interest) most of the arguments forwarded > >here. > > > >I would like to submit a TD decision (and subsequently an appeals committee > >decision) which has more than upset me. I am probably going to write some > >lines about this problem in the NBF Bulletin, and would like to hear what > >you think and what you would rule. This is the West hand: > > > >East dealer, EW vulnerable. Teams. No screens. > > > > West > > Q 8 3 > > K J T 9 8 7 4 > > Q 9 > > K > > > > West North East South > > 1D pass > > 1H 3C x (*) pass > > 3H pass 4H pass > > pass pass > > > >(*) No hesitation, and no alert from West. > > > >West lost 2 tricks and South called the TD, maintaining that "if he had > >known that East's double was not a penalty double, he would have sacrificed > >in 5C". The TD found out that East had believed the double to be a support > >double. West did not agree - his opinion was that the double was for > >penalty. The TD ascertained, that the E/W convention card stated that > >support doubles were only applied on the two-level. Thus, West's explanation > >of the double (no alert) was found to be correct. Thereafter the TD ruled > >that the contract was to be 5Cx down 1. E/W appealed. > > > >So far, no good. Out of the fog, the AC returned with the verdict that most > >good players would pass 3Cx on the West hand, and consequently, this was a > >logical alternative and 3Cx with 10 tricks was ruled to be the final result. > > > >When I inquired into the matter, the chairman of the AC said that they had > >had great problems with this hand because they regarded it a hand where poor > >judgement from West led to a surprisingly good result, and this could not be > >accepted. He later maintained that 4H from West would have been acceptable > >but not 3H(!) > > > >Am I totally out of bounds here or are both of these rulings just horrible? > >I have a lot of questions, but evidently not the ones posed by the TD/AC. > > > >a) What would you rule and why? > > AG : 5CX-1 is plausible, provided that the support double was alertable (no > double is alertable in Belgium). But see also h). > The other part is absurd : West failed to alert, but is allowed to bid > according to his own system. He is not compelled to bid according to the > non-alerted meaning. > > > >b) If you support the decisions made by the TD and/or the AC, please give me > >the law reference allowing this kind of ruling. > > AG : L40C. > > > >c) If West has done nothing wrong, how can he be ruled against and how can > >he be forced to make the very wrong bid of passing 3Cx? > > AG : he can't > > > >d) Do you think that passing 3Cx is an obvious bid for West? > > AG : do snakes make pushups ? > > > >e) Can pass to partner's double of 3C be regarded "a logical alternative"? > > AG : barely. What are you up to ? That East's quick double gave UI ? Then > West should be *disallowed*, not compelled, to pass 3C. > > > >f) Can the term "logical alternative" be used as to limiting West's action > >1after the double? > > AG : irrelevant. > > > >g) Would in your opinion 4H be acceptable for West to bid, while 3H should > >be barred? > > AG : perhaps. It would be bending backwards after the quick double. > > > >h) Should East be allowed to bid 4H? > > AG : I'd say no. He got UI that his partner believed the double was for > penalties, thus that West has a very long suit, not just 5 cards. > > >i) Isn't it East's action when bidding 4H that should be scrutinized in the > >light of "logical alternatives"? > > AG : indeed. > > > >j) Wouldn't pass be a logical alternative for him since he had heard no > >alert from his partner when he doubled 3C? > > > AG : indeed. See above. > > > >k) Can South see from the club holding in his hand that Easts double can > >hardly be for penalty? > > AG : irrelevant. > > > >l) When South did not bid 5C, could the calling of the TD and South's > >subsequent argumentation be regarded as an effort to get it both ways; > >either 4H is down, or N/S will be able to rely upon the TD and/or the AC to > >rebid South's hand in a better way than South did himself at the table? > > AG : depends on table feel, but possible. > > AG : summary : the two most reasonable rulings would be 5CX-1 or 3H+1. 4C= > is also plausible if you deem it possible that, after East passes, South > bids 4C. I don't think so, but some ACs might decide it is "the most > favorable result that as at all plausible" without the infraction. > > > >The lay-out looked like this: > > > >E/EW vul. J T 9 7 6 > > Q > > - > > A J T 7 6 4 2 > > Q 8 3 A 5 > > K J T 9 8 7 4 A 5 2 > > Q 9 A J T 6 5 3 > > K 5 3 > >7 K 4 3 > > 6 3 > > K 8 7 4 2 > > Q 9 8 > > > >I hope you will give this hand some of your time, and am looking very much > >forward to reading your argumentation. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From xbridge@online.no Mon Feb 17 14:37:20 2003 From: xbridge@online.no (Tommy Sandsmark) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:37:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030217140616.00a8d170@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002001c2d692$4d301040$0a646464@siri> Alain takes it for granted that there was UI or at least that there had been a double out of tempo. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The double was in tempo, and West's explanation of the double was correct, so there has been a wrong bid and a right explanation. Tommy www.xbridge.no Bridge & Kryss/Bridgens Bokklubb, Tommy Sandsmark, Bygdoy Alle 73 B, 0268 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: 00-47-22 43 02 14. Fax: 00-47-22 43 42 99. E-Mail: xbridge@online.no. Have a nice day! -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 2:15 PM To: 'bridge laws mailing list' Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? At 11:31 17/02/2003 +0100, Tommy Sandsmark wrote: >Dear friends, > >I am sorry to say that I have not participated actively in the discussions, >even though I have read (with interest) most of the arguments forwarded >here. > >I would like to submit a TD decision (and subsequently an appeals committee >decision) which has more than upset me. I am probably going to write some >lines about this problem in the NBF Bulletin, and would like to hear what >you think and what you would rule. This is the West hand: > >East dealer, EW vulnerable. Teams. No screens. > > West > Q 8 3 > K J T 9 8 7 4 > Q 9 > K > > West North East South > 1D pass > 1H 3C x (*) pass > 3H pass 4H pass > pass pass > >(*) No hesitation, and no alert from West. > >West lost 2 tricks and South called the TD, maintaining that "if he had >known that East's double was not a penalty double, he would have sacrificed >in 5C". The TD found out that East had believed the double to be a support >double. West did not agree - his opinion was that the double was for >penalty. The TD ascertained, that the E/W convention card stated that >support doubles were only applied on the two-level. Thus, West's explanation >of the double (no alert) was found to be correct. Thereafter the TD ruled >that the contract was to be 5Cx down 1. E/W appealed. > >So far, no good. Out of the fog, the AC returned with the verdict that most >good players would pass 3Cx on the West hand, and consequently, this was a >logical alternative and 3Cx with 10 tricks was ruled to be the final result. > >When I inquired into the matter, the chairman of the AC said that they had >had great problems with this hand because they regarded it a hand where poor >judgement from West led to a surprisingly good result, and this could not be >accepted. He later maintained that 4H from West would have been acceptable >but not 3H(!) > >Am I totally out of bounds here or are both of these rulings just horrible? >I have a lot of questions, but evidently not the ones posed by the TD/AC. > >a) What would you rule and why? AG : 5CX-1 is plausible, provided that the support double was alertable (no double is alertable in Belgium). But see also h). The other part is absurd : West failed to alert, but is allowed to bid according to his own system. He is not compelled to bid according to the non-alerted meaning. >b) If you support the decisions made by the TD and/or the AC, please give me >the law reference allowing this kind of ruling. AG : L40C. >c) If West has done nothing wrong, how can he be ruled against and how can >he be forced to make the very wrong bid of passing 3Cx? AG : he can't >d) Do you think that passing 3Cx is an obvious bid for West? AG : do snakes make pushups ? >e) Can pass to partner's double of 3C be regarded "a logical alternative"? AG : barely. What are you up to ? That East's quick double gave UI ? Then West should be *disallowed*, not compelled, to pass 3C. >f) Can the term "logical alternative" be used as to limiting West's action >1after the double? AG : irrelevant. >g) Would in your opinion 4H be acceptable for West to bid, while 3H should >be barred? AG : perhaps. It would be bending backwards after the quick double. >h) Should East be allowed to bid 4H? AG : I'd say no. He got UI that his partner believed the double was for penalties, thus that West has a very long suit, not just 5 cards. >i) Isn't it East's action when bidding 4H that should be scrutinized in the >light of "logical alternatives"? AG : indeed. >j) Wouldn't pass be a logical alternative for him since he had heard no >alert from his partner when he doubled 3C? AG : indeed. See above. >k) Can South see from the club holding in his hand that Easts double can >hardly be for penalty? AG : irrelevant. >l) When South did not bid 5C, could the calling of the TD and South's >subsequent argumentation be regarded as an effort to get it both ways; >either 4H is down, or N/S will be able to rely upon the TD and/or the AC to >rebid South's hand in a better way than South did himself at the table? AG : depends on table feel, but possible. AG : summary : the two most reasonable rulings would be 5CX-1 or 3H+1. 4C= is also plausible if you deem it possible that, after East passes, South bids 4C. I don't think so, but some ACs might decide it is "the most favorable result that as at all plausible" without the infraction. >The lay-out looked like this: > >E/EW vul. J T 9 7 6 > Q > - > A J T 7 6 4 2 > Q 8 3 A 5 > K J T 9 8 7 4 A 5 2 > Q 9 A J T 6 5 3 > K 5 3 >7 K 4 3 > 6 3 > K 8 7 4 2 > Q 9 8 > >I hope you will give this hand some of your time, and am looking very much >forward to reading your argumentation. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Feb 17 14:44:15 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:44:15 -0500 Subject: TR: [blml] ACBL Land Message-ID: Herman wrote: HWe are lucky that the Americans have not yet come up with a derogatory name for us so they can show that they feel the same way (ie that they presume their way is better). ________________________________________________________________________ May be they will use "Old Europe Land"....but some of you, the other side of the pound, are, according to Americans, not part of..... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City ACBL Land From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 17 14:57:44 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:57:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman Message-ID: <1718362.1045493864508.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Sven wrote: > OK, so let me cross the zeroes and dot the I-s: Gosh. Is that what they say in Norway? > Law 61 explicitly allows attempts in the form of questions to avoid revokes before they are established (subject to certain specified limitations) > Law 42B1 explicitly allows dummy the equivalent option. > Law 42B2 explicitly allows dummy to try preventing irregularities by declarer. > All these three laws implement certain exempts from Law 73 on what is legal communication between partners. > But there is every need to search for a law limiting the extent to which a player may execute his rights under any of the laws L61, L42B1 and L42B2. At present I (for one) am unable to find any such limiting law. You are not seeing the wood for the trees. Law 61 is self-limiting. "[X] may ask [Y] who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led" means what it says; it means that the only permitted question is "do you have a card of the suit led?" You may not enquire about your partner's state of mind ("are you sure that you do not have a card of the suit led?") or about anything else ("at how many hearts have you looked to ensure that each of them is not a diamond?"). You may not use the question in order to communicate anything to partner. Nor, of course, may you ask the question more than once, for your partner (and the opponents) will get fed up with you if you do, and you will be in breach of Law 74A2. Moreover, if you ask a question, receive an answer, and then ask the identical question again, you are obviously in breach of Law 74B1. The same is obviously true of Law 42B1. The issue is irrelevant as far as 42B2 is concerned (this is another cock-up in the rules, but the fact is that although dummy may attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer, he may not do so by communicating with declarer, for Law 73 says so and Law 42B2 does not override Law 73). This is really a fairly pointless argument. I think we are all aware that Laws 42 and 61 are inconsistent with Law 73. I expect someone will sort this out before long. David Burn London, England From toddz@att.net Mon Feb 17 15:13:10 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:13:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever In-Reply-To: <002c01c2d625$1b1fd440$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 8:37 PM > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > > David wrote: > > >>The other day at the club, a declarer claimed against > me (South) in > this > >>position: > >> > >> None > >> 3 > >> 872 > >> K105 > >>None None > >>None J10 > >>AKQJ6 43 > >>42 QJ7 > >> 7 > >> Q5 > >> 1095 > >> 63 > >> > In any case, I knew the position; but because there > was a claim, and a > ruling, and the rest of it, I had temporarily exited > analysis mode. Something worried me, though. You may have known the position, but south has 8 cards to everyone else's 7. Should south have only one club? I saw the squeeze coming double dummy, but as declarer and even knowing about the trump, I'd have failed to play a round of clubs first. -Todd From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 17 15:36:30 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:36:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] claims forever Message-ID: <5495227.1045496190604.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Todd wrote: > > In any case, I knew the position; but because there > > was a claim, and a > > ruling, and the rest of it, I had temporarily exited > > analysis mode. Something worried me, though. > You may have known the position, but south has 8 cards to > everyone else's 7. Should south have only one club? Yes, sorry - well spotted. Actual position was: None 3 872 K105 None None None J10 AKQJ6 43 42 QJ7 7 Q5 1095 6 David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Feb 17 15:27:15 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:27:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw References: <003a01c2d628$364c4840$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E50FF53.7000101@skynet.be> OK David, I'll bite. David Burn wrote: > I have just returned from a tournament among (supposedly) the leading > players in England; teams representing each of 35 counties enter a > qualifying round from which the leading eight proceed to a final. The > standard, then, would be described as "expert" in English terms. > > One of our players was a trifle mystified by the actions of his partner > on a particular deal. He asked, among other things, why partner had not > redoubled during the auction. The answer was swift: "I did not see the > double. How could I expect anyone to double? What did he have, anyway?" > [grabs hand records] "He doubled with that? Ridiculous!" (Lest anyone > should pick up on a particular phraseology here, it was not I). > > Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's > double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more of: > > Normal > Careless > Inferior > Irrational > Now what do you want to know this one for? The only place I can see the word "normal" in the laws is in the ruling on claims. What has the seeing of a bidding card got to do with claims. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 17 15:48:22 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:48:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw Message-ID: <5728173.1045496902972.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: >Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more of: > > Normal > > Careless > > Inferior > > Irrational > Now what do you want to know this one for? The only place I can see the word "normal" in the laws is in the ruling on claims. What has the seeing of a bidding card got to do with claims. I do not know. Perhaps everything, perhaps nothing. I am merely trying at the moment to establish some sense of the way in which the terms above are thought of within a bridge context (since it is clearly useless to apply their English meanings). But there is no compulsion to answer the question; equally, there is no danger in so doing - it is not a trick, or a trap, just a question that might help me with an idea or two. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 17 16:06:31 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:06:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <001701c2d690$bb0cfb20$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c2d62c$d9625340$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20030217140616.00a8d170@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030217165812.00a8fb80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:27 17/02/2003 +0100, you wrote: >Alan: Please don't waste time by getting off the wrong track. >You seem to assume that the agreement is support double >(as indeed it was intended), but the message clearly >identifies the agreement as being double for penalty above >the two-level. So did also TD establish. Thus you should >rule according to misbid, not according to misinformation. AG : sorry, but this not so easy. One thing is sure. East's hand is strong evidence that in his mind, the double was fit-showing. As his partner didn't alert (and apparently he had to), East has got some UI (was reminded of his sytem and knew West had long hearts). Thus, as said before, his 4H bid is subject to scrutiny. However, I should also say that in my view it requires strong evidence to rule misbid rather than MI. I n this case, I don't quite agree with the fact that the mention of takeout doubles up to 2S or whatever indicates that the double in 3C was for penalties. It could have been of some third kind, ie transferable values. I play Sputnik doubles up to 4D, but my doubles of 4M don't show a trump stack. My partner recently doubled after 1C 2H 3D 4H with AKxx - xxx - xx - Axxx. Thus, you see, the double could well be non-pure-penalties, and there could well still be MI. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 17 16:08:03 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:08:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <002001c2d692$4d301040$0a646464@siri> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030217140616.00a8d170@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030217170657.00a96520@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:37 17/02/2003 +0100, Tommy Sandsmark wrote: >Alain takes it for granted that there was UI or at least that there had been >a double out of tempo. AG : Tommy wrote that there was no hesitation before the double, which came over a skip bid. Isn't that a break of tempo ? >Unfortunately, this is not the case. The double was in tempo, and West's >explanation of the double was correct, so there has been a wrong bid and a >right explanation. From jurgenr@t-online.de Mon Feb 17 16:19:39 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:19:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw Message-ID: David Burn: >>> Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more >>>of: >>> Normal >>> Careless >>> Inferior >>> Irrational JR: >> Normal or inferior? >> In terms of which measure? Relative to which reference point? >> The standard of play is not the same in Old England and New England. >> Careless or irrational? >> We are to ascertain the state of mind of a person, whom - in general and in this instance - we do not know, and whose >> identity a fair TD and an impartial AC must not take into account? DB: > [...] Try imagining that you did it yourself. How would you classify your own action? ===================================== Any of the 4 characterizations is conceivable and some others as well. However, there is no reason why my state of mind or my playing ability should be relevant: An *oversight* has occurred, an error comparable to a misbid. It is not the TD's business to determine whether, and to what extent, I am sane, blind, deaf or dumb, nor what I think I might have bid had I seen RHO's bidding card. The TD should determine whether, not why, an infraction has occurred. Jürgen From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 17 16:23:17 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:23:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw In-Reply-To: <003a01c2d628$364c4840$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030217111518.00a42730@pop.starpower.net> At 08:59 PM 2/16/03, David wrote: >I have just returned from a tournament among (supposedly) the leading >players in England; teams representing each of 35 counties enter a >qualifying round from which the leading eight proceed to a final. The >standard, then, would be described as "expert" in English terms. > >One of our players was a trifle mystified by the actions of his partner >on a particular deal. He asked, among other things, why partner had not >redoubled during the auction. The answer was swift: "I did not see the >double. How could I expect anyone to double? What did he have, anyway?" >[grabs hand records] "He doubled with that? Ridiculous!" (Lest anyone >should pick up on a particular phraseology here, it was not I). > >Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's >double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more of: > >Normal >Careless >Inferior >Irrational It depends on context. In a factual context it is careless; we have evidence that this particular player didn't notice the double, and we could base a potential adjudication on the presumption that he didn't, since we have reason to believe that this is in fact the case. In an adjudicative context, however, it is irrational not to notice that which is lying face up in front of you on the table. We would not presume in making an adjudication, notwithstanding the "careless or inferior" standard, that a player who would have no logical alternative to a redouble of a presumed double of which he was aware would fail to notice it. Despite what some have argued in the context of discussions of the footnote to L69-71, the Law does not presume that because one is an expert one cannot play irrationally. Nevertheless, when we adjudicate adjusted scores, we assume that one will not do so, expert or not. 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 Feb 17 16:23:18 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:23:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: <1718362.1045493864508.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <004b01c2d6a0$e1ec5af0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: To: Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim by Kleinman > Sven wrote: > > > OK, so let me cross the zeroes and dot the I-s: > > Gosh. Is that what they say in Norway? No, in Norway we say: "Let me give it in to you with teaspoons", but when writing English I try to use English (actually American in this case) sayings. > > > Law 61 explicitly allows attempts in the form of questions to avoid revokes before they are established (subject to certain specified limitations) > > Law 42B1 explicitly allows dummy the equivalent option. > > Law 42B2 explicitly allows dummy to try preventing irregularities by declarer. > > > All these three laws implement certain exempts from Law 73 on what is legal communication between partners. > > > But there is every need to search for a law limiting the extent to which a player may execute his rights under any of the laws L61, L42B1 and L42B2. At present I (for one) am unable to find any such limiting law. > > You are not seeing the wood for the trees. Law 61 is self-limiting. > > "[X] may ask [Y] who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led" > > means what it says; it means that the only permitted question is "do you have a card of the suit led?" You may not enquire about your partner's state of mind ("are you sure that you do not have a card of the suit led?") or about anything else ("at how many hearts have you looked to ensure that each of them is not a diamond?"). You may not use the question in order to communicate anything to partner. I have always agreed this is how Law 61 ought to be understood, but as I also said I am not convinced that is what Law 61 really says. > > Nor, of course, may you ask the question more than once, for your partner (and the opponents) will get fed up with you if you do, and you will be in breach of Law 74A2. Moreover, if you ask a question, receive an answer, and then ask the identical question again, you are obviously in breach of Law 74B1. > > The same is obviously true of Law 42B1. The issue is irrelevant as far as 42B2 is concerned (this is another cock-up in the rules, but the fact is that although dummy may attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer, he may not do so by communicating with declarer, for Law 73 says so and Law 42B2 does not override Law 73). Just please explain to me how dummy can attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer without somehow communicating with him? Sven From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Mon Feb 17 16:31:16 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:31:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw In-Reply-To: References: <003a01c2d628$364c4840$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030217112631.028f4660@mail.fscv.net> At 05:14 AM 17/02/2003, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Irrational - definitely, both the laws and common sense require us to >pay attention. What reason could there be for not doing so? Carelessness, perhaps? Walt From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Mon Feb 17 16:43:37 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:43:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Divided by a common language In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030217111736.00a27080@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030217114144.0296bb60@mail.fscv.net> >>At 09:11 17/02/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >>>Australian English speakers are more old- >>>fashioned, retaining the specific distinction >>>between a singular trump, and plural trumps. >>>Australians use the claim formula, "drawing >>>trumps." Australians play the contract of >>>Three No Trumps. >On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 10:18 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>AG : interesting. But the second part is strange. If there is no trump, >>the plural form shouldn't be used. At 06:13 AM 17/02/2003, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >We would not say "there is no trump". >What are trumps? There are no trumps. Perhaps it is better to say "There is no trump suit." Walt From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Mon Feb 17 16:43:37 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:43:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Divided by a common language In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030217111736.00a27080@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030217114144.0296bb60@mail.fscv.net> >>At 09:11 17/02/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >>>Australian English speakers are more old- >>>fashioned, retaining the specific distinction >>>between a singular trump, and plural trumps. >>>Australians use the claim formula, "drawing >>>trumps." Australians play the contract of >>>Three No Trumps. >On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 10:18 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>AG : interesting. But the second part is strange. If there is no trump, >>the plural form shouldn't be used. At 06:13 AM 17/02/2003, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >We would not say "there is no trump". >What are trumps? There are no trumps. Perhaps it is better to say "There is no trump suit." Walt From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Feb 17 16:35:22 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:35:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <002001c2d692$4d301040$0a646464@siri> Message-ID: <005f01c2d6a5$04612b20$73fef1c3@LNV> Tommy wrote: > Alain takes it for granted that there was UI or at least that there had been > a double out of tempo. > > Unfortunately, this is not the case. The double was in tempo, and West's > explanation of the double was correct, so there has been a wrong bid and a > right explanation. > > Tommy It is the privilige of a AC to draw its own conclusions about doubles being in tempo, wrong or right explanations, aso. But it is my opinion that AC should make decisions within the framework described in the laws , though I know respected people who have other ideas on this matter. And deciding that west is not allowed to bid 3hearts is horrible, ridiculous and all other qualifications of non-performance some others in this group are better equiped to use than I am. I am afraid that explaining why doesn't help anything. This decision demonstrates a lack of knowledge for which explanations are a waste of time. (this all said based on the information you gave us) Try to survive, ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Feb 17 16:52:05 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:52:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> <3E4CEC7B.8020406@skynet.be> <001501c2d615$31c7cc30$4632e150@endicott> <000801c2d61c$f6b6d200$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <006001c2d6a5$04be6650$73fef1c3@LNV> > I am aware that this is not compatible with Ton's view that claimers > should make the tricks they would have made if they played on. But – > well, here is a story that may provide a momentary diversion. > > The other day at the club, a declarer claimed against me (South) in this > position: > > None > 3 > 872 > K105 > None None > None J10 > AKQJ6 43 > 42 QJ7 > 7 > Q5 > 1095 > 63 > > Spades were trumps; declarer, not knowing about my spade, announced that > he would cash his diamonds and concede the last two tricks. I objected, > saying that I would ruff the fourth diamond. Dutiful souls that we were, > the director was summoned. He ruled that I would indeed ruff the fourth > diamond, but we would then have to give dummy either a heart or a club > at the finish, so the defence would make three tricks. > > Make up your minds about this decision before reading on. > > At the time, the board was scored as three tricks to the defence – down > one. It was not until three boards later that I realised - dummy would > be squeezed when I ruffed the fourth round of diamonds. Now then: > > Just how good are directors at deciding how many tricks declarer would > have made had he played the hand out? Directors should not try to outclass good level players in deciding the number of tricks in a contested claim. So normally he proposes something and waits for (dis)approval, being quite surprised when there is no 'dis' . He mumbles ''OK, your problem'' and walks to the next case, hoping for more opposition there. > > And, more importantly – what are the rules regarding a player's right to > reclaim a trick that he has conceded to the director? > yes, we know the players so we provided a safety net with L 92B: you will be offered an extra trick without even bothering an AC. It is all equity sir, all equity. ton > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 17 17:05:59 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:05:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] claims forever Message-ID: <7350083.1045501559531.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Ton wrote: > It is all equity sir, all equity. But it isn't. I get four tricks from a misclaim because I am a better player than the tournament director, while someone else who has exactly the same misclaim made against him gets three tricks because he is not? Where is the equity in that? David Burn London, England From jrhind@therock.bm Mon Feb 17 17:16:19 2003 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:16:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <001e01c2d66f$c9011340$0a646464@siri> Message-ID: I agree that this is a horrible ruling and I do not understand why all players at the table were not informed as to the basis that the TD used to make the ruling that he/she made. I have a couple of questions regarding the events that took place here: 1. Was there a chief TD who could have reviewed this ruling prior to an AC? 2. What laws did the TD use to arrive at a ruling? 3. Did the AC inquire of the TD what laws were used in his/her ruling? Regards, Jack On 2/17/03 6:31 AM, "Tommy Sandsmark" wrote: > Dear friends, >=20 > I am sorry to say that I have not participated actively in the discussion= s, > even though I have read (with interest) most of the arguments forwarded > here. >=20 > I would like to submit a TD decision (and subsequently an appeals committ= ee > decision) which has more than upset me. I am probably going to write some > lines about this problem in the NBF Bulletin, and would like to hear what > you think and what you would rule. This is the West hand: >=20 > East dealer, EW vulnerable. Teams. No screens. >=20 > West > Q 8 3 > K J T 9 8 7 4 > Q 9 > K >=20 > West North East South > 1D pass > 1H 3C x (*) pass > 3H pass 4H pass > pass pass >=20 > (*) No hesitation, and no alert from West. >=20 > West lost 2 tricks and South called the TD, maintaining that =B3if he had > known that East=B9s double was not a penalty double, he would have sacrific= ed > in 5C=B2. The TD found out that East had believed the double to be a suppor= t > double. West did not agree - his opinion was that the double was for > penalty. The TD ascertained, that the E/W convention card stated that > support doubles were only applied on the two-level. Thus, West=B9s explanat= ion > of the double (no alert) was found to be correct. Thereafter the TD rule= d > that the contract was to be 5Cx down 1. E/W appealed. >=20 > So far, no good. Out of the fog, the AC returned with the verdict that mo= st > good players would pass 3Cx on the West hand, and consequently, this was = a > logical alternative and 3Cx with 10 tricks was ruled to be the final resu= lt. >=20 > When I inquired into the matter, the chairman of the AC said that they ha= d > had great problems with this hand because they regarded it a hand where p= oor > judgement from West led to a surprisingly good result, and this could not= be > accepted. He later maintained that 4H from West would have been acceptabl= e > but not 3H(!) >=20 > Am I totally out of bounds here or are both of these rulings just horribl= e? > I have a lot of questions, but evidently not the ones posed by the TD/AC. >=20 > a) What would you rule and why? > b) If you support the decisions made by the TD and/or the AC, please give= me > the law reference allowing this kind of ruling. > c) If West has done nothing wrong, how can he be ruled against and how ca= n > he be forced to make the very wrong bid of passing 3Cx? > d) Do you think that passing 3Cx is an obvious bid for West? > e) Can pass to partner=B9s double of 3C be regarded =B3a logical alternative=B2= ? > f) Can the term =B3logical alternative=B2 be used as to limiting West=B9s actio= n > after the double? > g) Would in your opinion 4H be acceptable for West to bid, while 3H shoul= d > be barred? > h) Should East be allowed to bid 4H? > i) Isn=B9t it East=B9s action when bidding 4H that should be scrutinized in t= he > light of =B3logical alternatives=B2? > j) Wouldn=B9t pass be a logical alternative for him since he had heard no > alert from his partner when he doubled 3C? > k) Can South see from the club holding in his hand that Easts double can > hardly be for penalty? > l) When South did not bid 5C, could the calling of the TD and South=B9s > subsequent argumentation be regarded as an effort to get it both ways; > either 4H is down, or N/S will be able to rely upon the TD and/or the AC = to > rebid South=B9s hand in a better way than South did himself at the table? >=20 > The lay-out looked like this: >=20 > E/EW vul. J T 9 7 6 > Q > - > A J T 7 6 4 2 > Q 8 3 A 5 > K J T 9 8 7 4 A 5 2 > Q 9 A J T 6 5 3 > K 5 3 > K 4 3 > 6 3 > K 8 7 4 2 > Q 9 8 >=20 > I hope you will give this hand some of your time, and am looking very muc= h > forward to reading your argumentation. >=20 > Yours (most) friendly, > Tommy Sandsmark >=20 > www.xbridge.no Bridge & Kryss/Bridgens Bokklubb= , > Tommy Sandsmark, Bygd=F8y All=E9 73 B, 0268 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: 00-47-22 43 = 02 > 14. Fax: 00-47-22 43 42 99. E-Mail: xbridge@online.no. Have a nice day! > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Feb 17 17:18:53 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:18:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] claims forever Message-ID: <200302171718.MAA01235@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Ton Kooijman" > Declarer has 10 trumps altogether, missing K74. Dummy has 4 small ones. > Declarer plays 6 spades. Side suits are irrelevant. Declarer plays a small > trump from dummy, gets the 7 from RHO and inserts the Q, LHO following with > the 4. Declarer now shows his hand without saying anything. > Anybody suggesting to award only 12 tricks to declarer? While I wouldn't condone such a ruling, you might well see it in the ACBL. Just a warning to potential visitors. > Let us assume a TD watching this table. Anybody suggesting he should warn > declarer to make clear statements next time? I wouldn't expect a warning if the opponents don't complain. However, if the opponents are BL's, and an ACBL TD is called, I would expect him advise declarer to make claim statements in the future. > From: dalburn@btopenworld.com > Again, if you are declarer ... with S3 and HA as your last two cards ... > In six spades, however, it is irrational not to play the ace of > hearts; this cannot cost the contract, and may be necessary if an > opponent has the four of spades left. (The ace of hearts could cost the > contract if there are actually two trumps outstanding, of course.) It took me awhile to figure this out, but David means if the trumps are split, and the opponent with the high one has a heart remaining, but the opponent with the low one does not. I was confused because most examples have assumed that a defender with a trump has a winner to cash. > It follows from this (and a host of similar examples that I could > construct if required) that the creation of a general principle to > determine whether trumps should be deemed "played" first or last > depending on how high they are is doomed to failure. I'm not so sure. How about "trumps first if specifically a sequence starting with the ace, but otherwise trumps (or the rest of the trumps) last?" However, I personally would prefer the simpler rule "trumps always last," and I could certainly live with the rule "trumps at the least favorable time." This will not always give equity, but at least most TD's will be able to give a correct ruling. As David's squeeze example shows us, though, any rule requiring analysis is going to lead to mistaken rulings at least some of the time. In general, it's probably useful for TD's to "play out" the deal at the table. At least that will reveal when somebody has a discarding problem. But no rule is ever going to produce either perfect rulings or perfect equity. What is needed is a compromise that will work most of the time. To me, that implies something much closer to mechanical rulings than we now have, but with some allowance for difficulties in the expression of the claim statement. (See below.) I hope the next version of the Laws will give us something better than we have now. > >A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as > >to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence > >through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : this Law is good. It is understandable. It is clever. And it countains > the word "should", which means that when it isn't done, we need another Law > or Laws to tell us how to extricate ourselves from the mess caused by the > flawed claims. I agree completely. > I pretend that there are two kinds of flawed claims : a) > You don't specifically say that you'll > play the 2nd round, but that's obvious to everyone. b) > Or you pull the cards > in your hand in the order in which you will play them, without saying any > word. These are not similar at all. The second is a perfectly valid claim statement. Nothing says a claim statement has to be oral. In the first, there is no claim statement at all. That, as Alain points out, is an infraction. In general, though, I agree with Alain: the fundamental issue is to decide between a flawed claim and a flawed claim statement. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 17 17:45:15 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:45:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] establishment Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030217182948.00a95ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, I have a feeling that the following subject was handled not long ago, but forgot to keep the relevant messages. So if somebody can tell me what the conclusion was ... Declarer plays 3H and has an one more, unescapable, loser : the now master H10. Declarer plays a plain suit from dummy, and my partner ruffs. Now declarer tables his hand and everybody sees that he's right. But now it transpires that partner has revoked by ruffing. He hadn't the opportunity to correct the revoke before he led to the next trick, because there was no next trick. If he had corrected it, the unescapable trick would be his (the PC penalty doesn't matter here). If the revoke was established, 3H would have made +1. I guess that the revoke is not established (else, a cute declarer could table to establish the revoke - not this one, you know), but can't find the right argumentation. Could somebody help me ? Best regards, Alain. PS : what did the TD do ? There was no TD. And it was not very important, as it was a last-round match where we needed to win the round-robin more than we got and the opponents needed to keep their place less than they got, whatever the decision on this deal. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 17 17:51:27 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:51:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever In-Reply-To: <200302171718.MAA01235@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030217184850.024bcec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:18 17/02/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >AG : b) > Or you pull the cards > > in your hand in the order in which you will play them, without saying= any > > word. > >SW : This is a perfectly valid claim statement. Nothing says a claim=20 >statement has to be oral. AG : if this is agreed upon, that's one more place where the French=20 translation should be rewritten, because the word 'expos=E9' used to=20 translate 'statement' excludes gestures. 'explication' could do the trick. Best regards, Alain. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Feb 17 17:24:13 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:24:13 -0800 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: Message-ID: <001701c2d6aa$b7354060$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" > > Surely we are better off just scrapping the Zonal option. > Amen to that. Many players are asking selectively, only when the out-show surprises. That is telling partner that one has fewer of the suit than s/he might expect, and hence declarer has more. However, if the option is bad for duplicate bridge, it is bad for rubber bridge also, and the rubber bridge laws (which permit questions by anyone except dummy) should be changed to agree. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 17 17:39:35 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:39:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman Message-ID: <2156974.1045503575998.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Sven wrote: >> "[X] may ask [Y] who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led" >>means what it says; it means that the only permitted question is "do you have a card of the suit led?" You may not enquire about your partner's state of mind ("are you sure that you do not have a card of the suit led?") or about anything else ("at how many hearts have you looked to ensure that each of them is not a diamond?"). You may not use the question in order to communicate anything to partner. >I have always agreed this is how Law 61 ought to be understood, but as I also said I am not convinced that is what Law 61 really says. Oh, well. It does not sound as though we disagree with one another all that strongly. I am firmly convinced that a rule which says: "X may ask whether Z is true" permits only the question by X: "Is Z true?". Other laws prevent X from asking this question more than once, having received an answer. > Just please explain to me how dummy can attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer without somehow communicating with him? He can't. But that's not our problem. It's the problem of the people who wrote a rule saying "You may not communicate other than by means of P", and then wrote some other rules allowing things to happen requiring communication that is not by means of P. Of course, the whole thing can be remedied very easily. Someone will probably put "Except where otherwise authorised..." into Law 73, thus ruining one of about three sensible Laws in the book. What they ought to do, of course, is to put stuff in Laws 42 and 61 to the effect that players can do certain things (and what they are), but if players do anything else, this may break Law 73. More detail needs to be available on what you can and can't physically do; the laws of bridge presently authorise murder, since 42B permits me to shoot my partner for being about to turn a trick the wrong way. David Burn London, England From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Feb 17 17:44:17 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:44:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] Divided by a common language References: Message-ID: <001801c2d6ac$32f79300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: "BLML" Gordon, why put blml in the Cc line?? > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > At 09:11 17/02/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >> Australian English speakers are more old- > >> fashioned, retaining the specific distinction > >> between a singular trump, and plural trumps. > >> Australians use the claim formula, "drawing > >> trumps." Australians play the contract of > >> Three No Trumps. > > > > AG : interesting. But the second part is strange. If there is no > > trump, the plural form shouldn't be used. > > > > We would not say "there is no trump". > What are trumps? There are no trumps. > Around here we say, "What's trump?" "We're playing notrump." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 17 18:25:09 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:25:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <001e01c2d66f$c9011340$0a646464@siri> References: <000001c2d62c$d9625340$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030217123830.00a42b40@pop.starpower.net> At 05:31 AM 2/17/03, Tommy wrote: >I would like to submit a TD decision (and subsequently an appeals >committee >decision) which has more than upset me. I am probably going to write some >lines about this problem in the NBF Bulletin, and would like to hear what >you think and what you would rule. This is the West hand: > >East dealer, EW vulnerable. Teams. No screens. > > West > Q 8 3 > K J T 9 8 7 4 > Q 9 > K > > West North East South > 1D pass > 1H 3C x (*) pass > 3H pass 4H pass > pass pass > >(*) No hesitation, and no alert from West. > >West lost 2 tricks and South called the TD, maintaining that "if he had >known that East's double was not a penalty double, he would have >sacrificed >in 5C". The TD found out that East had believed the double to be a support >double. West did not agree - his opinion was that the double was for >penalty. The TD ascertained, that the E/W convention card stated that >support doubles were only applied on the two-level. Thus, West's >explanation >of the double (no alert) was found to be correct. Thereafter the TD ruled >that the contract was to be 5Cx down 1. E/W appealed. > >So far, no good. Out of the fog, the AC returned with the verdict that >most >good players would pass 3Cx on the West hand, and consequently, this was a >logical alternative and 3Cx with 10 tricks was ruled to be the final >result. > >When I inquired into the matter, the chairman of the AC said that they had >had great problems with this hand because they regarded it a hand >where poor >judgement from West led to a surprisingly good result, and this could >not be >accepted. He later maintained that 4H from West would have been acceptable >but not 3H(!) > >Am I totally out of bounds here or are both of these rulings just >horrible? >I have a lot of questions, but evidently not the ones posed by the TD/AC. > >a) What would you rule and why? Certainly not as either the TD or AC did. Both were ruling on MI issues, and I don't see any MI. West's non-alert indicated that the double was systemically for penalties, it was, and nothing in West's actions suggested that he might have acted as though it were anything else. As TD, though, I'd have wanted to look into the UI issue. West's non-alert could have told East that West was pulling what he thought was a penalty double, which, in turn, might have made East's 4H bid more attractive (he can infer that West has long hearts and short clubs), so I might consider adjusting the result to 3H+2. As an AC member, I would vote to let the score stand, since the UI issue was not, apparently, raised before the committee. It is my view that an AC's job is not to rule on the entire deal, but to rule on the appeal brought before them. (That is a personal view, and clearly far from universal in practice.) >b) If you support the decisions made by the TD and/or the AC, please >give me >the law reference allowing this kind of ruling. I do not, and see no justification for adjusting the result to one that presumes that N-S would have played in any number of clubs. >c) If West has done nothing wrong, how can he be ruled against and how can >he be forced to make the very wrong bid of passing 3Cx? I don't believe West has committed any infraction; he is unconstrained, and should not be "forced" (i.e. presumed for purposes of adjudicating the result) to do anything other than the actions he actually took at the table. >d) Do you think that passing 3Cx is an obvious bid for West? No. >e) Can pass to partner's double of 3C be regarded "a logical alternative"? Yes, certainly. But that has no bearing on this deal. >f) Can the term "logical alternative" be used as to limiting West's action >after the double? No. "Logical alternatives" are critical to determining whether a player has taken an action that might have been suggested by UI. Here West had no UI, so he was neither subject to nor limited by L16. Even if we were to find UI here, it would be East who would be constrained (which is why, as TD, I might want to take a second look at 4H), and East's logical alternatives that might matter. >g) Would in your opinion 4H be acceptable for West to bid, while 3H should >be barred? West, as explained above, was under no constraint at that point, and it would have been "acceptable" for him to bid as he chose, 3H, 4H, or anything else. >h) Should East be allowed to bid 4H? I don't know; the answer would require me to learn more than what we are told here, based on which it appears that the UI issue was never addressed. But it should have been, by the TD. >i) Isn't it East's action when bidding 4H that should be scrutinized >in the >light of "logical alternatives"? Yes. >j) Wouldn't pass be a logical alternative for him since he had heard no >alert from his partner when he doubled 3C? It looks like it might be -- that's what the TD should have tried to ascertain. >k) Can South see from the club holding in his hand that Easts double can >hardly be for penalty? No, but it doesn't matter in any case. Perhaps South could infer that East doesn't hold a classic penalty double, but that doesn't mean that West didn't intend his double to be interpreted as for penalty, which is certainly not impossible from South's hand. >l) When South did not bid 5C, could the calling of the TD and South's >subsequent argumentation be regarded as an effort to get it both ways; >either 4H is down, or N/S will be able to rely upon the TD and/or the >AC to >rebid South's hand in a better way than South did himself at the table? I don't see it. South has no reason to think he is likely to get a favorable adjustment from the TD or AC if 4H makes, even though that apparently happened. Any BL worth the title would realize that he cannot count on redress for having been given misinformation when he was not given misinformation. He couldn't possibly have believed that he was entitled to know that East made a penalty double of a contract that was making overtricks. More likely he just thought, what the hell, they committed some kind of infraction, maybe he could get something out of it. >The lay-out looked like this: > >E/EW vul. J T 9 7 6 > Q > - > A J T 7 6 4 2 > Q 8 3 A 5 > K J T 9 8 7 4 A 5 2 > Q 9 A J T 6 5 3 > K 5 3 > K 4 3 > 6 3 > K 8 7 4 2 > Q 9 8 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 Feb 17 18:35:09 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:35:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] establishment Message-ID: <200302171835.NAA01434@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Declarer plays 3H and has an one more, unescapable, loser : the now master H10. > Declarer plays a plain suit from dummy, and [a defender] ruffs. [revoke] > Now declarer tables his hand ... I don't think we ever discussed this exact case, but we did discuss what happens if declarer claims _because of_ the revoke (say, thinking no more trumps are out when both defenders fail to follow). There is even a WBFLC minute on the subject, which should be generally applicable. (Possibly from Lille, but Maastricht would be my second guess.) In all that discussion, I don't believe anyone ever said that declarer's claim by itself establishes a defender's revoke. I don't have the minute handy, but I think it agrees. However, if _either_ defender acquiesces in the claim, the revoke is established (L63A3). From adam@irvine.com Mon Feb 17 19:30:38 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:30:38 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:51:59 GMT." <003301c2d68b$bdc863e0$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> Message-ID: <200302171930.LAA01860@mailhub.irvine.com> Mike Amos wrote: > So we must ask West if he thought his partner had a > penalty double why he bid 3H -- it does look a little odd even to my > poor bridge-brain - surely if we are going to pull 4H seems much > much more likely - the issues are of disclosure and a possible CPU - IMHO, when vul. vs. not at IMPs, it's a tough decision whether to pass for penalties or try for your own game. +620 does beat +300 by a fair number of IMPs. I think passing would be a lot clearer at any other vulnerability. It may seem odd for West to bid 3H instead of 4H. However, I think it would be even odder if the double were a support double---with a seven-bagger, partner showing three-card support, and at this vulnerability at IMPs, settling for 3H would be atrocious. It would take me about 2 nanoseconds to pull out the 4H card after South's pass. (Actually, that's not true, since I would be thinking about whether there's a good way to explore for slam. But then again, I think about that on practically every hand. :-) So if I understand the argument correctly, that West's bid of 3H as opposed to 4H suggests that West was acting on UI---I think this is backwards. To me, West's bid of 3H instead of 4H indicates that West really did interpret the double as penalties. -- Adam From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Feb 17 19:37:02 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:37:02 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: ACBL Land In-Reply-To: <3E4F86B2.2417.7487E0@localhost> References: <3E4F86B2.2417.7487E0@localhost> Message-ID: Stefan wrote: >Hi, > >On 15 Feb 2003 at 12:00, blml-request@rtflb.org wrote: > >> We are lucky >> that the Americans have not yet come up with a derogatory name for us >> so they can show that they feel the same way (ie that they presume >> their way is better). > >Well their task is much more difficult, suppose one could not address >ACBL but had to address Alabama, Texas, Arkansas .... to know 51+ >different regulations, translations of laws etc etc > >Maybe, when needed, Kaima (sometimes I wonder about the deep need to >hide identity amongst people living in the country of free speech) >you will find a nice list of terms for instance at > >(Anti-Europeanism in America) >http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16059 > >or actual newspapers ;-) Maybe the better sources would be newspapers from the 1830's and 1840's when the Know-Nothing party was strong. (They were strongly antiforeign, and newspapers of the era weere far less polite in discussing politics than they are now.) We don't need any all-encompasing epithets for Europe or Europeans (whether or not Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic are included.) We've got a nice one or so for each individual variety. D***** Furriners covers the lot. Actually, ACBL-land includes USA, Bermuda. Canada, Mexico, as I recall was pointed out by Gratan (I think.) Not all of these are even halfway in support of immediate action against you-know-who. -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Feb 17 19:45:22 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:45:22 -0600 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw In-Reply-To: <003a01c2d628$364c4840$d09527d9@pbncomputer> References: <003a01c2d628$364c4840$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: >I have just returned from a tournament among (supposedly) the leading >players in England; teams representing each of 35 counties enter a >qualifying round from which the leading eight proceed to a final. The >standard, then, would be described as "expert" in English terms. > >One of our players was a trifle mystified by the actions of his partner >on a particular deal. He asked, among other things, why partner had not >redoubled during the auction. The answer was swift: "I did not see the >double. How could I expect anyone to double? What did he have, anyway?" >[grabs hand records] "He doubled with that? Ridiculous!" (Lest anyone >should pick up on a particular phraseology here, it was not I). > >Please classify the action of a player who does not see an opponent's >double (bidding boxes are in use) as one or more of: > >Normal >Careless >Inferior >Irrational > >David Burn >London, England I'd describe myself as one of the trailing players in the ACBL, and when I don't notice a bidding card (or a played card,) I think I have been careless, not irrational. Maybe I should try out irrational on my partners and see whether they will accept that I did not fail to see the card because that would be irrational. Is this leading up to claims again? I think an incomplete claim statement is careless in itself. Also annoying, as it may make work for the Director, a Committee, and lead to a vast number of emails to BLML. All faulty claims should be heavily penalized under Law 90B7. That'll show 'em! -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From xbridge@online.no Mon Feb 17 20:13:52 2003 From: xbridge@online.no (Tommy Sandsmark) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:13:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2d6c1$880c12c0$0a646464@siri> www.xbridge.no Bridge & Kryss/Bridgens Bokklubb, Tommy Sandsmark, Bygdøy Allé 73 B, 0268 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: 00-47-22 43 02 14. Fax: 00-47-22 43 42 99. E-Mail: xbridge@online.no. Have a nice day! -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Jack A. Rhind Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 6:16 PM To: Tommy Sandsmark; 'bridge laws mailing list' Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? I agree that this is a horrible ruling and I do not understand why all players at the table were not informed as to the basis that the TD used to make the ruling that he/she made. I have a couple of questions regarding the events that took place here: 1. Was there a chief TD who could have reviewed this ruling prior to an AC? No, this was a national series with only one TD present. 2. What laws did the TD use to arrive at a ruling? He didn't say! 3. Did the AC inquire of the TD what laws were used in his/her ruling? No, they did not, and they have also failed to mention any laws when ruling 3Cx 10 tricks. Tommy Regards, Jack On 2/17/03 6:31 AM, "Tommy Sandsmark" wrote: > Dear friends, > > I am sorry to say that I have not participated actively in the discussions, > even though I have read (with interest) most of the arguments forwarded > here. > > I would like to submit a TD decision (and subsequently an appeals committee > decision) which has more than upset me. I am probably going to write some > lines about this problem in the NBF Bulletin, and would like to hear what > you think and what you would rule. This is the West hand: > > East dealer, EW vulnerable. Teams. No screens. > > West > Q 8 3 > K J T 9 8 7 4 > Q 9 > K > > West North East South > 1D pass > 1H 3C x (*) pass > 3H pass 4H pass > pass pass > > (*) No hesitation, and no alert from West. > > West lost 2 tricks and South called the TD, maintaining that ³if he had > known that East¹s double was not a penalty double, he would have sacrificed > in 5C². The TD found out that East had believed the double to be a support > double. West did not agree - his opinion was that the double was for > penalty. The TD ascertained, that the E/W convention card stated that > support doubles were only applied on the two-level. Thus, West¹s explanation > of the double (no alert) was found to be correct. Thereafter the TD ruled > that the contract was to be 5Cx down 1. E/W appealed. > > So far, no good. Out of the fog, the AC returned with the verdict that most > good players would pass 3Cx on the West hand, and consequently, this was a > logical alternative and 3Cx with 10 tricks was ruled to be the final result. > > When I inquired into the matter, the chairman of the AC said that they had > had great problems with this hand because they regarded it a hand where poor > judgement from West led to a surprisingly good result, and this could not be > accepted. He later maintained that 4H from West would have been acceptable > but not 3H(!) > > Am I totally out of bounds here or are both of these rulings just horrible? > I have a lot of questions, but evidently not the ones posed by the TD/AC. > > a) What would you rule and why? > b) If you support the decisions made by the TD and/or the AC, please give me > the law reference allowing this kind of ruling. > c) If West has done nothing wrong, how can he be ruled against and how can > he be forced to make the very wrong bid of passing 3Cx? > d) Do you think that passing 3Cx is an obvious bid for West? > e) Can pass to partner¹s double of 3C be regarded ³a logical alternative²? > f) Can the term ³logical alternative² be used as to limiting West¹s action > after the double? > g) Would in your opinion 4H be acceptable for West to bid, while 3H should > be barred? > h) Should East be allowed to bid 4H? > i) Isn¹t it East¹s action when bidding 4H that should be scrutinized in the > light of ³logical alternatives²? > j) Wouldn¹t pass be a logical alternative for him since he had heard no > alert from his partner when he doubled 3C? > k) Can South see from the club holding in his hand that Easts double can > hardly be for penalty? > l) When South did not bid 5C, could the calling of the TD and South¹s > subsequent argumentation be regarded as an effort to get it both ways; > either 4H is down, or N/S will be able to rely upon the TD and/or the AC to > rebid South¹s hand in a better way than South did himself at the table? > > The lay-out looked like this: > > E/EW vul. J T 9 7 6 > Q > - > A J T 7 6 4 2 > Q 8 3 A 5 > K J T 9 8 7 4 A 5 2 > Q 9 A J T 6 5 3 > K 5 3 > K 4 3 > 6 3 > K 8 7 4 2 > Q 9 8 > > I hope you will give this hand some of your time, and am looking very much > forward to reading your argumentation. > > Yours (most) friendly, > Tommy Sandsmark > > www.xbridge.no Bridge & Kryss/Bridgens Bokklubb, > Tommy Sandsmark, Bygdøy Allé 73 B, 0268 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: 00-47-22 43 02 > 14. Fax: 00-47-22 43 42 99. E-Mail: xbridge@online.no. Have a nice day! > _______________________________________________ > 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 xbridge@online.no Mon Feb 17 19:52:48 2003 From: xbridge@online.no (Tommy Sandsmark) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:52:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030217170657.00a96520@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c2d6c1$877020e0$0a646464@siri> No Alain, In Norway you say stop (or shop the stop bid) and the next guy has to wait for 10 seconds before he bids. When he then bids withour hesitation, the bid is ruled to be in tempo. I think you should assume that the facts I am giving you are the facts and not just something I say. Tommy www.xbridge.no Bridge & Kryss/Bridgens Bokklubb, Tommy Sandsmark, Bygdoy Alle 73 B, 0268 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: 00-47-22 43 02 14. Fax: 00-47-22 43 42 99. E-Mail: xbridge@online.no. Have a nice day! -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 5:08 PM To: 'bridge laws mailing list' Subject: RE: [blml] Horrible? At 15:37 17/02/2003 +0100, Tommy Sandsmark wrote: >Alain takes it for granted that there was UI or at least that there had been >a double out of tempo. AG : Tommy wrote that there was no hesitation before the double, which came over a skip bid. Isn't that a break of tempo ? >Unfortunately, this is not the case. The double was in tempo, and West's >explanation of the double was correct, so there has been a wrong bid and a >right explanation. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From xbridge@online.no Mon Feb 17 20:16:52 2003 From: xbridge@online.no (Tommy Sandsmark) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:16:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <005f01c2d6a5$04612b20$73fef1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000201c2d6c1$890cb9e0$0a646464@siri> Thank you, Ton! You put the matters straight. I couldn't have put it better myself! The point is, of course like Ton mentions, that since West has not received any UI (since a penalty double is non-alertable), nobody has the right to tell him what to bid next. When the AC rules in this manner, the E/W pair cannot react in any other way than feel accused of cheating. This verdict can only imply that the AC suspects someting foul is going on between East and West. That there are UI hidden in the stage set which has not surfaced, and in my opinion, this is a poor way of doing the job unless you have solid proof or previous knowledge about unfair play by the pair in question. Decisions like this one is one of the main reasons that drive good and honest players away from the bridge table. I am so happy that several of you see the point, and perhaps will the Norwegian Laws Committee learn a point or two from your remarks. I would welcome other points of view which could clarify for the AC what they have done. Does Kojac have an opinion? Tommy www.xbridge.no Bridge & Kryss/Bridgens Bokklubb, Tommy Sandsmark, Bygdøy Allé 73 B, 0268 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: 00-47-22 43 02 14. Fax: 00-47-22 43 42 99. E-Mail: xbridge@online.no. Have a nice day! -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Ton Kooijman Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 5:35 PM To: Tommy Sandsmark; 'Alain Gottcheiner'; 'bridge laws mailing list' Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? Tommy wrote: > Alain takes it for granted that there was UI or at least that there had been > a double out of tempo. > > Unfortunately, this is not the case. The double was in tempo, and West's > explanation of the double was correct, so there has been a wrong bid and a > right explanation. > > Tommy It is the privilige of a AC to draw its own conclusions about doubles being in tempo, wrong or right explanations, aso. But it is my opinion that AC should make decisions within the framework described in the laws , though I know respected people who have other ideas on this matter. And deciding that west is not allowed to bid 3hearts is horrible, ridiculous and all other qualifications of non-performance some others in this group are better equiped to use than I am. I am afraid that explaining why doesn't help anything. This decision demonstrates a lack of knowledge for which explanations are a waste of time. (this all said based on the information you gave us) Try to survive, ton _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Feb 17 21:48:32 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:48:32 -0600 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> <3E4CEC7B.8020406@skynet.be> <001501c2d615$31c7cc30$4632e150@endicott> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 17:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Taisez-vous! Mefiez-vous! Les oreilles > ennemies vous ecoutent." > - French poster, 1915. > ============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roger Pewick" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:18 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > > > > Well, declarer has proved that W holds two trumps > > once east shows out. When declarer says pull your > > last trump it can only mean pulling the two remaining > > trump [it literally means to pull trump until there are > > none outstanding]...irrespective of what he might > > have meant or believed at the time. > > > > regards > > roger pewick > > > +=+ Dictionary: 'trump' (noun) a playing card of > the trump suit. > I think you may be entering into an interpretative > area where you are insufficiently informed to go. In > committee it was established in Tenerife 41 that > claimer believed only one trump card remained > with opponent to be drawn. His words were > consistent with that and were intended to say that > precisely one round of the trump suit was to be > drawn. ~ G ~ +=+ I have been led to believe that the compelling reason for not playing it out after a claim is that claimer might gain an inference and benefit by it. It seems to me that claimer's subsequent assertion that he thought there was one outstanding trump could easily have been made after gaining inference from defender's question and realizing if he said 'two' his goose was cooked. The player is a sharp individual, no? Perhaps the ruling ignored : [a] declarer proved by play that two trumps were in the W hand [b] the language used was consistent with pulling trump until the opponents had no more (instead of explicit language naming one round of trump) [c] if claimer's command of the official language was substandard he knows that he has a self interest to compensate in order to communicate clearly Well, I may be insufficiently informed to make the same judgment as the AC but I have seen numerous people from all over the world that mix the [s] and [non-s] forms of trump in singular and plural uses. I do have difficulty in swallowing the statement of someone who believes there is one card out after he has proven there are two. regards roger pewick From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Feb 17 22:19:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:19 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030217112631.028f4660@mail.fscv.net> Message-ID: > At 05:14 AM 17/02/2003, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Irrational - definitely, both the laws and common sense require us > > > to > >pay attention. What reason could there be for not doing so? > > Carelessness, perhaps? When it comes down it to carelessness is always irrational Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Feb 17 22:19:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:19 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <1718362.1045493864508.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: > Sven wrote: > > > OK, so let me cross the zeroes and dot the I-s: > > Gosh. Is that what they say in Norway? > > > Law 61 explicitly allows attempts in the form of questions to avoid > > revokes before they are established (subject to certain specified > limitations) > > Law 42B1 explicitly allows dummy the equivalent option. > > Law 42B2 explicitly allows dummy to try preventing irregularities by > > declarer. > > > All these three laws implement certain exempts from Law 73 on what is > > legal communication between partners. > > > But there is every need to search for a law limiting the extent to > > which a player may execute his rights under any of the laws L61, > L42B1 and L42B2. At present I (for one) am unable to find any such > limiting law. > > You are not seeing the wood for the trees. Law 61 is self-limiting. > > "[X] may ask [Y] who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of > the suit led" > > means what it says; it means that the only permitted question is "do > you have a card of the suit led?" If that is what it means that is what it should say. If it is intended to forbid clarification of the initial enquiry it should say. Since it doesn't say it is perfectly reasonable to assume that follow-up questions are permitted. I really cannot understand why you consider the situation unambiguous. > You may not enquire about your > partner's state of mind ("are you sure that you do not have a card of > the suit led?") or about anything else ("at how many hearts have you > looked to ensure that each of them is not a diamond?"). You may not use > the question in order to communicate anything to partner. And back in the real world David. Playing rubber L61 is seldom really used as an inquiry. It is used to say "idiot, correct that revoke". It occasionally creates UI when people ask and partner really is void. I would guess that most players assume the purpose in asking the question is to communicate to partner that he should not revoke. > Nor, of course, may you ask the question more than once, for your > partner (and the opponents) will get fed up with you if you do, and you > will be in breach of Law 74A2. Moreover, if you ask a question, receive > an answer, and then ask the identical question again, you are obviously > in breach of Law 74B1. Rubbish. It is quite possible to ask the question courteously multiple times. > The same is obviously true of Law 42B1. The issue is irrelevant as far > as 42B2 is concerned (this is another cock-up in the rules, but the > fact is that although dummy may attempt to prevent an irregularity by > declarer, he may not do so by communicating with declarer, for Law 73 > says so and Law 42B2 does not override Law 73). This is meaningless David. Dummy can't try to stop declarer *without* communicating. Surely it is obvious even to you that the current laws permit communication from dummy to declarer where the purpose is preventing an irregularity. > This is really a fairly pointless argument. I think we are all aware > that Laws 42 and 61 are inconsistent with Law 73. I expect someone will > sort this out before long. One option would be to amend L73 to contain the phrase "except where elsewhere permitted/required by Law". A phrase which could be considered implicit in the existing laws. A second option would be to insert "of information about a player's current holding" after the first word of L73a1. This would formalise the understanding many players seem to have about other (non hand informative) communication during play. What about "good luck partner", what about "bless you" when partner sneezes? Do we *really* want a law that makes these things an offence? Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Feb 17 23:31:06 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:31:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman Message-ID: <4A256CD0.007F4F31.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Burn wrote: [snip] >As has been pointed out, there is a conflict >between Law 61B and Law 73A1 that ought to be >resolved (another consequence of putting the >Proprieties into the Laws without putting >brains into gear). This is not to say, however, >that Law 61 supersedes Law 73, any more than >Law 20F supersedes Law 73. Like David Burn, I believe that Law 73A1 is of fundamental importance, and Law 73A1 places limitations on Law 61B, Law 20F, and Law 66A. It would be best if the 2005 Lawbook specifically stated which Laws were fundamental where they overlapped. Otherwise players can continue to argue that exercising their rights under Law 66A allows them to exercise an exception to Law 73A1. >You may ask questions where the law says you may >ask questions. But you may not use questions as >a vehicle for giving partner information. This >is really so obvious that I am at a loss to >understand how there can be any doubt about it. My view is that it should be *more* obvious in 2005, so that any meretricious doubts are specifically removed. Noted? Best wishes Richard From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Feb 17 23:41:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:41 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <001701c2d6aa$b7354060$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > However, if the option is bad for duplicate bridge, it is bad for rubber > bridge also, and the rubber bridge laws (which permit questions by > anyone except dummy) should be changed to agree. I disagree. Rubber bridge is a gentleman's game where nobody wants to gain from a preventable revoke being established. Any UI is trivial 99% of the time and the players quite capable of handling it the other 1%. In 15 years of reasonably high stake rubber bridge I have never seen a L61 "enquiry" cause a problem. Duplicate is game for lawyers and other scoundrels and the laws should reflect that. Tim From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Feb 18 00:56:31 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:56:31 GMT Subject: [blml] A similar theme Message-ID: <3e5184bf.6dc9.0@esatclear.ie> [snip .... ] >First things first, ALL VUL at matchpoints, dealer holds >s JTxx >h AQxx >d AQJx >c T >playing 5 card majors, you open 1D and hear the auction >proceed 2C by LHO, pass by partner, 3C by RHO. >Do you double or do you pass? > >Of course, dealer's partner had the pregnant pause over 2C, >and so the TD has to make a ruling after it went double all pass. >The table result was +200 for the dealer defending 3C doubled >off one whereas if the dealer passes, it goes all pass for +100. > >My understanding of these situations is that if there is some >doubt, the TD should calculate an assigned score. For example, >if they feel that 30% of the player's peers would double and 70% >would not, the TD would assign a score of +130 (30% of +200 >and 70% of +100). +++ another case with a similar theme Teams Vul all Dealer S North S Jx H AK9x D AT7x C KT East S Ax H QJT7xx D K9xx C A South S Kxxx H 8x D J C Q98xxx East/West are an international pair. N/S are no slouchs. Bidding S W N E P P 1NT 2H 2NT(1) P 3C 3H P(2) P DBL(3) All Pass (1) Rubenshol transfer to clubs (2) Enquired as to E/W's system over 1NT. After getting reply (see below) took 2/3 seconds to pass. (3) Peno's Lead DJ, ducked to K. E/W called the TD and said N doubled on South's pause. The Td ruled 3H-2 not doubled. N/S appealed They made the following points - Being Vul and teams South had to have some values to compete to 3C's. Bidding on a long suit and nothing would be reckless. - N/S play an agressive style and regularly pre-empt with a 6 card minor, once again varying degrees of strength depending on Vul and scoring - (It was suggested by E/W that South may have had a long club suit and nothing for the 2NT transfer. N/S countered if south had such a hand South may well have pre-empted and that even if south decided not to do so .. "Making up" for his bid with no values at this stage would be much too risky and dangerous). - South asked West as to E/W's methods over 1NT and got the following reply "2C would show hearts and clubs". South expected more info and when none came, was about to enquire further, but decided that a double or 3S was just not justified on his passed hand at teams. West's incomplete and confusing explanation led in part to the pause. - South agreed to the 2/3 second pause after the explanation. - North felt that with 4 ironclad tricks not counting the CK and SJ plus a sound partner bidding at adverse vulnerability that the double was clearcut. Your call. - Just to jump the queue, As per the original post if we asked say 10 players what they would do, I feel on any given day you could get quite a spread of replies. I feel you will get a few doublers, a few passers and some which could go either way. I don't think E/W deserve to be let off for 200 and even though I like N/S's case I don't think they should allowed to gain the full 500 either. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Feb 18 02:07:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:07:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] All generalisations are false, including this one Message-ID: <4A256CD1.0009D2C1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "Claim by Kleinman", Tim wrote: >I disagree. Rubber bridge is a gentleman's >game where nobody wants to gain from a >preventable revoke being established. Any UI >is trivial 99% of the time and the players >quite capable of handling it the other 1%. >In 15 years of reasonably high stake rubber >bridge I have never seen a L61 "enquiry" >cause a problem. Duplicate is game for >lawyers and other scoundrels and the laws >should reflect that. There are no games which are intrinsically sportsmanlike, merely individual sportsmanlike players. At the Double Bay Rubber Bridge Club in Sydney, none of the regulars would be silly enough (gentlemanly?) to decline the penalty for an opponent's revoke. Best wishes Richard From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Feb 18 01:26:36 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:26:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <05B90E6E-42E0-11D7-B07E-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 11:41 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Duplicate is game for lawyers and other > scoundrels and the laws should reflect that. I wonder why it is that you seem to be playing so much duplicate these days, Tim? And even bothering to find out about the Laws. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 18 07:56:13 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:56:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> <3E4CEC7B.8020406@skynet.be> <001501c2d615$31c7cc30$4632e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3E51E71D.20901@skynet.be> Roger, you are twisting in circles here: Roger Pewick wrote: >> > > I have been led to believe that the compelling reason for not playing it > out after a claim is that claimer might gain an inference and benefit by > it. > > It seems to me that claimer's subsequent assertion that he thought there > was one outstanding trump could easily have been made after gaining > inference from defender's question and realizing if he said 'two' his > goose was cooked. The player is a sharp individual, no? > So you are saying that this player realized that there were two trumps out, but decided to answer one, because he somehow knew that a silly AC would rule "in his favour"; realizing at once that he would be compelled to play two rounds of trumps if he revealed he actually knew two were out? Sorry, Roger, but that is just too clever for me. > Perhaps the ruling ignored : > [a] declarer proved by play that two trumps were in the W hand Of course everyone knew there was another trump out. There are 13 of them, you know ? > [b] the language used was consistent with pulling trump until the > opponents had no more (instead of explicit language naming one round of > trump) No he did say that - no language problems there. > [c] if claimer's command of the official language was substandard he > knows that he has a self interest to compensate in order to communicate > clearly > He was a player who has played on the American professional circuit. > Well, I may be insufficiently informed to make the same judgment as the > AC but I have seen numerous people from all over the world that mix the > [s] and [non-s] forms of trump in singular and plural uses. I do have > difficulty in swallowing the statement of someone who believes there is > one card out after he has proven there are two. > I very much doubt if he would have claimed realizing that there were two trumps out. > 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 Tue Feb 18 07:58:09 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:58:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <7350083.1045501559531.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E51E791.1040902@skynet.be> Nowhere David, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Ton wrote: > > >>It is all equity sir, all equity. >> > > But it isn't. I get four tricks from a misclaim because I am a better player than the tournament director, while someone else who has exactly the same misclaim made against him gets three tricks because he is not? Where is the equity in that? > If you win only one more trick per deal than I do, there is no equity there. You are worth at least 1.5 tricks more than I am. Don't you realize, David, that whatever the rule ("normal" or "legal"), it is difficult in your ending to realize how many tricks each side should get? We never said claim rulings were easy! > 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 cibor@poczta.fm Tue Feb 18 08:25:39 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:25:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <7350083.1045501559531.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3E51E791.1040902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004b01c2d727$df297e10$727e870a@sabre.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > Don't you realize, David, that whatever the rule ("normal" or > "legal"), it is difficult in your ending to realize how many tricks > each side should get? No, it isn't. Under DBClaims this is a trivial case - declarer cashes his diamonds (just as he said in his claim statement) and by definition throws all his honors on them. Even if he had *three* diamonds and QJx in clubs he would be forced to discard the QC on the four diamond - South ruffs, plays a club and declarer is forced to play the CJ under the North's king (the most disadvantagous play). Three tricks to declarer, easy time for the TD, simple, technical ruling. > We never said claim rulings were easy! Ton once said they were but this was before the Great Halberg Claim. :-) Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 18 08:39:19 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:39:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] establishment References: <200302171835.NAA01434@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3E51F137.1000907@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >>From: Alain Gottcheiner >>Declarer plays 3H and has an one more, unescapable, loser : the now master H10. >>Declarer plays a plain suit from dummy, and [a defender] ruffs. [revoke] >>Now declarer tables his hand ... >> > > I don't think we ever discussed this exact case, but we did discuss > what happens if declarer claims _because of_ the revoke (say, thinking > no more trumps are out when both defenders fail to follow). There is > even a WBFLC minute on the subject, which should be generally > applicable. (Possibly from Lille, but Maastricht would be my second > guess.) > Indeed (I don't remember either where it was), but all this did was change the claim law into saying that doubtful points are decided against revoker, not claimer. > In all that discussion, I don't believe anyone ever said that > declarer's claim by itself establishes a defender's revoke. I don't > have the minute handy, but I think it agrees. However, if _either_ > defender acquiesces in the claim, the revoke is established (L63A3). > The revoke is not established - as is correct or an opponent could act to establish, which he cannot at the moment - so must be restored. After that, the claim is adjudicated with revoker getting the worst possible score out of normal plays - ie, just getting his master trump. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Feb 18 08:41:45 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:41:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <7350083.1045501559531.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3E51E791.1040902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007201c2d729$91d23a60$604127d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > Don't you realize, David, that whatever the rule ("normal" or > "legal"), it is difficult in your ending to realize how many tricks > each side should get? No, it's not. Anyone can work out what will happen if declarer plays misere in any given position. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 18 09:49:31 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:49:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030217123830.00a42b40@pop.starpower.net> References: <001e01c2d66f$c9011340$0a646464@siri> <000001c2d62c$d9625340$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030218104246.024a8c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:25 17/02/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >As an AC member, I would vote to let the score stand, since the UI issue >was not, apparently, raised before the committee. It is my view that an >AC's job is not to rule on the entire deal, but to rule on the appeal >brought before them. (That is a personal view, and clearly far from >universal in practice.) AG : doesn't L81C6 apply to ACs ? >>k) Can South see from the club holding in his hand that Easts double can >>hardly be for penalty? > >No, but it doesn't matter in any case. Perhaps South could infer that >East doesn't hold a classic penalty double, but that doesn't mean that >West didn't intend his double to be interpreted as for penalty, which is >certainly not impossible from South's hand. Looking at South's hand, I don't see why the clubs couldn't be A10xxxx in partner's hand, KJxx in East's. From svenpran@online.no Tue Feb 18 10:01:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:01:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <001e01c2d66f$c9011340$0a646464@siri> <000001c2d62c$d9625340$d09527d9@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20030218104246.024a8c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004801c2d734$c675b7f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Eric Landau wrote: > > >As an AC member, I would vote to let the score stand, since the UI issue > >was not, apparently, raised before the committee. It is my view that an > >AC's job is not to rule on the entire deal, but to rule on the appeal > >brought before them. (That is a personal view, and clearly far from > >universal in practice.) > > AG : doesn't L81C6 apply to ACs ? Interesting question, the relevant laws here are of course L81C6 and L93B3. Technically L81C6 includes a time limit which I believe normally will have expired before an AC gets into action. (The "official score" is made available independently of any pending appeals, but the result of appeals can very well be that the final results differ from the initially published "official score") More important: An AC doesn't "become aware" of an UI irregularity, they may become aware from the case that there is a possibility of an UI situation, but they cannot (or should not) rule UI without investigating that particular question unless it has explicitly been brought forward to the attention of the AC. The AC shall not and must not "invent" evidence, their duty is to try the evidence presented to them through the appeal itself and from the hearing(s) while trying the appeal. So I agree with Erik. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 18 10:35:27 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:35:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] A similar theme In-Reply-To: <3e5184bf.6dc9.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030218105813.024a8af0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:56 18/02/2003 +0000, Karel wrote: >Teams Vul all Dealer S > >North >S Jx >H AK9x >D AT7x >C KT > East > S Ax > H QJT7xx > D K9xx > C A >South >S Kxxx >H 8x >D J >C Q98xxx > >East/West are an international pair. N/S are no slouchs. > >Bidding >S W N E >P P 1NT 2H >2NT(1) P 3C 3H >P(2) P DBL(3) All Pass > >(1) Rubenshol transfer to clubs >(2) Enquired as to E/W's system over 1NT. After getting reply (see below) >took >2/3 seconds to pass. >(3) Peno's > >Lead DJ, ducked to K. E/W called the TD and said N doubled on South's pause. > The Td ruled 3H-2 not doubled. N/S appealed > >They made the following points > > - Being Vul and teams South had to have some values to compete to > 3C's. Bidding >on a long suit and nothing would be reckless. AG : I wonder whether everybody would agree with that. But it is not necessarily relevant. > - N/S play an agressive style and regularly pre-empt with a 6 card > minor, once >again varying degrees of strength depending on Vul and scoring - (It was >suggested >by E/W that South may have had a long club suit and nothing for the 2NT >transfer. > N/S countered if south had such a hand South may well have pre-empted > and that >even if south decided not to do so .. AG : irrelevant. Could too well be self-supporting. > - North felt that with 4 ironclad tricks not counting the CK and SJ plus a >sound partner bidding at adverse vulnerability that the double was clearcut. AG : I think the double is very close to clearcut, even facing a weak hand. I would have allowed it. >- Just to jump the queue, As per the original post if we asked say 10 players >what they would do, I feel on any given day you could get quite a spread of >replies. I feel you will get a few doublers, a few passers and some which >could >go either way. I don't think E/W deserve to be let off for 200 and even >though >I like N/S's case I don't think they should allowed to gain the full 500 >either. AG : on what laws could you base this ? L12C doesn't speak of 'allowances'. I think that there are only two issues here : a) allow the double b) disallow the double, and award the score for 3H undoubled. and I already said I prefer the former. L12C is for more intricate cases. Say that you decide to pull the contract back from 4S(NS) to 4H (EW) and there is an obscure chance that 4H makes 12 tricks. Then you can award +450 and -480. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Tue Feb 18 10:45:29 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:45:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] A similar theme References: <3e5184bf.6dc9.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <005701c2d73a$dac69e80$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Karel" ......... > +++ another case with a similar theme > > Teams Vul all Dealer S > > North > S Jx > H AK9x > D AT7x > C KT > East > S Ax > H QJT7xx > D K9xx > C A > South > S Kxxx > H 8x > D J > C Q98xxx > > East/West are an international pair. N/S are no slouchs. > > Bidding > S W N E > P P 1NT 2H > 2NT(1) P 3C 3H > P(2) P DBL(3) All Pass > > (1) Rubenshol transfer to clubs > (2) Enquired as to E/W's system over 1NT. After getting reply (see below) took > 2/3 seconds to pass. > (3) Peno's > > Lead DJ, ducked to K. E/W called the TD and said N doubled on South's pause. > The Td ruled 3H-2 not doubled. N/S appealed > > They made the following points > > - Being Vul and teams South had to have some values to compete to 3C's. Bidding > on a long suit and nothing would be reckless. > > - N/S play an agressive style and regularly pre-empt with a 6 card minor, once > again varying degrees of strength depending on Vul and scoring - (It was suggested > by E/W that South may have had a long club suit and nothing for the 2NT transfer. > N/S countered if south had such a hand South may well have pre-empted and that > even if south decided not to do so .. "Making up" for his bid with no values > at this stage would be much too risky and dangerous). > > - South asked West as to E/W's methods over 1NT and got the following reply > "2C would show hearts and clubs". South expected more info and when none came, > was about to enquire further, but decided that a double or 3S was just not justified > on his passed hand at teams. West's incomplete and confusing explanation led > in part to the pause. > > - South agreed to the 2/3 second pause after the explanation. West did not explain the auction, he only explained the information that would have been conveyed with an available call not used. The fact that South had a pause of 2 to 3 seconds before making his call cannot be held against him when the cause of this pause can well be that he was expecting more information from West. Furthermore anybody receiving explanations must be given some allowance for digesting the information received depending to some part upon how "unexpected" the agreements turn out to be. 2 to 3 seconds pause in this situation does not give North UI limiting his options. Sven From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Feb 18 11:27:06 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 05:27:06 -0600 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> <3E4CEC7B.8020406@skynet.be> <001501c2d615$31c7cc30$4632e150@endicott> <3E51E71D.20901@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 1:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > Roger, you are twisting in circles here: > > Roger Pewick wrote: > > >> > > > > I have been led to believe that the compelling reason for not playing it > > out after a claim is that claimer might gain an inference and benefit by > > it. > > > > It seems to me that claimer's subsequent assertion that he thought there > > was one outstanding trump could easily have been made after gaining > > inference from defender's question and realizing if he said 'two' his > > goose was cooked. The player is a sharp individual, no? > > > > > So you are saying that this player realized that there were two trumps > out, but decided to answer one, because he somehow knew that a silly > AC would rule "in his favour"; realizing at once that he would be > compelled to play two rounds of trumps if he revealed he actually knew > two were out? No, that is not what I was saying. I was talking about the message of the clarification. In addition I was pointing out that claimer's self serving statement had the similarity to what the 'don't play it out rule' tries to prevent. >From the text of #41: [during the hand] It was clear to North that he knew trumps had been 4-0. [but after the hand] .but asked declarer "how may trumps do you think I have", to which North had replied "one". > Sorry, Roger, but that is just too clever for me. too bad > > Perhaps the ruling ignored : > > [a] declarer proved by play that two trumps were in the W hand > > > Of course everyone knew there was another trump out. There are 13 of > them, you know ? according to you claimer did not know, or at least did not believe it > > [b] the language used was consistent with pulling trump until the > > opponents had no more (instead of explicit language naming one round of > > trump) > > > No he did say that - no language problems there. So, there is concurrence that 'pull your last trump' requires the defender's last trump be pulled. regards roger pewick > > [c] if claimer's command of the official language was substandard he > > knows that he has a self interest to compensate in order to communicate > > clearly > > > > > He was a player who has played on the American professional circuit. hmmm > > Well, I may be insufficiently informed to make the same judgment as the > > AC but I have seen numerous people from all over the world that mix the > > [s] and [non-s] forms of trump in singular and plural uses. I do have > > difficulty in swallowing the statement of someone who believes there is > > one card out after he has proven there are two. > > > > > I very much doubt if he would have claimed realizing that there were > two trumps out. > > regards > > roger pewick > Herman DE WAEL From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Feb 18 12:55:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <05B90E6E-42E0-11D7-B07E-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon asked: > > Duplicate is game for lawyers and other > > scoundrels and the laws should reflect that. >=20 > I wonder why it is that you seem to be playing so much duplicate these=20 > days, Tim? I started playing duplicate again about 2 years ago when Emily started=20 learning (introducing a beginner to even a =A32/100 game did not seem=20 financially viable!). I switched much of my play to online partly due to= =20 convenience and partly when I compared the table money (=A346/year) to f2= f=20 rubber (=A350+/week). > And even bothering to find out about the Laws. When facing lawyers and scoundrels it is as well to be prepared:) =20 Actually my membership of BLML predates my resumption of duplicate by=20 quite a while - I just find the laws interesting, sad though that makes=20 me. From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Feb 18 12:55:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] All generalisations are false, including this one In-Reply-To: <4A256CD1.0009D2C1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: > > > In the thread "Claim by Kleinman", Tim wrote: > > >I disagree. Rubber bridge is a gentleman's > >game where nobody wants to gain from a > >preventable revoke being established. Any UI > >is trivial 99% of the time and the players > >quite capable of handling it the other 1%. > >In 15 years of reasonably high stake rubber > >bridge I have never seen a L61 "enquiry" > >cause a problem. Duplicate is game for > >lawyers and other scoundrels and the laws > >should reflect that. > > There are no games which are intrinsically > sportsmanlike, merely individual sportsmanlike > players. At the Double Bay Rubber Bridge Club > in Sydney, none of the regulars would be silly > enough (gentlemanly?) to decline the penalty > for an opponent's revoke. I too will accept the penalty for an *established* revoke, but it wouldn't occur to me that a player who drew attention (however forcefully) to his partner's revoke (thus getting it corrected and avoiding the penalty) under L61 had done anything wrong. Would that be different at the Double Bay? Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Feb 18 13:42:50 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:42:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] A similar theme In-Reply-To: <3e5184bf.6dc9.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030218083010.00a4fc80@pop.starpower.net> At 07:56 PM 2/17/03, karel wrote: >Teams Vul all Dealer S > >North >S Jx >H AK9x >D AT7x >C KT > East > S Ax > H QJT7xx > D K9xx > C A >South >S Kxxx >H 8x >D J >C Q98xxx > >East/West are an international pair. N/S are no slouchs. > >Bidding >S W N E >P P 1NT 2H >2NT(1) P 3C 3H >P(2) P DBL(3) All Pass > >(1) Rubenshol transfer to clubs >(2) Enquired as to E/W's system over 1NT. After getting reply (see >below) took >2/3 seconds to pass. >(3) Peno's > >Lead DJ, ducked to K. E/W called the TD and said N doubled on South's >pause. > The Td ruled 3H-2 not doubled. N/S appealed > >They made the following points > > - Being Vul and teams South had to have some values to compete to > 3C's. Bidding >on a long suit and nothing would be reckless. > > - N/S play an agressive style and regularly pre-empt with a 6 card > minor, once >again varying degrees of strength depending on Vul and scoring - (It >was suggested >by E/W that South may have had a long club suit and nothing for the >2NT transfer. > N/S countered if south had such a hand South may well have > pre-empted and that >even if south decided not to do so .. "Making up" for his bid with no >values >at this stage would be much too risky and dangerous). > > - South asked West as to E/W's methods over 1NT and got the > following reply >"2C would show hearts and clubs". South expected more info and when >none came, >was about to enquire further, but decided that a double or 3S was just >not justified >on his passed hand at teams. West's incomplete and confusing >explanation led >in part to the pause. > > - South agreed to the 2/3 second pause after the explanation. > > - North felt that with 4 ironclad tricks not counting the CK and SJ > plus a >sound partner bidding at adverse vulnerability that the double was >clearcut. > >Your call. I think this is one for which I would have had to be there. I have no problem with the TD's ruling. It is an LA for North to pass out 3H, and partner's pause would have make doubling more attractive. OTOH, given that the auction was competitive, artificial methods were in use, South made a presumptively legitimate inquiry the reply to which, complete or not, required a moment to absorb, and the fact that the pause was stipulated to be 2-3 seconds, I wouldn't have had a problem if told that the AC determined that there was no significant break in tempo and let the score stand. Rich Colker has argued in print that you can't determine what consitutes a break in tempo by some absolute "more than n seconds" rule, but rather that the determination is relative; there are situations where a brief hesitation is to be expected, and should not be considered to have transmitted extraneous information. I agree with that view, and it sounds like this might be one of those cases where it applies. 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 Feb 18 13:56:03 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:56:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030218104246.024a8c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030217123830.00a42b40@pop.starpower.net> <001e01c2d66f$c9011340$0a646464@siri> <000001c2d62c$d9625340$d09527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030218084830.00a497d0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:49 AM 2/18/03, Alain wrote: >At 13:25 17/02/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >>As an AC member, I would vote to let the score stand, since the UI >>issue was not, apparently, raised before the committee. It is my >>view that an AC's job is not to rule on the entire deal, but to rule >>on the appeal brought before them. (That is a personal view, and >>clearly far from universal in practice.) > >AG : doesn't L81C6 apply to ACs ? As I read L93B3, it is up to the AC. L81C6 requires the TD to act on any irregularity of which he becomes aware; L93B3 says that the AC "may exercise" this power if they so choose. My personal view as an occasional AC member, however, is that ACs are better off sticking to the issue that was brought before them, and should generally avoid "fishing" for possible irregularities beyond those involved in the particular ruling being appealed. >>>k) Can South see from the club holding in his hand that Easts double can >>>hardly be for penalty? >> >>No, but it doesn't matter in any case. Perhaps South could infer >>that East doesn't hold a classic penalty double, but that doesn't >>mean that West didn't intend his double to be interpreted as for >>penalty, which is certainly not impossible from South's hand. > >Looking at South's hand, I don't see why the clubs couldn't be A10xxxx >in partner's hand, KJxx in East's. Quite so. I saw nothing in the writeup to convince me that South should have known, or even suspected, that East did not intend to make a penalty double. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 18 14:13:23 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:13:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> <3E4CEC7B.8020406@skynet.be> <001501c2d615$31c7cc30$4632e150@endicott> <3E51E71D.20901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3E523F83.7010506@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote: >> > > No, that is not what I was saying. > > I was talking about the message of the clarification. In addition I was > pointing out that claimer's self serving statement had the similarity to > what the 'don't play it out rule' tries to prevent. > >>From the text of #41: > > [during the hand] It was clear to North that he knew trumps had been > 4-0. > That was the player, in Committee (or rather his captain) explaining that he had known all along. We did not believe him. If he had thought he was going to get a better result by stating he thought there was only one out, he would not have stated otherwise in committee, now would he? > [but after the hand] .but asked declarer "how may trumps do you think I > have", to which North had replied "one". > That was considered the true circumstances. The player believed that after drawing one round, he would make all tricks. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Tue Feb 18 14:23:27 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:23:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] A similar theme Message-ID: From: "Karel" ......... > +++ another case with a similar theme > > Teams Vul all Dealer S > > North > S Jx > H AK9x > D AT7x > C KT > East > S Ax > H QJT7xx > D K9xx > C A > South > S Kxxx > H 8x > D J > C Q98xxx > > East/West are an international pair. N/S are no slouchs. > > Bidding > S W N E > P P 1NT 2H > 2NT(1) P 3C 3H > P(2) P DBL(3) All Pass > > (1) Rubenshol transfer to clubs > (2) Enquired as to E/W's system over 1NT. After getting reply (see below) took > 2/3 seconds to pass. > (3) Peno's > > Lead DJ, ducked to K. E/W called the TD and said N doubled on South's pause. > The Td ruled 3H-2 not doubled. N/S appealed > > They made the following points > > - Being Vul and teams South had to have some values to compete to 3C's. Bidding > on a long suit and nothing would be reckless. > > - N/S play an agressive style and regularly pre-empt with a 6 card minor, once > again varying degrees of strength depending on Vul and scoring - (It was suggested > by E/W that South may have had a long club suit and nothing for the 2NT transfer. > N/S countered if south had such a hand South may well have pre-empted and that > even if south decided not to do so .. "Making up" for his bid with no values > at this stage would be much too risky and dangerous). > > - South asked West as to E/W's methods over 1NT and got the following reply > "2C would show hearts and clubs". South expected more info and when none came, > was about to enquire further, but decided that a double or 3S was just not justified > on his passed hand at teams. West's incomplete and confusing explanation led > in part to the pause. > > - South agreed to the 2/3 second pause after the explanation. i can't see any logical alternative for N with his 12-card hand, at whichever round of bidding. jpr __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 18 15:18:12 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:18:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] A similar theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030218161232.024b66b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:23 18/02/2003 +0100, you wrote: > > Teams Vul all Dealer S > > > > North > > S Jx > > H AK9x > > D AT7x > > C KT > > East > > S Ax > > H QJT7xx > > D K9xx > > C A > > South > > S Kxxx > > H 8x > > D J > > C Q98xxx > > > > >I can't see any logical alternative for N with his 12-card hand, at >whichever round of bidding. AG : zounds ! we all missed this ... Reminds me of a problem I submitted in a not-too-serious bridge magazine : Qxx AK10 KJx xxx East opens 1C. Green card or red card ? To which the right answer was "nope. Orange card". Those T..e..n..s can prove deceptively broad. Best regards, Alain. From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Feb 18 15:16:15 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:16:15 -0600 Subject: [blml] claims forever References: <3E4CA942.8050207@skynet.be> <3E4CEC7B.8020406@skynet.be> <001501c2d615$31c7cc30$4632e150@endicott> <3E51E71D.20901@skynet.be> <3E523F83.7010506@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 8:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever > Roger Pewick wrote: > > >> > > > > No, that is not what I was saying. > > > > I was talking about the message of the clarification. In addition I was > > pointing out that claimer's self serving statement had the similarity to > > what the 'don't play it out rule' tries to prevent. > > > >>From the text of #41: > > > > [during the hand] It was clear to North that he knew trumps had been > > 4-0. > > > > > That was the player, in Committee (or rather his captain) explaining > that he had known all along. We did not believe him. > > If he had thought he was going to get a better result by stating he thought there was only one out, he would not have stated otherwise in committee, now would he? So the AC instead chose to believe and act favorably (to the exclusion of all else) upon an assertion of what claimer believed to be the number of trump after he was prompted that it might make a difference, and, which could justify a ruling that guarantees the contract instead of sinking it. Not that it follows that once the AC believes that claimer believed there was only one trump that the ruling should be one trick to the defense. roger pewick > > [but after the hand] .but asked declarer "how may trumps do you think I > > have", to which North had replied "one". > > > > > That was considered the true circumstances. The player believed that > after drawing one round, he would make all tricks. > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Feb 18 15:32:21 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:32:21 GMT Subject: [blml] A similar theme Message-ID: <3e525205.e29.0@esatclear.ie> +++ Indeed as pointed out N has 12 cards and should have Jxx in spades >> +++ another case with a similar theme >> >> Teams Vul all Dealer S >> >> North >> S Jxx >> H AK9x >> D AT7x >> C KT >> East >> S Ax >> H QJT7xx >> D K9xx >> C A >> South >> S Kxxx >> H 8x >> D J >> C Q98xxx >> >> East/West are an international pair. N/S are no slouchs. >> >> Bidding >> S W N E >> P P 1NT 2H >> 2NT(1) P 3C 3H >> P(2) P DBL(3) All Pass >> >> (1) Rubenshol transfer to clubs >> (2) Enquired as to E/W's system over 1NT. After getting reply (see below) took 2/3 seconds to pass. >> (3) Peno's >> >> Lead DJ, ducked to K. E/W called the TD and said N doubled on South's pause. The Td ruled 3H-2 not doubled. N/S appealed - I happen to know the 4 players involved and as such it is hard to be objective. E/W while excellent players are somewhat in the "If it pauses shoot it camp". They also have a noterity advantage on their side in any appeal situation (I know it shouldn't matter .. but it does). Regardless this TD call had merit - though I feel if the situation were reversed E/W would be quite willing to appeal and would expect to win the appeal !!. - N/S are solid tough campaigners. Their expectation as to Pd's distribution and values on any given auction tend to be realistic. E/W were very disparaging about the claim that South's rubenshol bid should have values. Needless to say there was no documentation as to rubenshol in a passed hand situation (does anyone have ??) to substanciate N/S claims. Their reputation for agressive light bidding also eroded their claim. - West's explanation definitely added to south's "pausing". As pointed out by several certain auctions should be allowed extra time. This is one of them. Still for this case's analysis lets assume a pause has been agreed by all players. - North has IMO a standout double ... BUT ... as I have found out on numerous occasions my opinion is irrelevant to most decisions. I KNOW that some (possibly the majority) would favour a double .. but .. a sufficient number would also consider passing. As such I felt a possible new L12D/E/F law adjustment along the lines of 12C might be more equitable. If I was forced to make a black and white decision (as per current laws ??) I would allow the 3H's double stand. I felt that on this occasion East was sticking out his neck (certainly in teams) with a 3H bid and reached for the "pausing life line" when it backfired. South was "thrown" by East's further bidding, tried to envisage the various distributions which would account for such a bid, asked for more information, didn't get it and ended up with a sour sounding pass. Unfortunately this last paragraph is hardly objective (probably realistic though) and should presumably not be relevant in an appeals ?? - The other problem which I've observed frequently is the following. The TD (and in this case she did) asks several "Peer" players would they double on the auction. Now, unfortunately how the question is phrased could easily influence the reply. I infact overheard one such conversation and while the eventual answer was no - there was no doubt in my mind that this particular peer could have gone either way with very little persuasion and certainly should not have been put in a no camp. Is there a proscribed method for asking such questions (ie) do we 1st ask for their opinion leaving out the pause ?? and then with the pause ?? or just ask the case in question ?? Do we enquire about the peer's likely expectation as to south's holding (In this case it is critical, as any peer who could envisage his partner bidding with clubs and zip is clearly NOT a peer of this N/S on this auction). Do we enquire would E/W's "ability" influence the bid ?? Do we find out what the "peers" methods are on this auction ?? An even bigger problem is that frequently (on the Irish scene and in this case) - it is very hard to find peers for particular players ... because .... there aren't any !! K. -- http://www.iol.ie From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 18 16:14:45 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:14:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] A similar theme In-Reply-To: <3e525205.e29.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030218170425.024bedb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:32 18/02/2003 +0000, Karel wrote: >- West's explanation definitely added to south's "pausing". As pointed out >by several certain auctions should be allowed extra time. This is one of >them. > Still for this case's analysis lets assume a pause has been agreed by > all players. AG : one argument that I used before is : if a player asked a question, and the incomplete answer forced him to investigate more, he won't be deemed to have asked insisting questions (which is often taken as the equivalent of a lengthy pause). The problem is created by the enemy's incorrection. It seems to apply here. >- North has IMO a standout double ... BUT ... as I have found out on numerous >occasions my opinion is irrelevant to most decisions. I KNOW that some >(possibly >the majority) would favour a double .. but .. a sufficient number would also >consider passing. As such I felt a possible new L12D/E/F law adjustment along >the lines of 12C might be more equitable. If I was forced to make a black and >white decision (as per current laws ??) I would allow the 3H's double stand. > > > > >- The other problem which I've observed frequently is the following. The TD >(and in this case she did) asks several "Peer" players would they double on >the auction. Now, unfortunately how the question is phrased could easily >influence >the reply. I infact overheard one such conversation and while the eventual >answer was no - there was no doubt in my mind that this particular peer could >have gone either way with very little persuasion and certainly should not have >been put in a no camp. > > >Is there a proscribed method for asking such questions (ie) do we 1st ask for >their opinion leaving out the pause ?? and then with the pause ?? AG : to this I firmly answer that one should ask without mentioning the pause. The 'automatic bid' criterion is "does one have an obvious bid", not "does one have an obvious bid after the pause", to which the answer would often be different. Of course there will always be the quick guy who realizes "aha, this must be a pause question". I'm fairly sure that if you ask -without any remarsks- many players what they now do with the North's hand, most would double. However, this question is in itself somehat biased, since you make them think about doing something, while it could have escaped them at the table. Imperfect world. Best regards, Alain. From gester@lineone.net Tue Feb 18 12:31:37 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:31:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Divided by a common language References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030217111736.00a27080@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001501c2d767$23249ac0$69182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Divided by a common language > > AG : interesting. But the second part is strange. > If there is no trump, the plural form shouldn't > be used. > +=+ "The sedge has withered from the lake And no birds sing." When I meet Keats I must remember to mention that he should have written "And no bird sings." ~ G ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Feb 18 18:35:23 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:35:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <200302181835.NAA08088@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Tommy Sandsmark" > No Alain, In Norway you say stop (or shop the stop bid) and the next guy has > to wait for 10 seconds before he bids. When he then bids withour hesitation, > the bid is ruled to be in tempo. There is some confusion here. Perhaps it would be more helpful to state the time interval rather than use a vague phrase such as "without hesitation." Most of us would interpret that phrase to mean "in less than one second," whereas Tommy seems to be using it to mean "after the required 10-s pause but no more." This confusion has been fairly common on BLML, I'm afraid; let's try to avoid it in the future. > This verdict > can only imply that the AC suspects someting foul is going on between East > and West. That there are UI hidden in the stage set which has not surfaced, > and in my opinion, this is a poor way of doing the job unless you have solid > proof or previous knowledge about unfair play by the pair in question. I don't think "solid proof" is required. Score adjustment is based on "preponderance of the evidence," not solid proof. If the hands themselves, for example, give evidence that the true partnership agreement is not the one told to the opponents, it is quite proper to rule MI. This is essentially the point Mike made, although the bit about avg+/avg- is a local rule that seems to me to be of dubious wisdom. In this case, as Adam points out, the 3H bid rather than 4H is strong evidence that the partnership agreement was the one stated. From xbridge@online.no Tue Feb 18 19:40:40 2003 From: xbridge@online.no (Tommy Sandsmark) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:40:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <200302181835.NAA08088@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000201c2d785$a4c5e4d0$0a646464@siri> Steve said: "Most of us would interpret that phrase to mean "in less than one second," whereas Tommy seems to be using it to mean "after the required 10-s pause but no more." What I mean is of course bidding within the time limit found approproate (let's say less than one second). I must, however, point out to you that the Norwegian alertation rules differ somewhat from the rest of the world's. In Norway, the stop bidder is required to wait for 10 seconds and then say "Go on" (or remove the stop bid). The next hand is then supposed to make a bid withour hesitation. Steve said: "In this case, as Adam points out, the 3H bid rather than 4H is strong evidence that the partnership agreement was the one stated." I don't agree! The 3H bid may be bad but in no way suspect. Since West has done nothing wrong here, one simply cannot forbid him to make an imperfect bid. Who knows what was in his mind? Maybe he just wanted to be cautious? Maybe his partner had doubled too many contracts home in the course of the tournament up till then? Maybe he had a headache or he had had a bad night? Maybe his partner had forgotten the system earlier? There may be many reasons why players do not always find the best bid on a certain hand, but to go from there and say that this hand supports the notion that E/W had other agreements than the ones stated on their convention card is just too much for me. I do not come from one of those countries where everybody is thought of as cheaters. On the contrary - in the nordic countries there is a very high degree of active ethics, and I personalle don't know one single person who plays in one way and writes up his conventions in a different way. Apart from that, I know E/W personally, and they are about the fairest people I have had the honor of knowing. Let me state here and now, that the ONLY thing that has been going on here, is that East has forgotten his system and West has made what he deemed to be the best bid on his hand, leaving the option to partner to bid e.g. 3NT on his 3H. From his point of view they may very well have been in a GF situation. If East is void in H, 4H is not necessarily the best contract on this hand. Agreeably, most people (myself included) would still say 4H and not 3H on this hand. If you look at the West defencive values, his CK is worthless, and so is his heart suit. The only real values on his hand lie in his two queens opposite en opening hand. 3-500 is also less than 600/620/630/650. Who knows? Maybe 3H is a more flexible bid than 4H? This may have been what West was thinking, but I am not saying that he made the best bid on his hand. The point is that since he has done nothing wrong, but explained the double according to their conventions and explained it correctly, there is no way anybody can suspect him of foul play. He is quite simply allowed to bid as poorly as he pleases, as most of us do anyway on nearly every hand! Tommy www.xbridge.no Bridge & Kryss/Bridgens Bokklubb, Tommy Sandsmark, Bygdøy Allé 73 B, 0268 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: 00-47-22 43 02 14. Fax: 00-47-22 43 42 99. E-Mail: xbridge@online.no. Have a nice day! -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Steve Willner Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 7:35 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: RE: [blml] Horrible? > From: "Tommy Sandsmark" > No Alain, In Norway you say stop (or shop the stop bid) and the next guy has > to wait for 10 seconds before he bids. When he then bids withour hesitation, > the bid is ruled to be in tempo. There is some confusion here. Perhaps it would be more helpful to state the time interval rather than use a vague phrase such as "without hesitation." Most of us would interpret that phrase to mean "in less than one second," whereas Tommy seems to be using it to mean "after the required 10-s pause but no more." This confusion has been fairly common on BLML, I'm afraid; let's try to avoid it in the future. > This verdict > can only imply that the AC suspects someting foul is going on between East > and West. That there are UI hidden in the stage set which has not surfaced, > and in my opinion, this is a poor way of doing the job unless you have solid > proof or previous knowledge about unfair play by the pair in question. I don't think "solid proof" is required. Score adjustment is based on "preponderance of the evidence," not solid proof. If the hands themselves, for example, give evidence that the true partnership agreement is not the one told to the opponents, it is quite proper to rule MI. This is essentially the point Mike made, although the bit about avg+/avg- is a local rule that seems to me to be of dubious wisdom. In this case, as Adam points out, the 3H bid rather than 4H is strong evidence that the partnership agreement was the one stated. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Feb 19 01:04:40 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:04:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <4A256CD2.000408CF.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: [big snip] >>If the hands themselves, for example, give >>evidence that the true partnership agreement >>is not the one told to the opponents, it is >>quite proper to rule MI. [big snip] I disagree. I believe that Steve's determination of fact does not logically result in a ruling of MI under Law 75. Instead, the logic of Steve's determination of fact results in a much more serious ruling of a CPU under Law 40B. Therefore, if the Willner philosophy is generally adopted by TDs, some innocent misbidders will be tarred with the brush of being cheaters with Concealed Partnership Understandings. Tommy Sandsmark wrote: [snip] >I do not come from one of those countries where >everybody is thought of as cheaters. On the >contrary - in the nordic countries there is a >very high degree of active ethics, and I >personally don't know one single person who >plays in one way and writes up his conventions >in a different way. Apart from that, I know E/W >personally, and they are about the fairest people >I have had the honor of knowing. [snip] Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 19 03:29:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:29:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <3E50D57D.3000701@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 2/17/03, Herman De Wael wrote: >However, to reiterate, Tommy asked for criticism on the ruling and >appeal. That part of the ruling could withstand scrutiny. On its own, perhaps. In the context of the rest of it, I doubt it. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 19 03:20:00 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:20:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2/17/03, J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: >Careless or irrational? >We are to ascertain the state of mind of a person, whom - in general >and in this instance - we do not know, and whose identity a fair TD >and an impartial AC must not take into account? Whether an action is rational or irrational has nothing to do with state of mind. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 19 03:37:34 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:37:34 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <003301c2d68b$bdc863e0$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> Message-ID: On 2/17/03, mamos wrote: >>In EBU land we catergorise misbids in the same way as psyches as >>green, amber and red and if we deem a misbid to have been fielded >>then we would cancel the score on the board and award average plus to >>non offenders and average minus to offenders so +3/-3 at teams (See >>EBU Orange Book for details) I'm still not real clear on this. What does "fielded" mean? I have the sense that it means "one player did something not covered by the partnership system, and his partner took some action that might have catered to the possibility." Seems to me there are way too many "what if's" in that. But maybe my sense is wrong. If so, I wish someone would explain it to me so that I understand it. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Feb 19 05:10:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:10:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Inadvertent misbid Message-ID: <4A256CD2.001A908A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "Horrible?", Herman De Wael wrote: [snip] >It is possible to rule MI even when the CC >confirms the explanation. Do note that the FLB >only mentions what the TD should do in the >absence of evidence, not what he should do in >the presence of it! > >Personally, I prefer to rule "MI-no damage", >rather than a much too simple "CC confirms, no >MI", whenever a player makes a bid that he >obviously intends in some manner. [snip] If one is a follower of the De Wael School, one is more likely to rule "misinformation", and less likely to rule "misbid", than other TDs are. Now it seems that the only time Herman will rule "misbid" is after a Law 25-style inadvertent misbid. I suppose it comes down to the TD's interpretation of the word "satisfied" in Law 85A. Evidence on the CC does not "satisfy" Herman if a member of the partnership has bid contrary to the CC. Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 19 04:18:28 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:18:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <3544272.1045484515191.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: On 2/17/03, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >There may very well be, but what has that to do with anything? I >assert that communication between partners other than by means of >calls or plays is illegal. I further assert that drawing partner's >attention to a significant occurrence by means of a remark is illegal. >To do those things knowing that it is wrong to do them (as Danny >Kleinman assuredly knows) is cheating. The first assertion is supported by law 73A1, the second by law 73B1. However, while it certainly looks to me like Mr. Kleinman made a mistake, I would hesitate to call it "cheating", given the connotations of that word. [snip] >You may ask questions where the law says you may ask questions. But >you may not use questions as a vehicle for giving partner information. >This is really so obvious that I am at a loss to understand how there >can be any doubt about it. Sounds right to me. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 19 04:10:49 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:10:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <001e01c2d66f$c9011340$0a646464@siri> Message-ID: On 2/17/03, Tommy Sandsmark wrote: >Dear friends, > >I am sorry to say that I have not participated actively in the >discussions, even though I have read (with interest) most of the >arguments forwarded here. > >I would like to submit a TD decision (and subsequently an appeals >committee decision) which has more than upset me. I am probably going >to write some lines about this problem in the NBF Bulletin, and would >like to hear what you think and what you would rule. This is the West >hand: You were West? :-) "I am only an egg", as the Man from Mars said, but I'll make a few comments. >East dealer, EW vulnerable. Teams. No screens. > > West > Q 8 3 > K J T 9 8 7 4 > Q 9 > K > > West North East South > 1D pass > 1H 3C x (*) pass > 3H pass 4H pass > pass pass > >(*) No hesitation, and no alert from West. > >West lost 2 tricks and South called the TD, maintaining that =B3if he >had known that East=B9s double was not a penalty double, he would have >sacrificed in 5C=B2. Self-serving (which is not a killer, of course). I'm not all that experienced, but it seems to me that the South hand should not be put off by a penalty double of three clubs - on what would East be basing it?=20 >The TD found out that East had believed the double to be a support >double. West did not agree - his opinion was that the double was for >penalty. The TD ascertained, that the E/W convention card stated that >support doubles were only applied on the two-level. Thus, West=B9s >explanation of the double (no alert) was found to be correct. >Thereafter the TD ruled that the contract was to be 5Cx down 1. E/W >appealed. There seems no basis in law for this ruling. Somebody, later in the thread (Sven, I think) said something to the effect that in Norway the fact that the CC said that support doubles only apply at the two level is convincing evidence that East misbid. >So far, no good. Out of the fog, the AC returned with the verdict that >most good players would pass 3Cx on the West hand, Really? And this is relevant how? >and consequently, this was a logical alternative and 3Cx with 10 >tricks was ruled to be the final result. Pfui. What's the basis in law for this? >When I inquired into the matter, the chairman of the AC said that they >had had great problems with this hand because they regarded it a hand >where poor judgement from West led to a surprisingly good result, and >this could not be accepted. Twenty years as a sailor gives me the words to describe this. Unfortunately, they can't be used in polite company. >He later maintained that 4H from West would have been acceptable but >not 3H(!) What possible logic could lead to this? >Am I totally out of bounds here or are both of these rulings just >horrible? About the only good thing I see here is that it shows that the ACBL isn't the only place where bad rulings are made. >a) What would you rule and why? Result stands. if it got to an AC, return the deposit, and shoot the TD. :-) [snip] >c) If West has done nothing wrong, how can he be ruled against and how >can he be forced to make the very wrong bid of passing 3Cx? Um. Small nit: nobody "forces" anybody to do anything in these situations. The TD and AC simply rule that the score should be adjusted (hopefully with some basis in law, though that appears not to be the case here). > d) Do you think that passing 3Cx is an obvious bid for >West? No. >e) Can pass to partner=B9s double of 3C be regarded =B3a logical >alternative=B2? IMO, that's irrelevant. >f) Can the term =B3logical alternative=B2 be used as to limiting West=B9= s >action after the double? No. >g) Would in your opinion 4H be acceptable for West to bid, while 3H >should be barred? Makes no sense to me. >h) Should East be allowed to bid 4H? Wrong question: see response to (c) above. >i) Isn=B9t it East=B9s action when bidding 4H that should be scrutinized >in the light of =B3logical alternatives=B2? As I said earlier, I think the whole "logical alternatives" thing is a red herring in this case. >j) Wouldn=B9t pass be a logical alternative for him since he had heard n= o >alert from his partner when he doubled 3C? Um. The fact he heard no alert, and should have expected one (assuming he knows that support doubles are alertable :) means he has the UI that partner doesn't think the double showed support. Whether that makes pass an LA to bidding 4H is another question. Maybe it does. >k) Can South see from the club holding in his hand that Easts double >can hardly be for penalty? Heh. I think so, but I could be wrong. :-) >l) When South did not bid 5C, could the calling of the TD and South=B9s >subsequent argumentation be regarded as an effort to get it both ways; >either 4H is down, or N/S will be able to rely upon the TD and/or the >AC to rebid South=B9s hand in a better way than South did himself at the >table? Anything "could be". I think this is a dangerous road to go down, myself. Please keep the caveat at the beginning of this message in mind. :) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 19 04:33:21 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:33:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <000d01c2d68f$f50d1d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 2/17/03, Sven Pran wrote: >Law 61 explicitly allows attempts in the form of questions to avoid >revokes before they are established (subject to certain specified >limitations) Law 42B1 explicitly allows dummy the equivalent option. >Law 42B2 explicitly allows dummy to try preventing irregularities by >declarer. > >All these three laws implement certain exempts from Law 73 on what is >legal communication between partners. > >Coughing to show extra values can in no way be constructed as an >activity allowed under L61 (or L42). > >So there is no need looking for any law prohibiting coughing with this >purpose, it already exists in Law 73 etc. > >But there is every need to search for a law limiting the extent to >which a player may execute his rights under any of the laws L61, L42B1 >and L42B2. At present I (for one) am unable to find any such limiting >law. Law 61B says "Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led (but a claim of revoke does not automatically warrant inspection of quitted tricks - see Law=A066C). Dumm= y may ask declarer (but see Law=A043B2(b)). Defenders may ask declarer but, unless the zonal organization so authorizes, not one another. " This authorizes declarer to ask a defender, or a defender to ask declarer, or dummy to ask declarer (subject to Law 43B2(b)) or, if the zone permits, defenders to ask each other, *one* specific question. It does not authorize followon questions. Since the question itself is a departure from what should, IMO, be considered normal procedure, it seems to me that if the lawmakers wanted to allow followon questions, they would have said so. They didn't. 42B1 simply reiterates that part of 61B which allows the dummy to ask the question. It, like 61B, does *not* authorize additional questions. 42B2 allows the dummy to attempt to prevent an irregularity. The irregularity in question is a revoke which, if declarer *does* have another card of the suit led, has already occurred. I thought it established that while dummy can attempt to prevent an irregularity, once it has occurred, he has to keep his mouth shut. I don't think this law applies to the specific situation in this thread. More generally, I would think that dummy is allowed to continue to ask questions, or whatever, *so long as the irregularity has not yet occurred*. This law, you see, allows dummy "to attempt to prevent an irregularity", while the others allow the asking of *a* specific question. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 19 04:44:04 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:44:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <2156974.1045503575998.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: On 2/17/03, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >the laws of bridge presently authorise murder, since 42B permits me to >shoot my partner for being about to turn a trick the wrong way. Um. I would say rather that the laws of bridge do not prohibit murder. Although, come to think of it, 74A2 might apply. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 19 04:36:55 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:36:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <1718362.1045493864508.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: On 2/17/03, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >The same is obviously true of Law 42B1. The issue is irrelevant as far >as 42B2 is concerned (this is another cock-up in the rules, but the >fact is that although dummy may attempt to prevent an irregularity by >declarer, he may not do so by communicating with declarer, for Law 73 >says so and Law 42B2 does not override Law 73). Hm. Is shooting declarer communicating with him? :-) I would suggest that the solution to this is to include something in Law 42B2 similar to "in spite of the restrictions in Law 73, dummy may..." Grattan? From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 19 07:32:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:32:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: Message-ID: <002301c2d7e8$fd9f5f60$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Ed Reppert" ........... >Law 61B says "Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit >whether he has a card of the suit led (but a claim of revoke does not >automatically warrant inspection of quitted tricks - see Law 66C). Dummy >may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2(b)). Defenders may ask declarer but, >unless the zonal organization so authorizes, not one another. " > >This authorizes declarer to ask a defender, or a defender to ask >declarer, or dummy to ask declarer (subject to Law 43B2(b)) or, if the >zone permits, defenders to ask each other, *one* specific question. It >does not authorize followon questions. Since the question itself is a >departure from what should, IMO, be considered normal procedure, it >seems to me that if the lawmakers wanted to allow followon questions, >they would have said so. They didn't. Unsolved question. I agree (as I have already previously stated) this is how I shall prefer L61B (and L42B1) being applied, but I am not quite convinced such limitation can be enforced from the current laws. > >42B1 simply reiterates that part of 61B which allows the dummy to ask >the question. It, like 61B, does *not* authorize additional questions. > >42B2 allows the dummy to attempt to prevent an irregularity. The >irregularity in question is a revoke which, if declarer *does* have >another card of the suit led, has already occurred. I thought it >established that while dummy can attempt to prevent an irregularity, >once it has occurred, he has to keep his mouth shut. I don't think this >law applies to the specific situation in this thread. More generally, I >would think that dummy is allowed to continue to ask questions, or >whatever, *so long as the irregularity has not yet occurred*. This law, >you see, allows dummy "to attempt to prevent an irregularity", while the >others allow the asking of *a* specific question. Good point. Although I see Law 42B1 as one particular means of implementing Dummy's rights to try to prevent irregularities by declarer it is true that in the case of a revoke in progress the irregularity has already occurred so L42B2 is not applicable. regards Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Feb 19 08:09:50 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:09:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever Message-ID: > Ton wrote: > > > It is all equity sir, all equity. > > But it isn't. I get four tricks from a misclaim because I am > a better player than the tournament director, while someone > else who has exactly the same misclaim made against him gets > three tricks because he is not? Where is the equity in that? > > David Burn > London, England Isn't equity accomplished when everybody is happy? You know how to divide a piece of cake between two people? Don't use a referee with measuring things for hours but give the knive to one of them and let the other choose the first piece. ton From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 19 07:55:09 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:55:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL Land References: <006a01c2d4e4$72f3af80$d7def1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <00b401c2d7ee$3c7e65a0$25b54351@noos.fr> ACBL-land ? Well, I just picked up the expression from other mails. I have no idea who coined it. It seemed a good technical expression to me. It is the area of jurisdiction of the ACBL (which is a strange construct because historical it was both a NCBO and a zone although not really a country). Everybody seems/seemed to understand it. So what is the problem. That given the current political situation it might be interpreted as derogatory? Oh please. Besides at the moment I consider the Americans more sensible than the Europeans for bridge laws purposes. This might not hold true for current world politics. But lets not confuse the issue. This is the blml. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" ; "kaima" Cc: Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL Land > > > > The ACBL is the organization, ACBL land refers to events in places where > > ACBL regulations apply: USA, Canada, Bermuda, Mexico (and handful of ACBL > > affiliated clubs at US army bases and such elsewhere in the world). > > > > > > I don't think this was the kind of answer Kaima asked for. Let me try: > Though politeness is not a strong quality in this group I have the > experience that 'ACBL-land' is not used as a derision in this forum but by > some people from this 'land' themselves. I am sure that Jaap used it the way > Henk describes, just referring to the jurisdiction. > Welcome to WBF-land. > > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Feb 19 08:17:49 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:17:49 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <008701c2d7f2$8363d2d0$1f44e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 3:37 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] Horrible? > > I'm still not real clear on this. What does "fielded" mean? > +=+ The sense in which it is used stems from such usage as "he fielded a lot of awkward questions"; i.e. to cope with or parry - in the case of a psyche, taking abnormal or evasive action which restricts ensuing possibilities of damage. The EBU approach recognizes that for the other players at the table a misbid has the same effects as a psyche and the partner has no legitimate grounds for fielding this inadvertent action any more than if partner's action were conscious and purposeful. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Feb 19 08:22:41 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:22:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: Message-ID: <008801c2d7f2$84cbee50$1f44e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 4:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Claim by Kleinman > On 2/17/03, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > >There may very well be, but what has that to do with anything? I > >assert that communication between partners other than by means > > of calls or plays is illegal. I further assert that drawing partner's > >attention to a significant occurrence by means of a remark is > > illegal. To do those things knowing that it is wrong to do them > > (as Danny Kleinman assuredly knows) is cheating. > > The first assertion is supported by law 73A1, the second by law > 73B1. However, while it certainly looks to me like Mr. Kleinman > made a mistake, I would hesitate to call it "cheating", given the > connotations of that word. > +=+ Ed, it may help you to understand David's use of language if I quote this extract from one of his earlier messages: "But I hope you will understand, as DWS could never understand, that if I say "You have done (or said, or believed) a ridiculous thing", this does not mean that I think you are a ridiculous person." Thus his description of the action as 'cheating' does not attach to the individual the label of 'cheat'. +=+ > [snip] > > >You may ask questions where the law says you may ask > > questions. But you may not use questions as a vehicle for > > giving partner information. This is really so obvious that I am > > at a loss to understand how there can be any doubt about it. > > Sounds right to me. > +=+ There is a WBFLC ruling that says it is right. ~ G ~ +=+ From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Feb 19 09:16:20 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:16:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw Message-ID: >On 2/17/03, Jürgen Rennenkampff wrote: >>Careless or irrational? >>We are to ascertain the state of mind of a person, whom - in general >>and in this instance - we do not know, and whose identity a fair TD >>and an impartial AC must not take into account? Ed Reppert: >Whether an action is rational or irrational has nothing to do with state >of mind. ================================================================= Well, I don't truly know where the mind is located, nor whether the location coincides with that of the rational faculties, provided both are present and distinct. But you are right - I did forget that there is a subpopulation of bridge players who do not use their minds; in these cases the TD probably needs to determine whether the wind is north-north-west or southerly. Jürgen From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Feb 19 09:34:57 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:34:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever Message-ID: Isn't equity accomplished when everybody is happy? You know how to divide a piece of cake between two people? Don't use a referee with measuring things for hours but give the knive to one of them and let the other choose the first piece. ton =========================================================== In this regime the blind man starves - happily. Jürgen From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Feb 19 09:33:38 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:33:38 -0900 (AKST) Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <008701c2d7f2$8363d2d0$1f44e150@endicott> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > I'm still not real clear on this. What does "fielded" mean? > > > +=+ The sense in which it is used stems from such usage > as "he fielded a lot of awkward questions"; i.e. to cope > with or parry - in the case of a psyche, taking abnormal > or evasive action which restricts ensuing possibilities of > damage. Note that this is a trap which seems to catch many readers, especially American ones. In such usage as "fielded a lot of awkward questions" fielding means "successfully handled" and has a strong positive connotation. This has given rise to (what I hope is) a misunderstanding of the EBU approach, in which people assume that all successful actions after psychics are punished. In fact, an otherwise normal action that turns out well is not subject to automatic punishment. I think, for this reason, "fielded" is an unfortunate choice of word. That said - my experience from 6 years of reading BLML and RGB is that the EBU is far more eager to punish psychers than the ACBL is. This may be because players in the EBU actually psych often enough for habits to emerge, while the vast majority of club- to regional-level players in the ACBL *never* psych. I spent a little while tonight trying to think of a better word that "fielded" that might be more helpful for non-EBU people. "Anticipated" or "accommodated" or "catered for" are all closer than the US-general-usage sense of "fielded," but still not quite perfect. Anyone else? > The EBU approach recognizes that for the other > players at the table a misbid has the same effects as a > psyche and the partner has no legitimate grounds for > fielding this inadvertent action any more than if partner's > action were conscious and purposeful. I think we too agree that misbids and psychs have the same effects at the table on the actual hand. Where we differ, perhaps, is that here there is a presumption that a misbid will be immediately followed by the partnership coming to an agreement about the situation so that the problem never recurs - that is, we may rule misexplanation/CPU if it turns out both halves of the partnership understood each other all along, but if we rule misbid, there is virtually never any suggestion of any infraction. GRB From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Feb 19 10:57:05 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:57:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw References: Message-ID: <008601c2d805$af48b8d0$727e870a@sabre.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jürgen Rennenkampff" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 10:16 AM Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw >On 2/17/03, Jürgen Rennenkampff wrote: >>Careless or irrational? >>We are to ascertain the state of mind of a person, whom - in general >>and in this instance - we do not know, and whose identity a fair TD >>and an impartial AC must not take into account? Ed Reppert: >Whether an action is rational or irrational has nothing to do with state >of mind. ================================================================= >Well, I don't truly know where the mind is located, nor whether the >location coincides with that of the rational faculties, provided both >are present and distinct. What does this remark have to do with Ed's question? >But you are right - I did forget that there is a subpopulation of bridge >players who do not use their minds; So? >in these cases the TD probably >needs to determine whether the wind is north-north-west or southerly. Jürgen - I have no clue what you are talking about. And I don't think anybody else does. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Feb 19 11:18:22 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:18:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw Message-ID: <6412819.1045653502805.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Konrad wrote: > J=FCrgen - I have no clue what you are talking about. > And I don't think anybody else does. Jurgen is pointing out that, in general parlance, "rationality" is very muc= h a function of "state of mind". I was a little surprised at Ed's assertion= that it wasn't. With what do we reason, if not our minds? As to the wind: "I am but mad north-north-west; when the wind is southerly, I know a hawk f= rom a handsaw". (Hamlet) David Burn London, England From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Feb 19 11:23:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:23 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030218084830.00a497d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > As I read L93B3, it is up to the AC. L81C6 requires the TD to act on > any irregularity of which he becomes aware; L93B3 says that the AC "may > exercise" this power if they so choose. My personal view as an > occasional AC member, however, is that ACs are better off sticking to > the issue that was brought before them, and should generally avoid > "fishing" for possible irregularities beyond those involved in the > particular ruling being appealed. This brings to mind a road sign I have seen at french level crossings reading "One train can conceal another"*. Often in MI based appeals the appellants are unaware of the UI issue *until* the MI is resolved. Tim * OK pedants, this is a translation. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Feb 19 12:10:07 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:10:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <15D7CE18-4403-11D7-BA65-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 08:09 AM, Kooijman, A. wrote: > Isn't equity accomplished when everybody is happy? Fortunately nothing I can see in the Laws requires such a high standard. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Feb 19 15:11:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:11 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote: > This has given rise to (what I hope is) a misunderstanding of the EBU > approach, in which people assume that all successful actions after > psychics are punished. In fact, an otherwise normal action that turns > out well is not subject to automatic punishment. I think, for this > reason, "fielded" is an unfortunate choice of word. >From what I have seen the EBU approach is often closer to "One may not choose, from amongst logical alternatives, a call which better caters for partner having psyched." I would happier if the sentiment came across as "One may not choose a call that would not otherwise be considered an LA that primarily caters to partner having psyched." > That said - my experience from 6 years of reading BLML and RGB is that > the EBU is far more eager to punish psychers than the ACBL is. This may > be because players in the EBU actually psych often enough for habits to > emerge, while the vast majority of club- to regional-level players in > the ACBL *never* psych. There seems to a fairly widespread practice amongst EBU players/officials of discouraging, on moral grounds, psyching against weaker players. I believe this attitude contributes to a desire to see psyching punished. Tim From gester@lineone.net Wed Feb 19 11:27:52 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:27:52 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <000601c2d82e$9cd20520$3d182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:33 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] Horrible? > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ The sense in which it is used stems from > > such usage as "he fielded a lot of awkward > > questions"; i.e. to cope with or parry - in the > > case of a psyche, taking abnormal or evasive > > action which restricts ensuing possibilities of > > damage. > > Gordon: > I spent a little while tonight trying to think of a > better word than "fielded" that might be more > helpful for non-EBU people. > +=+ I do not think search for a 'better' word is the answer. 'Field' has become a term of the art and the way to solve the problem Gordon sees is to define its meaning carefully in its application to bridge. Certainly it is not a question of whether it is successful. It is a question of combining abnormality with apparent intent to restrict damage that might accrue from partner's potential or suspected psyche. ~ G ~ +=+ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Feb 19 16:04:39 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:04:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <200302191604.LAA13341@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Tommy Sandsmark" > I must, however, point out to you that the > Norwegian alertation rules differ somewhat from the rest of the world's. In > Norway, the stop bidder is required to wait for 10 seconds and then say "Go > on" (or remove the stop bid). The next hand is then supposed to make a bid > withour hesitation. Interesting rules. Those are common enough with bidding cards, but I don't think I have heard of "go on" with oral bidding. Thanks for the explanation. > Steve said: >> "In this case, as Adam points out, the 3H bid rather than 4H is strong >> evidence that the partnership agreement was the one stated." > > I don't agree! The 3H bid may be bad but in no way suspect. I should know better by now. When I think almost everything has been said and is clear, and I try to give a terse summary, somehow it comes out so people can't understand what I meant. Sorry, all. Let's go through this step by step. I don't think there is any real disagreement except perhaps on matters of bridge judgment. To recap, East has doubled in tempo, intending a support double. West believes the double to be penalties and does not alert. Initially the TD has three issues to consider: 1) UI from East to West. 2) UI from West to East. 3) MI to NS. In general the TD will have to consider North and South separately, but it's convenient to combine them in this case. As to 1), after some initial confusion about the facts, we now know that there was no UI from East to West. So West can do whatever he wants. As to 2), West's failure to alert is UI to East. This most likely makes East's 4H bid illegal. If East passes 3H, it isn't entirely clear what will happen. One possibility is for South to pass as well, making 3H the final contract. Another is that South may belatedly bid 4C, which may or may not be doubled. Depending on the TD/AC bridge judgment, an adjusted score in any of these contracts might be reasonable. I don't think 4H is likely; West has no more reason to bid 4H than on the previous round, and it is just as illegal for East on the next round as it was before. As to 3), the TD's first task in potential MI cases is to determine the true partnership agreement. There are several pieces of evidence: a) East's hand and bidding b) West's hand and bidding c) the CC d) the non-alert (and in general any explanations given, not applicable in this case) e) any statements EW made later, although these will often be given little weight. f) system notes if available (apparently not relevant here) Some people take c) as conclusive, but I don't think that is wise. People are often careless, and other evidence needs to be considered. Adam's point, which I was endorsing, is that b) is quite relevant in this case. If West had any hint that the double might be showing support, he surely would have bid 4H. Thus the evidence fairly clearly points to the true agreement about double being penalty, and thus there was no MI. > I do not come from one of those countries where everybody is thought of as > cheaters. (And Richard Hills similarly) I have no idea where this comes from. We are dealing with a simple score adjustment case. There is no hint of anything sinister, and I am at a loss to figure out how something I wrote could have implied otherwise. > If East is void in H, 4H is not > necessarily the best contract on this hand. Agreeably, most people (myself > included) would still say 4H and not 3H on this hand. I tend to agree with East, actually, which no doubt shows my deficiency as a player. After West's penalty double, I'd expect few or no hearts in the West hand and wasted values in clubs, so 3H should be enough. Anyway, as we all agree, West can do whatever he wants. The only point is to consider whether his actions throw light on what the true partnership agreement really is. If West had instead bid 4H, the decision between MI and misbid would have been much closer in my opinion. I would lean to MI in that case. This does not suggest anything evil, just that the TD/AC might believe the CC was accidentally mismarked. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Feb 19 16:16:51 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:16:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <200302191616.LAA13354@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Gordon Bower > I spent a little while tonight trying to think of a better word that > "fielded" that might be more helpful for non-EBU people. "Anticipated" or > "accommodated" or "catered for" are all closer than the US-general-usage > sense of "fielded," but still not quite perfect. Anyone else? "Fielded" undoubtedly means "recognized" regardless of who is using the word. In the EBU and apparently most of the world, "fielding" also carries a strong connotation that the recognition is by illegal means (CPU). In America, there is usually no such connotation; I have heard 'fielded' most often in connection with an opponent's psych. However, the "British meaning" is far more useful in a bridge context. "Recognized" is a perfectly good word for the general case, but without "fielded," we have no word for the improper case. Therefore the British meaning is dominant on BLML and has become the most common meaning on rec.games.bridge. I think learning useful new points of language is a big benefit of an international forum. > my experience from 6 years of reading BLML and RGB is that > the EBU is far more eager to punish psychers than the ACBL is. I wish you could see Mike Flader's column "Ruling the Game" from the 2002 November ACBL Bulletin. He in effect asserts that it is illegal to psych opposite a novice partner who will not recognize what is going on. I think the true state of affairs is that after its long campaign against psyching, the ACBL has very few psychers left to punish. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Feb 19 16:30:09 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:30:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman Message-ID: <200302191630.LAA13363@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > This authorizes declarer to ask a defender, or a defender to ask > declarer, or dummy to ask declarer (subject to Law 43B2(b)) or, if the > zone permits, defenders to ask each other, *one* specific question. It > does not authorize followon questions. It neither authorizes nor prohibits followon questions. That leaves them to SO regulation. If there is no such regulation, it appears from the WBFLC minute that such questions are extraneous unless they are covered by another Law. As others have said, L73A1 is most likely such a law. However, I would be very interested to know how the ACBL interprets the matter. As Sven points out, whatever rule you apply about followon questions should apply equally to all revoke inquiries: dummy to declarer, declarer to defender, defender to declarer, as well as defender to defender where such inquiries are allowed. As the actual case was reported, I fail to see that Mr. Kleinman did anything wrong. As to the general question of the wisdom of allowing defenders to ask each other about revokes, I personally quite like the rule and don't see that it causes any problems where I play. However, other people have claimed thay do see problems, and the momentum seems very much in the direction of prohibition. From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Feb 19 16:51:39 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:51:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Simutaneous bids by the same player Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, ACBL land, bidding boxes in use. Some players around here have the bad habit of naming their calls despite using a bidding boxes. They thing that, doing so, they should avoid problems when taking the wrong bidding card. What should happen did happen yesterday in my club. The verbal call was 1D but the card put on table was 1H. All agree that the calls was simultaneous. The normal opening bid with this hand is 1D. Your ruling ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 19 17:27:13 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:27:13 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <200302191616.LAA13354@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030219182546.024a6870@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:16 19/02/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >"Fielded" undoubtedly means "recognized" regardless of who is using the >word. In the EBU and apparently most of the world, "fielding" also >carries a strong connotation that the recognition is by illegal means >(CPU). In America, there is usually no such connotation; I have heard >'fielded' most often in connection with an opponent's psych. > >However, the "British meaning" is far more useful in a bridge context. >"Recognized" is a perfectly good word for the general case, but without >"fielded," we have no word for the improper case. Therefore the >British meaning is dominant on BLML and has become the most common >meaning on rec.games.bridge. AG : I'd say the British meaning of "fielded" is "ran/run after an elusive ball". The Aussie one too, of course. From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Feb 19 17:32:54 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:32:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Simutaneous bids by the same player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030219122831.00ba04a8@mail.comcast.net> At 11:51 AM 2/19/2003, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >Hi BLMLrs, > >ACBL land, bidding boxes in use. > >Some players around here have the bad habit of naming their >calls despite using a bidding boxes. They thing that, doing >so, they should avoid problems when taking the wrong bidding >card. What should happen did happen yesterday in my club. > >The verbal call was 1D but the card put on table was 1H. >All agree that the calls was simultaneous. >The normal opening bid with this hand is 1D. >Your ruling ? Ask the player which bid he intended to make, and treat the other bid as an inadvertent call made without pause for thought. No penalty, and an opponent who could reasonably have noticed the wrong call may withdraw his subsequent call without penalty. From toddz@att.net Wed Feb 19 17:55:16 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:55:16 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <000601c2d82e$9cd20520$3d182850@pacific> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: gester@lineone.net > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:28 AM > Subject: Re: Fw: [blml] Horrible? > > > Gordon: > > I spent a little while tonight trying to think of a > > better word than "fielded" that might be more > > helpful for non-EBU people. > > > +=+ I do not think search for a 'better' word is the > answer. 'Field' has become a term of the art and the > way to solve the problem Gordon sees is to define > its meaning carefully in its application to bridge. Defining its meaning carefully won't help those who are already familiar with another definition of the word and fail to read yours. > Certainly it is not a question of whether it is > successful. That has never been obvious to me. If you manage to get a worse result from recognizing partner's psyche than had you been oblivious, who's going to complain to the director? Well, someone should if it's a matter for a C&E committee, but as I said, that's never been obvious to me. I've never had a partner field a psych, so I'm uncertain what to do when that does finally happen. -Todd, word abuser with few Rivals. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Feb 19 22:37:59 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:37:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <4A256CD2.007A708C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Sven wrote: [snip] >More important: An AC doesn't "become aware" of >an UI irregularity, they may become aware from >the case that there is a possibility of an UI >situation, but they cannot (or should not) rule >UI without investigating that particular >question unless it has explicitly been brought >forward to the attention of the AC. Why? Where is this *should not* written in the Laws? >The AC shall not and must not "invent" evidence, This may be a translation problem; surely Sven means "uncover" evidence - in English "inventing" evidence has the connotation of "fabricating" evidence. >their duty is to try the evidence presented to >them through the appeal itself and from the >hearing(s) while trying the appeal. Again, where is the Appeals Committee's duty so narrowly circumscribed in the Laws? >So I agree with Eric. Actually, Sven goes further than Eric. Eric stated: >>(That is a personal view, and clearly far >>from universal in practice.) While Sven seems to be propounding a universal rule that *all* ACs "should" follow. Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 19 23:08:57 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:08:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <008801c2d7f2$84cbee50$1f44e150@endicott> Message-ID: On 2/19/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ Ed, it may help you to understand David's use of language if I >quote this extract from one of his earlier messages: > >"But I hope you will understand, as DWS could never understand, that >if I say "You have done (or said, or believed) a ridiculous thing", >this does not mean that I think you are a ridiculous person." > >Thus his description of the action as 'cheating' does not attach to >the individual the label of 'cheat'. +=+ Ah. Well, David's command of our mutual native language is far better than mine, so I daresay his usage is probably technically correct. Yet I think it a dangerous one, because IME the listener will focus on the word and its negative connotations rather than on the action. Still, I will try to keep the usage in mind in future. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 19 23:02:41 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:02:41 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <008701c2d7f2$8363d2d0$1f44e150@endicott> Message-ID: On 2/19/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ The sense in which it is used stems from such usage >as "he fielded a lot of awkward questions"; i.e. to cope >with or parry - in the case of a psyche, taking abnormal >or evasive action which restricts ensuing possibilities of >damage. > The EBU approach recognizes that for the other >players at the table a misbid has the same effects as a >psyche and the partner has no legitimate grounds for >fielding this inadvertent action any more than if partner's >action were conscious and purposeful. Ah. It begins to make sense now. Thank you. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 19 23:36:45 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:36:45 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: On 2/19/03, Steve Willner wrote: >I wish you could see Mike Flader's column "Ruling the Game" from the >2002 November ACBL Bulletin. http://acblinfo.forumexperts.com/bforum.php?thisforum=12&module=view& messageid=000277&action=normal&data=000277 Sorry for the length of the link. Watch out for a page break. :-) >He in effect asserts that it is illegal to psych opposite a novice >partner who will not recognize what is going on. I haven't read the article yet, but it strikes me that he better have sited the law which makes it so. If he can. >I think the true state of affairs is that after its long campaign >against psyching, the ACBL has very few psychers left to punish. I think I'd have to agree. I don't necessarily think that's a good thing. From adam@irvine.com Thu Feb 20 00:17:42 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:17:42 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:36:45 EST." Message-ID: <200302200017.QAA29664@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On 2/19/03, Steve Willner wrote: > > >I wish you could see Mike Flader's column "Ruling the Game" from the > >2002 November ACBL Bulletin. > > http://acblinfo.forumexperts.com/bforum.php?thisforum=12&module=view& > messageid=000277&action=normal&data=000277 > > Sorry for the length of the link. Watch out for a page break. :-) > > >He in effect asserts that it is illegal to psych opposite a novice > >partner who will not recognize what is going on. The above link does say "November 2002" but it has nothing to do with psyching. There are two questions---one about people who agree to open "better minor" with 3-3 in the minors, and another about whether it's legal for two partners to use different NT ranges. I'm guessing that the date is wrong. -- Adam From adam@irvine.com Thu Feb 20 00:24:54 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:24:54 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:17:42 PST." <200302200017.QAA29664@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200302200024.QAA29743@mailhub.irvine.com> I wrote: > Ed wrote: > > > On 2/19/03, Steve Willner wrote: > > > > >I wish you could see Mike Flader's column "Ruling the Game" from the > > >2002 November ACBL Bulletin. > > > > http://acblinfo.forumexperts.com/bforum.php?thisforum=12&module=view& > > messageid=000277&action=normal&data=000277 > > > > Sorry for the length of the link. Watch out for a page break. :-) > > > > >He in effect asserts that it is illegal to psych opposite a novice > > >partner who will not recognize what is going on. > > The above link does say "November 2002" but it has nothing to do with > psyching. There are two questions---one about people who agree to > open "better minor" with 3-3 in the minors, and another about whether > it's legal for two partners to use different NT ranges. I'm guessing > that the date is wrong. Steve was probably thinking about the December 2002 column, at: http://acblinfo.forumexperts.com/bforum.php?thisforum=12&module=view& messageid=000278&action=normal&data=000278 -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Feb 20 02:02:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:02:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Mike Flader on psyches (was Horrible?) Message-ID: <4A256CD3.00095BBE.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: >>>I wish you could see Mike Flader's column "Ruling the Game" from the >>>2002 November ACBL Bulletin. [snip] >>>He in effect asserts that it is illegal to psych opposite a novice >>>partner who will not recognize what is going on. Adam Beneschan continued: >>Steve was probably thinking about the December 2002 column, at: >> >>http://acblinfo.forumexperts.com/bforum.php?thisforum=12&module=view& >>messageid=000278&action=normal&data=000278 So blml can more easily comment on Mike Flader's position, the relevant text is below. Best wishes Richard >Question: I'm still having a problem with this situation. One of >our players likes to psych a 2S response to his partner's weak >two-bid of 2D or 2H. The word "frequent" is so subjective that I >am not clear as to what I should tell this player. Many of his >partners are novices and probably don't even know what's going >on, and, worse, his opponents aren't raising a fuss. I just >heard about it from a couple of sources over the past few >months. So what are the guidelines? I know what Law 40 says, and >I know about concealed partnership agreements. But it seems to >me that this falls in the cracks. > >Answer: I think this should be treated as a private >understanding. If he wants to psych this response, he is >entitled to, but the opponents are entitled to an Alert. If they >don't get one, and you feel they are damaged as a direct result >of the misinformation, adjust the score. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 20 02:14:12 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 02:14:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman References: Message-ID: <007301c2d885$c276a2c0$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Tim wrote: > What about "good luck partner", what about "bless you" when partner > sneezes? Do we *really* want a law that makes these things an offence? I don't know. The fact is that we have one. Perhaps we should not, and perhaps the word "communication" in Law 73 should be clarified. The truth is this: we want to prevent any message reaching partner to the effect that "I know something about this hand that you do not, and I am trying to impart this knowledge to you". Whether the thing I know is that you have a diamond, or that I have a two and a half spade bid, or that the opponents are playing Roman Club, does not matter. If I know and you don't, I may not tell you (except by whatever call or play I can find that does the job). Now, "good luck" and "Gesundheit" are clearly not in this category. But "are you sure you don't have a diamond?" and "Does he have to have clubs?" clearly are. Currently, Law 73 outlaws the lot; if it were worded to this effect: "Communication between partners about any aspect of the current deal, other than by means of calls or plays, is prohibited" then I guess it might be closer to "what we want". David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Feb 20 03:24:44 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:24:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <4A256CD3.0010DB14.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: [big snip] >As to 3), the TD's first task in potential MI >cases is to determine the true partnership >agreement. There are several pieces of >evidence: >a) East's hand and bidding >b) West's hand and bidding >c) the CC [snip of d) to f)] >Some people take c) as conclusive, but I don't >think that is wise. People are often careless, >and other evidence needs to be considered. [snip] Put me in with the "some people" who vote c) as conclusive. In my experience, the "often carelessness" occurs only in a) when East misbids, or in b) when West misbids. In my experience, only when an explanation is contrary to the CC is the explanation MI. My conclusive view does, however, permit a once- in-a-blue-moon exception. Some partnerships may have such frequent memory failures playing their complex system, that in effect their CC is meaningless. (In Canberra the TD can require such a partnership to switch to a simple system.) But this blue moon does not detract from my view that the default ruling by a TD and AC in MI-or- misbid cases should be that the CC is correct. Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 20 06:52:52 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 01:52:52 -0500 Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <200302200017.QAA29664@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On 2/19/03, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Ed wrote: > >> On 2/19/03, Steve Willner wrote: >> >> >I wish you could see Mike Flader's column "Ruling the Game" from the >> >2002 November ACBL Bulletin. >> >> http://acblinfo.forumexperts.com/bforum.php?thisforum=12&module=view& >> messageid=000277&action=normal&data=000277 >> >> Sorry for the length of the link. Watch out for a page break. :-) >> >> >He in effect asserts that it is illegal to psych opposite a novice >> >partner who will not recognize what is going on. > >The above link does say "November 2002" but it has nothing to do with >psyching. There are two questions---one about people who agree to >open "better minor" with 3-3 in the minors, and another about whether >it's legal for two partners to use different NT ranges. I'm guessing >that the date is wrong. Yep. The December entry at http://acblinfo.forumexperts.com/bforum.php?thisforum=12&module=view& messageid=000278&action=normal&data=000278 has a question about psyching. Sorry, I should have read the thing before I posted the link. :-) Basically, the (I think) club TD who submitted the question says that a player has a habit of psyching a 2S response to his partner's 2D or 2H weak two opening. He says "many of his partners are novices and probably don't even know what's going on, and worse, his opponents aren't raising a fuss." Mike Flader then asserts that in his view, the pair concerned has a CPU. I don't see how a pair can have a CPU if one player of that pair has no clue what's going on. Further, if the opponents aren't raising a fuss, what's the problem? Either they know what's going on and aren't concerned, or they, like the player's novice partners, are clueless. In the former case, at least, I don't think the TD oughta be sticking his oar in. I'm not sure I put quite the interpretation on Mike's comments that Steve did. It seems to me that Mike is saying that (a) a CPU is illegal (which is true) and (b) if one player of a pair has a habit of making a particular psyche, the pair has a CPU even if the player's partner has no clue what's going on. As I said above, I don't buy that. From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Feb 20 08:48:16 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:48:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw References: <6412819.1045653502805.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <001901c2d8bc$d6813b40$727e870a@sabre.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: David wrote: >As to the wind: >"I am but mad north-north-west; when the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw". (Hamlet) Now I really made a fool of myself: "Szalony jestem tylko przy wietrze pólnocno-zachodnim, kiedy z poludnia wieje, umiem odróznic jastrzebie od czapli." I have never had the nerve to read "Hamlet" in English. Not that I didn't try but I found myself spending more time poring over dictionaries than reading. The Polish translation quoted above (one has to change the encoding to ISO-2 [Central European-ISO] to read it, if anyone cares) reads "I can tell a hawk from a heron" so I don't feel *that* ashamed for not recognizing the famous quote. Anyway thanks for making me see the light. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Feb 18 23:15:47 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:15:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <4A256CD1.007DE731.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> --0__=qAlyIRzcYqYzDnsB5keJykalfjgTamkmhOM9iOnEIRBq35muwxbjofKp Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Eric Landau wrote: >>>As an AC member, I would vote to let the score >>>stand, since the UI issue was not, apparently, >>>raised before the committee. It is my view >>>that an AC's job is not to rule on the entire >>>deal, but to rule on the appeal brought before >>>them. (That is a personal view, and clearly >>>far from universal in practice.) Alain Gottcheiner asked: >>doesn't L81C6 apply to ACs ? Law 81C6 states: >The Director --0__=qAlyIRzcYqYzDnsB5keJykalfjgTamkmhOM9iOnEIRBq35muwxbjofKp Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline 's duties and powers normally include >the following: to rectify an error or irregularity >of which he becomes aware in any manner, ..... Law 93B3 states: >In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise >all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, >except that ..... Therefore, like Alain, my opinion is that Eric's personal view is also an unLawful view. Best wishes Richard = --0__=qAlyIRzcYqYzDnsB5keJykalfjgTamkmhOM9iOnEIRBq35muwxbjofKp-- From svenpran@online.no Thu Feb 20 09:22:40 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:22:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <4A256CD1.007DE731.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <005d01c2d8c1$9dde3b30$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: To: Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > >>>As an AC member, I would vote to let the score > >>>stand, since the UI issue was not, apparently, > >>>raised before the committee. It is my view > >>>that an AC's job is not to rule on the entire > >>>deal, but to rule on the appeal brought before > >>>them. (That is a personal view, and clearly > >>>far from universal in practice.) > > Alain Gottcheiner asked: > > >>doesn't L81C6 apply to ACs ? > > Law 81C6 states: > > >The Director's duties and powers normally include >the following: to rectify an error or irregularity >of which he becomes aware in any manner, ..... Law 93B3 states: >In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise >all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, >except that ..... Therefore, like Alain, my opinion is that Eric's personal view is also an unLawful view. No, not exactly. When exercising the powers assigned to the Director in Law 81C6 the AC should take great care not to make any ruling unless the case is fully investigated. If the matter has been brought forward to the AC with the appeal there is (or should be) no problem. All relevant facts should then be available from the appeal papers together with the hearings. But if the AC on it's own initiative wants to make a ruling on matters not explicitly brought to their attention as part of the appeal they are in great danger of making injustice unless they also themselves investigate the case. The appeal alone cannot be trusted to give the complete and correct "picture". All parties involved must be given their opportunity to comment on the "new" matters considered by the AC. Finally, the way I read Law 93B3 the committee may only exercise their powers under Law 81C6 on matters that are directly associated with the appeal as such. ("In adjudicating appeals the committee may ...") Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 20 09:46:06 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:46:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <4A256CD2.007A708C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030220104210.00a97740@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:37 20/02/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >This may be a translation problem; surely Sven >means "uncover" evidence - in English "inventing" >evidence has the connotation of "fabricating" >evidence. AG : is that, for once, a wrong translation the other way ? French : inventer : devise / make up inventeur : the one who finds (eg a treasure) only secondarily : the one who devises never : the one who makes up (from latin in-venire : to come across) So the AC may be the "inventeur" of some evidence, but they are not allowed to "inventer" it. From jurgenr@t-online.de Thu Feb 20 11:02:47 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:02:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] A hawk from a handsaw Message-ID: "I am but mad north-north-west; when the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw". (Hamlet) Konrad: >Now I really made a fool of myself: ========================= No, you didn't - quite the opposite. If we all pretend to know everything we will never communicate. A common explanation of the mysterious phrase, from E. Cobham Brewer, Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1898), is "I know a hawk from a handsaw. Handsaw is a corruption of hernshaw (a heron). I know a hawk from a heron, the bird of prey from the game flown at. The proverb means, I know one thing from another. (See Hamlet, ii. 2.)" A second, more convincing explanation is that a 'hawk' is a tool, namely a metal or wooden rectangle with a handle, used to temporarily hold mortar or plaster. Perhaps S. intended this double meaning. I don't know whether the wonderfully absurd literal reading is the same now as it was 400 yrs ago, when people might have recognized 'hawk' as a tool in the context. Perhaps the phrase was current at the time. Jürgen From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 20 11:36:12 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:36:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <200302191604.LAA13341@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <005e01c2d8d4$4c62b980$25b54351@noos.fr> Steve, This thread has turned into a language discussion. And for some reason the concept of psyching (and cheating) has entered the thread. A pity because the case itself is interesting. I tend to agree with your views with a few modifications. First of all, west is completely free to bid whatever he wants. The problem is East who 'fielded' a conventional double which was not alerted by his partner (and we have to assume that it is alertable given the local rules otherwise there is no case). Steve: > As to 2), West's failure to alert is UI to East. This most likely > makes East's 4H bid illegal. According to me 4H is a serious infraction because this hand is nowhere near a 4H bid. East has opened the bidding and, in east's view, showed some extras and some H-support with his double. So it is hard to find any ground for the 4H bid other than partner's failure to alert. I don't accuse the guy of cheating, these things can happen subconscious, but at high level a separate procedural penalty is appropriate (imo). > West believes the double to be penalties and does not alert. It is not obvious to think this double is penalty, the normal meaning (at high level) is 'points' rather than 'clubs', but his 3H bid is solid evidence he took the double as penalty. In which context the 3H bid makes sense. Misbid/wrong explanation I am sure double is a 'misbid' but I am not sure 'penalty' is the right explanation. For me the EW system cannot be established. But there is no real damage to NS. If they where alerted and or told 'no specific agreements' they where in much the same situation. > If East passes 3H, it isn't entirely > clear what will happen. One possibility is for South to pass as well, > making 3H the final contract. Another is that South may belatedly bid > 4C, which may or may not be doubled. Depending on the TD/AC bridge > judgment, an adjusted score in any of these contracts might be > reasonable. I don't think 4H is likely; West has no more reason to bid > 4H than on the previous round, and it is just as illegal for East on > the next round as it was before. Of course East is out. But imo it is quite likely that west will bid 4H over 4C. He has convinced himself that double was pure penalty. If South bids 4C he is very likely to change that penalty a little towards general values and then 4H becomes 'obvious'. Besides I think it is unlikely for South to bid 4C. As South I would think opps have just missed something so bidding now means for all practical purposes to take out 3H with 5C* (which happens to be a good save but this is not a prospect I would cherish as South). Fortunately it is teams and so there is no big difference between the two. I would probably rule 3H+x on AC (imo by far the most likely result if you bar east from bidding 4H). But I have no problem with 5C*-1 (it is better for the non offenders and it is a conceivable result). Of course you also have the 'best possible' school that wants to rule 4C=. I think this is giving NS too much but there are endless discussions about whether you should do 'best possible' or use some judgement. I tend to side with the non-offenders (of course I do) but I stop at handing out presents (they have to earn their points themselves) so put me down with the 'some judgement' guys. > Some people take the CC as conclusive, but I don't think that is wise. > People are often careless, and other evidence needs to be considered. I cannot agree more. The CC is just a piece of paper with some text. It is silly to accept this as the ultimate evidence of the system. On AC I will always (try to) verify if they understand and master whatever they say they are playing. If not imo there is no system, so bids cannot be misbids, and so explanations cannot be right. But that is a separate discussion. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Horrible? > > From: "Tommy Sandsmark" > > I must, however, point out to you that the > > Norwegian alertation rules differ somewhat from the rest of the world's. In > > Norway, the stop bidder is required to wait for 10 seconds and then say "Go > > on" (or remove the stop bid). The next hand is then supposed to make a bid > > withour hesitation. > > Interesting rules. Those are common enough with bidding cards, but I > don't think I have heard of "go on" with oral bidding. Thanks for the > explanation. > > > Steve said: > >> "In this case, as Adam points out, the 3H bid rather than 4H is strong > >> evidence that the partnership agreement was the one stated." > > > > I don't agree! The 3H bid may be bad but in no way suspect. > > I should know better by now. When I think almost everything has been > said and is clear, and I try to give a terse summary, somehow it comes > out so people can't understand what I meant. Sorry, all. > > Let's go through this step by step. I don't think there is any > real disagreement except perhaps on matters of bridge judgment. > > To recap, East has doubled in tempo, intending a support double. > West believes the double to be penalties and does not alert. > > Initially the TD has three issues to consider: > 1) UI from East to West. > 2) UI from West to East. > 3) MI to NS. In general the TD will have to consider North and South > separately, but it's convenient to combine them in this case. > > As to 1), after some initial confusion about the facts, we now know > that there was no UI from East to West. So West can do whatever he > wants. > > As to 2), West's failure to alert is UI to East. This most likely > makes East's 4H bid illegal. If East passes 3H, it isn't entirely > clear what will happen. One possibility is for South to pass as well, > making 3H the final contract. Another is that South may belatedly bid > 4C, which may or may not be doubled. Depending on the TD/AC bridge > judgment, an adjusted score in any of these contracts might be > reasonable. I don't think 4H is likely; West has no more reason to bid > 4H than on the previous round, and it is just as illegal for East on > the next round as it was before. > > As to 3), the TD's first task in potential MI cases is to determine > the true partnership agreement. There are several pieces of evidence: > a) East's hand and bidding > b) West's hand and bidding > c) the CC > d) the non-alert (and in general any explanations given, not applicable > in this case) > e) any statements EW made later, although these will often be given > little weight. > f) system notes if available (apparently not relevant here) > > Some people take c) as conclusive, but I don't think that is wise. > People are often careless, and other evidence needs to be considered. > Adam's point, which I was endorsing, is that b) is quite relevant in > this case. If West had any hint that the double might be showing > support, he surely would have bid 4H. Thus the evidence fairly clearly > points to the true agreement about double being penalty, and thus there > was no MI. > > > I do not come from one of those countries where everybody is thought of as > > cheaters. > (And Richard Hills similarly) > > I have no idea where this comes from. We are dealing with a simple > score adjustment case. There is no hint of anything sinister, and I am > at a loss to figure out how something I wrote could have implied > otherwise. > > > If East is void in H, 4H is not > > necessarily the best contract on this hand. Agreeably, most people (myself > > included) would still say 4H and not 3H on this hand. > > I tend to agree with East, actually, which no doubt shows my deficiency > as a player. After West's penalty double, I'd expect few or no hearts > in the West hand and wasted values in clubs, so 3H should be enough. > Anyway, as we all agree, West can do whatever he wants. The only point > is to consider whether his actions throw light on what the true > partnership agreement really is. > > If West had instead bid 4H, the decision between MI and misbid would > have been much closer in my opinion. I would lean to MI in that case. > This does not suggest anything evil, just that the TD/AC might believe > the CC was accidentally mismarked. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu Feb 20 12:07:52 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:07:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <200302191604.LAA13341@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <005e01c2d8d4$4c62b980$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000d01c2d8d8$b1f627b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Jaap van der Neut" ........ > > Some people take the CC as conclusive, but I don't think that is wise. > > People are often careless, and other evidence needs to be considered. > I cannot agree more. The CC is just a piece of paper with some text. It is > silly to accept this as the ultimate evidence of the system. On AC I will > always (try to) verify if they understand and master whatever they say they > are playing. If not imo there is no system, so bids cannot be misbids, and > so explanations cannot be right. But that is a separate discussion. > > > Jaap van der Neut Now here I believe you are mixing up different issues. We do not ask whether somebody understand and adhere to their system (we certainly hope they do), the important question is what are their agreements! I said previously and I repeat again that unless there are strong evidence to the contrary we consider CC as the written documentation (summary) of their agreements and as such the most convincing evidence of same. Thus, as East has made a call obviously in disagreement with the CC and West equally obviously treated that call according to what was written on the CC we should not even discuss any alternative to ruling misbid (unless East can make West agree post festum that West had forgotten they recently agreed to change their system, which is not in question here). Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Feb 20 12:05:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Claim by Kleinman In-Reply-To: <007301c2d885$c276a2c0$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David wrote: > > > What about "good luck partner", what about "bless you" when partner > > sneezes? Do we *really* want a law that makes these things an > offence? > > I don't know. The fact is that we have one. Perhaps we should not, and > perhaps the word "communication" in Law 73 should be clarified. That would certainly help. > The truth is this: we want to prevent any message reaching partner to > the effect that "I know something about this hand that you do not, and I > am trying to impart this knowledge to you". Whether the thing I know is > that you have a diamond, or that I have a two and a half spade bid, or > that the opponents are playing Roman Club, does not matter. If I know > and you don't, I may not tell you (except by whatever call or play I can > find that does the job). > > Now, "good luck" and "Gesundheit" are clearly not in this category. But > "are you sure you don't have a diamond?" and I'd be happy if the law stated unambiguously that one was allowed to insist that partner correct a revoke before it became established, I'd be happy if the Zonal option on inquiry was removed altogether. I don't like the current state of affairs where you and I interpret it differently. > "Does he have to have clubs?" clearly are. Presumably a legal question (although possibly UI bearing) if 1C is described simply as "Roman" to a player who doesn't know Roman club. > Currently, Law 73 outlaws the lot; While Laws 42/61 permit some communication that would seem illegal under L73. Not a good thing IMO. > if it were worded to this effect: > "Communication between partners about any aspect of the current deal, > other than by means of calls or plays, is prohibited" > > then I guess it might be closer to "what we want". Certainly closer to what I want. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Feb 20 13:05:56 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:05:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <4A256CD1.007DE731.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030220080007.00a4c4a0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:15 PM 2/18/03, richard.hills wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > >>>As an AC member, I would vote to let the score > >>>stand, since the UI issue was not, apparently, > >>>raised before the committee. It is my view > >>>that an AC's job is not to rule on the entire > >>>deal, but to rule on the appeal brought before > >>>them. (That is a personal view, and clearly > >>>far from universal in practice.) > >Alain Gottcheiner asked: > > >>doesn't L81C6 apply to ACs ? > >Law 81C6 states: > > >The Director >'s duties and powers normally include > >the following: to rectify an error or irregularity > >of which he becomes aware in any manner, ..... > >Law 93B3 states: > > >In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise > >all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, > >except that ..... > >Therefore, like Alain, my opinion is that Eric's >personal view is also an unLawful view. Apparently I must defend my statement. I said that in my opinion ACs should not go looking for irregularities that lie outside the scope of the appeal being heard; I did not say that it was illegal for them to do so. L93B3 seems quite clear: ACs "may" do this if they choose to, but are not required to. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Feb 20 13:09:51 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:09:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 Message-ID: Dutch bridge really does its utmost to develop the laws of bridge, to support constructive ideas about this subject and to supply all we need to succeed. Yesterday the following case was brought to my attention: - 7 J AQ6 - - 73 - 8 6 K5 J732 Q74 - - 98 south plays 4S with his RHO on lead who plays the diamond 6. South now claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the spade queen and with the statement: 3 spade tricks, the diamond Jack and the ace of clubs. This is my first case in which the TD has to substitute normal for irrational play. Any objection against awarding 5 tricks to declarer? ton From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 20 13:06:03 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:06:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <200302191604.LAA13341@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <005e01c2d8d4$4c62b980$25b54351@noos.fr> <000d01c2d8d8$b1f627b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006e01c2d8e0$d5f878e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Sven, I am not mixing up anything, but I do know it is a controversial subject. > We do not ask whether somebody understand and adhere to their system > (we certainly hope they do), > the important question is what are their agreements! First drop 'adhere'. I don't care. It is about 'understand'. My basic statement is that someone who doesn't understand his agreements/system has no agreements/system. Among other reasons because someone who doesn't understand his 'agreements' cannot bid according to his 'agreements' (so 'misbid' has no real meaning) and cannot explain his 'agreements' (so right or wrong explanation has no real meaning). And this is not intended as playing with words. If two guys somewhere between the third and fourth beer discuss some bridge and afterwards one of the two writes his impression of these talks on a CC, this CC is imo not necessarily a true description of their agreements, let alone a proof. Of course I ridiculize a little but the point should be clear. And of course the CC is a relevant piece of evidence. But by the way, have you ever seen a CC that is correct and complete? The background of this concept is Dutch reality. In Holland we more than tolerate weak players to play all kind of funky stuff. They fill out their CC's with dozens of conventions they don't really understand and probably never will. If that is the way they (and the Dutch fed) like to play, fine with me. But of course it leads to all kind of 'horrible' problems. The most well known (but there are many more) is the 3C jumpovercall. They all play it as a twosuiter (suit mix-up's are common of course) but whenever they hold KQ-7th of clubs they promptly forget and bid 3C anyway. The only way to deal with this kind of nonsense is not to accept any CC or whatever automatically at face value. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > ........ > > > Some people take the CC as conclusive, but I don't think that is wise. > > > People are often careless, and other evidence needs to be considered. > > I cannot agree more. The CC is just a piece of paper with some text. It is > > silly to accept this as the ultimate evidence of the system. On AC I will > > always (try to) verify if they understand and master whatever they say > they > > are playing. If not imo there is no system, so bids cannot be misbids, and > > so explanations cannot be right. But that is a separate discussion. > > > > > > Jaap van der Neut > > Now here I believe you are mixing up different issues. > > We do not ask whether somebody understand and adhere to their system > (we certainly hope they do), > the important question is what are their agreements! > > I said previously and I repeat again that unless there are strong evidence > to the contrary we consider CC as the written documentation (summary) > of their agreements and as such the most convincing evidence of same. > > Thus, as East has made a call obviously in disagreement with the CC > and West equally obviously treated that call according to what was > written on the CC we should not even discuss any alternative to ruling > misbid (unless East can make West agree post festum that West had > forgotten they recently agreed to change their system, which is not in > question here). > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From xbridge@online.no Thu Feb 20 13:11:36 2003 From: xbridge@online.no (Tommy Sandsmark) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:11:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <005e01c2d8d4$4c62b980$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000501c2d8e1$e6ab1c50$0a646464@siri> Jaap wrote: "But I have no problem with 5C*-1 (it is better for the non offenders and it is a conceivable result). Of course you also have the 'best possible' school that wants to rule 4C=. I think this is giving NS too much but there are endless discussions about whether you should do 'best possible' or use some judgement. I tend to side with the non-offenders (of course I do) but I stop at handing out presents (they have to earn their points themselves) so put me down with the 'some judgement' guys." Do you forget the fact that if East is allowed to bid 4H and South sacrifices in 5C, West is likely to bid 5H, which is cold? Isn't that a conceivable result in that setting? Don't forget that when you say "non-offenders", you had better have at least one "offender" as well. In the actual case, The AC treated West as an offender even though the only crime he had committed, was to explain East's misbid correctly to the opponents! The only debateable action taken here is East's raise to 4H, which may have been the result of en UI. That, however does not change the situation for South, who is free to say 5C anyway. The fact that he doesn't is probably tre result of East's misbid, because he has had the right explanation, and for him you may feel some sympathy, but you cannot redress the contract, at least not the way the laws are written and also intended. Tommy Tommy www.xbridge.no Bridge & Kryss/Bridgens Bokklubb, Tommy Sandsmark, Bygdøy Allé 73 B, 0268 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: 00-47-22 43 02 14. Fax: 00-47-22 43 42 99. E-Mail: xbridge@online.no. Have a nice day! -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:36 PM To: Steve Willner; blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? Steve, This thread has turned into a language discussion. And for some reason the concept of psyching (and cheating) has entered the thread. A pity because the case itself is interesting. I tend to agree with your views with a few modifications. First of all, west is completely free to bid whatever he wants. The problem is East who 'fielded' a conventional double which was not alerted by his partner (and we have to assume that it is alertable given the local rules otherwise there is no case). Steve: > As to 2), West's failure to alert is UI to East. This most likely > makes East's 4H bid illegal. According to me 4H is a serious infraction because this hand is nowhere near a 4H bid. East has opened the bidding and, in east's view, showed some extras and some H-support with his double. So it is hard to find any ground for the 4H bid other than partner's failure to alert. I don't accuse the guy of cheating, these things can happen subconscious, but at high level a separate procedural penalty is appropriate (imo). > West believes the double to be penalties and does not alert. It is not obvious to think this double is penalty, the normal meaning (at high level) is 'points' rather than 'clubs', but his 3H bid is solid evidence he took the double as penalty. In which context the 3H bid makes sense. Misbid/wrong explanation I am sure double is a 'misbid' but I am not sure 'penalty' is the right explanation. For me the EW system cannot be established. But there is no real damage to NS. If they where alerted and or told 'no specific agreements' they where in much the same situation. > If East passes 3H, it isn't entirely > clear what will happen. One possibility is for South to pass as well, > making 3H the final contract. Another is that South may belatedly bid > 4C, which may or may not be doubled. Depending on the TD/AC bridge > judgment, an adjusted score in any of these contracts might be > reasonable. I don't think 4H is likely; West has no more reason to bid > 4H than on the previous round, and it is just as illegal for East on > the next round as it was before. Of course East is out. But imo it is quite likely that west will bid 4H over 4C. He has convinced himself that double was pure penalty. If South bids 4C he is very likely to change that penalty a little towards general values and then 4H becomes 'obvious'. Besides I think it is unlikely for South to bid 4C. As South I would think opps have just missed something so bidding now means for all practical purposes to take out 3H with 5C* (which happens to be a good save but this is not a prospect I would cherish as South). Fortunately it is teams and so there is no big difference between the two. I would probably rule 3H+x on AC (imo by far the most likely result if you bar east from bidding 4H). But I have no problem with 5C*-1 (it is better for the non offenders and it is a conceivable result). Of course you also have the 'best possible' school that wants to rule 4C=. I think this is giving NS too much but there are endless discussions about whether you should do 'best possible' or use some judgement. I tend to side with the non-offenders (of course I do) but I stop at handing out presents (they have to earn their points themselves) so put me down with the 'some judgement' guys. > Some people take the CC as conclusive, but I don't think that is wise. > People are often careless, and other evidence needs to be considered. I cannot agree more. The CC is just a piece of paper with some text. It is silly to accept this as the ultimate evidence of the system. On AC I will always (try to) verify if they understand and master whatever they say they are playing. If not imo there is no system, so bids cannot be misbids, and so explanations cannot be right. But that is a separate discussion. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Horrible? > > From: "Tommy Sandsmark" > > I must, however, point out to you that the > > Norwegian alertation rules differ somewhat from the rest of the world's. In > > Norway, the stop bidder is required to wait for 10 seconds and then say "Go > > on" (or remove the stop bid). The next hand is then supposed to make a bid > > withour hesitation. > > Interesting rules. Those are common enough with bidding cards, but I > don't think I have heard of "go on" with oral bidding. Thanks for the > explanation. > > > Steve said: > >> "In this case, as Adam points out, the 3H bid rather than 4H is strong > >> evidence that the partnership agreement was the one stated." > > > > I don't agree! The 3H bid may be bad but in no way suspect. > > I should know better by now. When I think almost everything has been > said and is clear, and I try to give a terse summary, somehow it comes > out so people can't understand what I meant. Sorry, all. > > Let's go through this step by step. I don't think there is any > real disagreement except perhaps on matters of bridge judgment. > > To recap, East has doubled in tempo, intending a support double. > West believes the double to be penalties and does not alert. > > Initially the TD has three issues to consider: > 1) UI from East to West. > 2) UI from West to East. > 3) MI to NS. In general the TD will have to consider North and South > separately, but it's convenient to combine them in this case. > > As to 1), after some initial confusion about the facts, we now know > that there was no UI from East to West. So West can do whatever he > wants. > > As to 2), West's failure to alert is UI to East. This most likely > makes East's 4H bid illegal. If East passes 3H, it isn't entirely > clear what will happen. One possibility is for South to pass as well, > making 3H the final contract. Another is that South may belatedly bid > 4C, which may or may not be doubled. Depending on the TD/AC bridge > judgment, an adjusted score in any of these contracts might be > reasonable. I don't think 4H is likely; West has no more reason to bid > 4H than on the previous round, and it is just as illegal for East on > the next round as it was before. > > As to 3), the TD's first task in potential MI cases is to determine > the true partnership agreement. There are several pieces of evidence: > a) East's hand and bidding > b) West's hand and bidding > c) the CC > d) the non-alert (and in general any explanations given, not applicable > in this case) > e) any statements EW made later, although these will often be given > little weight. > f) system notes if available (apparently not relevant here) > > Some people take c) as conclusive, but I don't think that is wise. > People are often careless, and other evidence needs to be considered. > Adam's point, which I was endorsing, is that b) is quite relevant in > this case. If West had any hint that the double might be showing > support, he surely would have bid 4H. Thus the evidence fairly clearly > points to the true agreement about double being penalty, and thus there > was no MI. > > > I do not come from one of those countries where everybody is thought of as > > cheaters. > (And Richard Hills similarly) > > I have no idea where this comes from. We are dealing with a simple > score adjustment case. There is no hint of anything sinister, and I am > at a loss to figure out how something I wrote could have implied > otherwise. > > > If East is void in H, 4H is not > > necessarily the best contract on this hand. Agreeably, most people (myself > > included) would still say 4H and not 3H on this hand. > > I tend to agree with East, actually, which no doubt shows my deficiency > as a player. After West's penalty double, I'd expect few or no hearts > in the West hand and wasted values in clubs, so 3H should be enough. > Anyway, as we all agree, West can do whatever he wants. The only point > is to consider whether his actions throw light on what the true > partnership agreement really is. > > If West had instead bid 4H, the decision between MI and misbid would > have been much closer in my opinion. I would lean to MI in that case. > This does not suggest anything evil, just that the TD/AC might believe > the CC was accidentally mismarked. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Feb 20 13:26:36 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:26:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <005e01c2d8d4$4c62b980$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <200302191604.LAA13341@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030220081600.00a5b120@pop.starpower.net> At 06:36 AM 2/20/03, Jaap wrote: >Misbid/wrong explanation >I am sure double is a 'misbid' but I am not sure 'penalty' is the right >explanation. For me the EW system cannot be established. But there is no >real damage to NS. If they where alerted and or told 'no specific >agreements' they where in much the same situation. I don't think it's relevant to ruling on the original case, but FWIW N-S are much better off with the explanation they got. The inferences from knowing that West bid 3H as a pull of a penalty double tell them a lot more about West's hand than would those from believing that South had pulled a "no specific agreement" double. Does this support the De Wael school view on informing opponents about partner's bidding? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Feb 20 13:42:39 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:42:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030220083819.00a57b90@pop.starpower.net> At 08:09 AM 2/20/03, Kooijman wrote: > - > 7 > J > AQ6 >- - >73 - >8 6 >K5 J732 > Q74 > - > - > 98 > >south plays 4S with his RHO on lead who plays the diamond 6. South now >claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the spade queen and >with the statement: 3 spade tricks, the diamond Jack and the ace of >clubs. > >This is my first case in which the TD has to substitute normal for >irrational play. >Any objection against awarding 5 tricks to declarer? That depends on whether North's H7 is higher or lower than W's H7. I believe L70E prevents us from ruling that S would have taken a trick with the CQ. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Thu Feb 20 13:42:06 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:42:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_[blml]_claims_forever=2C_case_n_+_1?= Message-ID: "Kooijman, A." Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 20/02/03 14:09 =20 Pour : "'blml@rtflb.org'" cc :=20 Objet : [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 Dutch bridge really does its utmost to develop the laws of bridge, to support constructive ideas about this subject and to supply all we need to succeed. Yesterday the following case was brought to my attention: - 7 J AQ6 - - 73 - 8 6 =20 K5 J732 Q74 - - 98 south plays 4S with his RHO on lead who plays the diamond 6. South now claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the spade queen and with the statement: 3 spade tricks, the diamond Jack and the ace of clubs. = This is my first case in which the TD has to substitute normal for irrational play. Any objection against awarding 5 tricks to declarer?=20 *** which of the two H7 is the higher one? jpr *** ton =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=20 =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Feb 20 13:40:46 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 07:40:46 -0600 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 7:09 AM Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > Dutch bridge really does its utmost to develop the laws of bridge, to > support constructive ideas about this subject and to supply all we need to > succeed. Yesterday the following case was brought to my attention: > > > - > 7 > J > AQ6 > - - > 73 - > 8 6 > K5 J732 > Q74 > - > - > 98 > > south plays 4S with his RHO on lead who plays the diamond 6. South now > claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the spade queen and > with the statement: 3 spade tricks, the diamond Jack and the ace of clubs. > > This is my first case in which the TD has to substitute normal for > irrational play. > Any objection against awarding 5 tricks to declarer? > > > ton 4.5 tricks seems about right where the H7's split a trick. regards roger pewick From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 20 13:53:38 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:53:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <200302191604.LAA13341@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20030220081600.00a5b120@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3E54DDE2.80408@skynet.be> Hello Eric, Eric Landau wrote: > At 06:36 AM 2/20/03, Jaap wrote: > >> Misbid/wrong explanation >> I am sure double is a 'misbid' but I am not sure 'penalty' is the right >> explanation. For me the EW system cannot be established. But there is no >> real damage to NS. If they where alerted and or told 'no specific >> agreements' they where in much the same situation. > > > I don't think it's relevant to ruling on the original case, but FWIW N-S > are much better off with the explanation they got. The inferences from > knowing that West bid 3H as a pull of a penalty double tell them a lot > more about West's hand than would those from believing that South had > pulled a "no specific agreement" double. > > Does this support the De Wael school view on informing opponents about > partner's bidding? > Only in a tangential way. Yes, I believe that opponents have the right to know East's view of things. They have not gotten this, and they should get redress. Yes, I believe that opponents have the right to know West's view of things. They did get that information, with West telling them it's a penalty double and pulling it nevertheless. No, opponents are not "entitled" to know EW are having a bidding misunderstanding. The redress given about the misexplanation (if such is considered - I have never said it had to - only that such a ruling is possible) should be given in the light of them receiving the explanation that the double is for support, without them realizing that the pull to 3He is anything else than an acceptance to play there and not higher. The only other influence the dWS has on this case is that East should not explain West's bid as weak, since he heard a support double. East is required, however, to act as if that is what he knows. He should not raise 3H to 4H, IMO. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Feb 20 13:54:10 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:54:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f=2E_=3A_=5Bblml=5D_claims?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?_forever=2C_case_n_+_1?= Message-ID: > Objet : [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > > > Dutch bridge really does its utmost to develop the laws of bridge, to > support constructive ideas about this subject and to supply > all we need to > succeed. Yesterday the following case was brought to my attention: > > > - > 7 > J > AQ6 > - - > 73 - > 8 6 > K5 J732 > Q74 > - > - > 98 > > south plays 4S with his RHO on lead who plays the diamond 6. South now > claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the > spade queen and > with the statement: 3 spade tricks, the diamond Jack and the > ace of clubs. > > > This is my first case in which the TD has to substitute normal for > irrational play. > Any objection against awarding 5 tricks to declarer? > > *** > which of the two H7 is the higher one? That was not meant to be the clue in this problem, let us give north the 6 of hearts if that is still free. ton > jpr > *** From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 20 15:08:18 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:08:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[blml]_RE:_[blml]_R=E9f._:_[blml]_claims_?= forever, case n + 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030220155750.024b27e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:54 20/02/2003 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > Objet : [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > > > > > > Dutch bridge really does its utmost to develop the laws of bridge, to > > support constructive ideas about this subject and to supply > > all we need to > > succeed. Yesterday the following case was brought to my attention: > > > > > > - > > six > > J > > AQ6 > > - - > > 73 - > > 8 6 > > K5 J732 > > Q74 > > - > > - > > 98 > > > > south plays 4S with his RHO on lead who plays the diamond 6. South now > > claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the > > spade queen and > > with the statement: 3 spade tricks, the diamond Jack and the > > ace of clubs. > > > > > > This is my first case in which the TD has to substitute normal for > > irrational play. > > Any objection against awarding 5 tricks to declarer? AG : I have. Only marked finesses are allowed. Finesses that are necessary (as here, East being known not to have the bare K) are not. 1 trick to the defense. There have been cases where declarer "couldn't fail to notice" some specific lie of the cards on any non-absurd line of play, and in such a case one could allow for, eg, a finesse which will become marked. However, here, declarer didn't understand the Jack would fall, and the next trick(s) won't tell him any more. I strongly suspect that declarer pulled the wrong card (especially as it's the Queen) and that his intention was to discard a club. Too bad. And yes, this is one of the reasons why I don't claim very often. I could have pulled the wrong one and not noticed it. Best regards, Alain. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Feb 20 15:02:14 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:02:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_=5Bblml=5D_Re=3A_=5Bblml=5D_RE=3A_=5Bblml?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=5D_R=E9f=2E_=3A_=5Bblml=5D_claims__forever=2C_case_n_+?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?_1?= Message-ID: > > AG : I have. Only marked finesses are allowed. Finesses that > are necessary > (as here, East being known not to have the bare K) are not. This sounds as being a very helpful statement. Could you tell me where to find it in the laws? ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 20 15:35:04 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:35:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_[blml]_Re:_[blml]_RE:_[blml_]_R=E9f._:_[?= blml] claims forever, case n + 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030220163418.0249c930@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:02 20/02/2003 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > AG : I have. Only marked finesses are allowed. Finesses that > > are necessary > > (as here, East being known not to have the bare K) are not. > > >This sounds as being a very helpful statement. Could you tell me where to >find it in the laws? L70E alinea 1 (marked finesses) and 2 (finesses that will become marked) From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Feb 20 15:27:25 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:27:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_=5Bblml=5D_Re=3A_=5Bblml=5D_RE=3A_=5Bblml?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?_=5D_R=E9f=2E_=3A_=5B_blml=5D_claims__forever=2C_case_n?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?_+_1?= Message-ID: > At 16:02 20/02/2003 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > > > > AG : I have. Only marked finesses are allowed. Finesses that > > > are necessary > > > (as here, East being known not to have the bare K) are not. > > > > > >This sounds as being a very helpful statement. Could you > tell me where to > >find it in the laws? > > L70E alinea 1 (marked finesses) and 2 (finesses that will > become marked) I have to apologize if you took my question seriously. I know about law 70E. Did you read it till the last words? ton From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Feb 20 15:40:48 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:40:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f._:_[_blml]_claims__forever,_case_n_+_1?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 03:27 PM, Kooijman, A. wrote: > >> At 16:02 20/02/2003 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: >> >>>> >>>> AG : I have. Only marked finesses are allowed. Finesses that >>>> are necessary >>>> (as here, East being known not to have the bare K) are not. >>> >>> >>> This sounds as being a very helpful statement. Could you >> tell me where to >>> find it in the laws? >> >> L70E alinea 1 (marked finesses) and 2 (finesses that will >> become marked) > > > > > I have to apologize if you took my question seriously. I know about > law 70E. > Did you read it till the last words? I have. It depends when you imagine declarer will realise the mistake he has made, whether or not taking the finesse is even possible, never mind it being irrational to fail to take it. How about: ruffed diamond, club to Ace to cash....damn, where did I put that diamond trick? Or, ruffed diamond, CA from dummy, condoned. Isn't this one of those Laws with which people never used to have a problem until it was "improved" in 1997? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 20 15:43:43 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:43:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: Message-ID: <001a01c2d8f6$d97568a0$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Ton wrote something which I have amended by fixing the heart suit in line with his suggestion: > - > 6 > J > AQ6 > - - > 73 - > 8 6 > K5 J732 > Q74 > - > - > 98 > > south plays 4S with his RHO on lead who plays the diamond 6. South now > claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the spade queen and > with the statement: 3 spade tricks, the diamond Jack and the ace of clubs. > > This is my first case in which the TD has to substitute normal for > irrational play. > Any objection against awarding 5 tricks to declarer? You cannot be serious. Am I supposed to award a man a trick with a card he doesn't have? South has claimed three spade tricks and the ace of clubs - he gets them. He has claimed the jack of diamonds, but he doesn't have the jack of diamonds any more, since he has just ruffed it. He does not get the queen of clubs, for: The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. Now, a man who has just ruffed his own winner, and thinks that he still has that winner, is obviously incapable of rational thought (remember that "irrational" now means "irrational for the class of player involved", thanks to a recent pronouncement that was irrational for the class of WBFLC involved). Why should he not discard dummy's non-aces of clubs on the spades? After all, if he thinks dummy still has the jack of diamonds, he would not retain the queen of clubs. This is what is completely wrong with the Herman approach that a man who has claimed under a false impression will thereafter be deemed to play under a true impression. If the guy had continued to play cards, he *might* have noticed that he didn't have the jack of diamonds any more, and he *might* have kept - and finessed - the queen of clubs. But he didn't continue to play cards. He claimed a trick with a winner he didn't have, and he doesn't get it. David Burn London, England From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Feb 20 16:03:32 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:03:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Réf. : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 Message-ID: <200302201603.LAA19060@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Gordon Rainsford > How about: ruffed diamond, club to > Ace to cash....damn, where did I put that diamond trick? Yes, this seems to be a normal line leading to four tricks. The facts are slightly unclear, but if indeed the S-Q was played before the claim, it wins the current trick (swallowing the D-J) but cannot win a later trick. If declarer _immediately_ tries to correct the S-Q play, L45C4b could possibly apply. This has nothing to do with the subsequent claim. The TD first has to rule whether the correction is allowed or not and subsequently rules on the claim. In the case as stated, there is no indication of declarer attempting a correction, so this is just a general comment, not applicable here. > Or, ruffed diamond, CA from dummy, condoned. This one is no good. Lines that include infractions are not considered "normal" for judging claims, even if we believe claimer might well have played that way. From dodson.m@attbi.com Thu Feb 20 16:09:20 2003 From: dodson.m@attbi.com (mikedod) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:09:20 -0800 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030220083819.00a57b90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002101c2d8fa$b91f3910$7202a8c0@cyber> Eric wrote: > At 08:09 AM 2/20/03, Kooijman wrote: > > > - > > 7 > > J > > AQ6 > >- - > >73 - > >8 6 > >K5 J732 > > Q74 > > - > > - > > 98 > > > >south plays 4S with his RHO on lead who plays the diamond 6. South now > >claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the spade queen and > >with the statement: 3 spade tricks, the diamond Jack and the ace of > >clubs. > > > >This is my first case in which the TD has to substitute normal for > >irrational play. > >Any objection against awarding 5 tricks to declarer? > > That depends on whether North's H7 is higher or lower than W's H7. > > I believe L70E prevents us from ruling that S would have taken a trick > with the CQ. And prevents the heart seven from taking a trick even if it is high. It will be sluffed on the spades while south plays for the club K to drop. The real question is whether ruffing the good diamond occurred before the claim (tough luck) or is an irrational part of an otherwise valid claim. >From Ton's wording I conclude the irrational play was before the claim and declarer gets 4 tricks (three of the four available after the claim). At the table, South might convince me that the spade queen was not played but was displayed as part of the claim and the tricks enumerated (5) should be awarded. Mike Dodson From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 20 16:02:11 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:02:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <000501c2d8e1$e6ab1c50$0a646464@siri> Message-ID: <004a01c2d8fa$27781540$25b54351@noos.fr> Tommy, > Don't forget that when you say "non-offenders", you had better have at least > one "offender" as well. I do have an offender. East. And a bad offender at that because I consider 4H by a good player a serious infraction. He is blatantly using the UI that his partner didn't take the double as intended (if this double is locally alertable). There really is no bridge reason for bidding 4H, pass is obvious. Of course this is my bridge judgement but if you want to challenge that, please tell me where are east's extras after his first two bids. > Do you forget the fact that if East is allowed to bid 4H and South > sacrifices in 5C, West is likely to bid 5H, which is cold? Isn't that a > conceivable result in that setting? East allowed to bid 4H? What kind of bridge are you playing? I said that I would like to rule 3H+x because I am going to bar East from bidding 4H, a sensible South will probably pass that so end of bidding. Now some smart lawyers for NS will claim that 5C*-1 is better for NS and 4C= even more so. And they do have a case because bidding 4C as South is definitly not silly or so (although it easily provokes 4H by west who is unconstrained). In real life AC's tend to be divided about this kind of issues. I just tried to say that I won't resist changing -200 (3H) to -100 (5C*) (or some mix) too much if only for practical reasons (it is a minor difference). But I will resist to giving NS +130 because that is too much of a good thing for my taste. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tommy Sandsmark" To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:11 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Horrible? > Jaap wrote: > > "But I have no problem with 5C*-1 (it is better for > the non offenders and it is a conceivable result). Of course you also have > the 'best possible' school that wants to rule 4C=. I think this is giving NS > too much but there are endless discussions about whether you should do 'best > possible' or use some judgement. I tend to side with the non-offenders (of > course I do) but I stop at handing out presents (they have to earn their > points themselves) so put me down with the 'some judgement' guys." > > Do you forget the fact that if East is allowed to bid 4H and South > sacrifices in 5C, West is likely to bid 5H, which is cold? Isn't that a > conceivable result in that setting? > > Don't forget that when you say "non-offenders", you had better have at least > one "offender" as well. In the actual case, The AC treated West as an > offender even though the only crime he had committed, was to explain East's > misbid correctly to the opponents! The only debateable action taken here is > East's raise to 4H, which may have been the result of en UI. That, however > does not change the situation for South, who is free to say 5C anyway. The > fact that he doesn't is probably tre result of East's misbid, because he has > had the right explanation, and for him you may feel some sympathy, but you > cannot redress the contract, at least not the way the laws are written and > also intended. > > Tommy > > Tommy > > www.xbridge.no Bridge & Kryss/Bridgens Bokklubb, > Tommy Sandsmark, Bygdøy Allé 73 B, 0268 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: 00-47-22 43 02 > 14. Fax: 00-47-22 43 42 99. E-Mail: xbridge@online.no. Have a nice day! > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Jaap van der Neut > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:36 PM > To: Steve Willner; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > > > Steve, > > This thread has turned into a language discussion. And for some reason the > concept of psyching (and cheating) has entered the thread. A pity because > the case itself is interesting. > > I tend to agree with your views with a few modifications. First of all, west > is completely free to bid whatever he wants. The problem is East who > 'fielded' a conventional double which was not alerted by his partner (and we > have to assume that it is alertable given the local rules otherwise there is > no case). > > Steve: > > As to 2), West's failure to alert is UI to East. This most likely > > makes East's 4H bid illegal. > According to me 4H is a serious infraction because this hand is nowhere near > a 4H bid. East has opened the bidding and, in east's view, showed some > extras and some H-support with his double. So it is hard to find any ground > for the 4H bid other than partner's failure to alert. I don't accuse the guy > of cheating, these things can happen subconscious, but at high level a > separate procedural penalty is appropriate (imo). > > > West believes the double to be penalties and does not alert. > It is not obvious to think this double is penalty, the normal meaning (at > high level) is 'points' rather than 'clubs', but his 3H bid is solid > evidence he took the double as penalty. In which context the 3H bid makes > sense. > > Misbid/wrong explanation > I am sure double is a 'misbid' but I am not sure 'penalty' is the right > explanation. For me the EW system cannot be established. But there is no > real damage to NS. If they where alerted and or told 'no specific > agreements' they where in much the same situation. > > > If East passes 3H, it isn't entirely > > clear what will happen. One possibility is for South to pass as well, > > making 3H the final contract. Another is that South may belatedly bid > > 4C, which may or may not be doubled. Depending on the TD/AC bridge > > judgment, an adjusted score in any of these contracts might be > > reasonable. I don't think 4H is likely; West has no more reason to bid > > 4H than on the previous round, and it is just as illegal for East on > > the next round as it was before. > Of course East is out. But imo it is quite likely that west will bid 4H over > 4C. He has convinced himself that double was pure penalty. If South bids 4C > he is very likely to change that penalty a little towards general values and > then 4H becomes 'obvious'. Besides I think it is unlikely for South to bid > 4C. As South I would think opps have just missed something so bidding now > means for all practical purposes to take out 3H with 5C* (which happens to > be a good save but this is not a prospect I would cherish as South). > > Fortunately it is teams and so there is no big difference between the two. I > would probably rule 3H+x on AC (imo by far the most likely result if you bar > east from bidding 4H). But I have no problem with 5C*-1 (it is better for > the non offenders and it is a conceivable result). Of course you also have > the 'best possible' school that wants to rule 4C=. I think this is giving NS > too much but there are endless discussions about whether you should do 'best > possible' or use some judgement. I tend to side with the non-offenders (of > course I do) but I stop at handing out presents (they have to earn their > points themselves) so put me down with the 'some judgement' guys. > > > Some people take the CC as conclusive, but I don't think that is wise. > > People are often careless, and other evidence needs to be considered. > I cannot agree more. The CC is just a piece of paper with some text. It is > silly to accept this as the ultimate evidence of the system. On AC I will > always (try to) verify if they understand and master whatever they say they > are playing. If not imo there is no system, so bids cannot be misbids, and > so explanations cannot be right. But that is a separate discussion. > > > Jaap van der Neut > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 5:04 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Horrible? > > > > > From: "Tommy Sandsmark" > > > I must, however, point out to you that the > > > Norwegian alertation rules differ somewhat from the rest of the world's. > In > > > Norway, the stop bidder is required to wait for 10 seconds and then say > "Go > > > on" (or remove the stop bid). The next hand is then supposed to make a > bid > > > withour hesitation. > > > > Interesting rules. Those are common enough with bidding cards, but I > > don't think I have heard of "go on" with oral bidding. Thanks for the > > explanation. > > > > > Steve said: > > >> "In this case, as Adam points out, the 3H bid rather than 4H is strong > > >> evidence that the partnership agreement was the one stated." > > > > > > I don't agree! The 3H bid may be bad but in no way suspect. > > > > I should know better by now. When I think almost everything has been > > said and is clear, and I try to give a terse summary, somehow it comes > > out so people can't understand what I meant. Sorry, all. > > > > Let's go through this step by step. I don't think there is any > > real disagreement except perhaps on matters of bridge judgment. > > > > To recap, East has doubled in tempo, intending a support double. > > West believes the double to be penalties and does not alert. > > > > Initially the TD has three issues to consider: > > 1) UI from East to West. > > 2) UI from West to East. > > 3) MI to NS. In general the TD will have to consider North and South > > separately, but it's convenient to combine them in this case. > > > > As to 1), after some initial confusion about the facts, we now know > > that there was no UI from East to West. So West can do whatever he > > wants. > > > > As to 2), West's failure to alert is UI to East. This most likely > > makes East's 4H bid illegal. If East passes 3H, it isn't entirely > > clear what will happen. One possibility is for South to pass as well, > > making 3H the final contract. Another is that South may belatedly bid > > 4C, which may or may not be doubled. Depending on the TD/AC bridge > > judgment, an adjusted score in any of these contracts might be > > reasonable. I don't think 4H is likely; West has no more reason to bid > > 4H than on the previous round, and it is just as illegal for East on > > the next round as it was before. > > > > As to 3), the TD's first task in potential MI cases is to determine > > the true partnership agreement. There are several pieces of evidence: > > a) East's hand and bidding > > b) West's hand and bidding > > c) the CC > > d) the non-alert (and in general any explanations given, not applicable > > in this case) > > e) any statements EW made later, although these will often be given > > little weight. > > f) system notes if available (apparently not relevant here) > > > > Some people take c) as conclusive, but I don't think that is wise. > > People are often careless, and other evidence needs to be considered. > > Adam's point, which I was endorsing, is that b) is quite relevant in > > this case. If West had any hint that the double might be showing > > support, he surely would have bid 4H. Thus the evidence fairly clearly > > points to the true agreement about double being penalty, and thus there > > was no MI. > > > > > I do not come from one of those countries where everybody is thought of > as > > > cheaters. > > (And Richard Hills similarly) > > > > I have no idea where this comes from. We are dealing with a simple > > score adjustment case. There is no hint of anything sinister, and I am > > at a loss to figure out how something I wrote could have implied > > otherwise. > > > > > If East is void in H, 4H is not > > > necessarily the best contract on this hand. Agreeably, most people > (myself > > > included) would still say 4H and not 3H on this hand. > > > > I tend to agree with East, actually, which no doubt shows my deficiency > > as a player. After West's penalty double, I'd expect few or no hearts > > in the West hand and wasted values in clubs, so 3H should be enough. > > Anyway, as we all agree, West can do whatever he wants. The only point > > is to consider whether his actions throw light on what the true > > partnership agreement really is. > > > > If West had instead bid 4H, the decision between MI and misbid would > > have been much closer in my opinion. I would lean to MI in that case. > > This does not suggest anything evil, just that the TD/AC might believe > > the CC was accidentally mismarked. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Feb 20 16:16:47 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:16:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <200302201616.LAA19073@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Tommy Sandsmark" > Do you forget the fact that if East is allowed to bid 4H and South > sacrifices in 5C, West is likely to bid 5H, which is cold? This seems very unlikely to me. You are having a player who wanted to sign off in 3H voluntarily bid 4H over 4C and then 5H over 5C after his partner's penalty double of 3C and holding significant defensive values (C-K). But this is just a question of bridge judgment. Yours might well be better than mine. (I am certain it is in general!) The TD's (and later AC's) duty is to figure out the "likely" and "at all probable" results after East passes 3H. Then perhaps to consider L12C3 if it applies in your jurisdiction. I don't say these tasks are easy, and certainly reasonable people can disagree on the result. > Don't forget that when you say "non-offenders", you had better have at least > one "offender" as well. Yes, East. The strong consensus was that the 4H bid was illegal. One poster thought it such a blatant infraction as to deserve a PP. Contrary to one poster, I don't believe East's "support double" showed extra values, but from his point of view, and absent UI, he has shown his three-card heart support. In that context, pass is certainly a logical alternative, though it might not be the best bid. I agree, though, that both the TD and AC seem to have gone bonkers by focussing on West's actions. That makes no sense. From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 20 16:15:54 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:15:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <200302191604.LAA13341@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20030220081600.00a5b120@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <006f01c2d8fb$5ce07500$25b54351@noos.fr> Eric, Of course I agree with you. I only mentioned this to establish that the explanation' (right/wrong is unclear to me) or lack of it didn't cause any serious damage to NS. So I won't buy NS claims for damage that way. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > At 06:36 AM 2/20/03, Jaap wrote: > > >Misbid/wrong explanation > >I am sure double is a 'misbid' but I am not sure 'penalty' is the right > >explanation. For me the EW system cannot be established. But there is no > >real damage to NS. If they where alerted and or told 'no specific > >agreements' they where in much the same situation. > > I don't think it's relevant to ruling on the original case, but FWIW > N-S are much better off with the explanation they got. The inferences > from knowing that West bid 3H as a pull of a penalty double tell them a > lot more about West's hand than would those from believing that South > had pulled a "no specific agreement" double. > > Does this support the De Wael school view on informing opponents about > partner's bidding? > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 20 16:25:47 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:25:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <200302201616.LAA19073@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <007e01c2d8fc$bbd43500$25b54351@noos.fr> Steve: > Contrary to one poster, I don't believe East's "support double" showed > extra values, but from his point of view, and absent UI, he has shown > his three-card heart support. In that context, pass is certainly a > logical alternative, though it might not be the best bid. Steve, a two-level support double (where you can still bid 2x) doesn't show any extra's the way people normally play it (although it is very common that it denies a flat minimum and or a minimum with a bad support-suit). But a three-level support double does show at least a decent opening. If only because of bridge logic because you might have to play some three-level contract opposite the usual 6 points with a bad fourcard suit in the support-doubled suit. Your partner never promised more than KJx xxxx xxx Qxx (to give him a real baddie). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 5:16 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Horrible? > > From: "Tommy Sandsmark" > > Do you forget the fact that if East is allowed to bid 4H and South > > sacrifices in 5C, West is likely to bid 5H, which is cold? > > This seems very unlikely to me. You are having a player who wanted to > sign off in 3H voluntarily bid 4H over 4C and then 5H over 5C after his > partner's penalty double of 3C and holding significant defensive values > (C-K). But this is just a question of bridge judgment. Yours might > well be better than mine. (I am certain it is in general!) > > The TD's (and later AC's) duty is to figure out the "likely" and "at > all probable" results after East passes 3H. Then perhaps to consider > L12C3 if it applies in your jurisdiction. I don't say these tasks are > easy, and certainly reasonable people can disagree on the result. > > > Don't forget that when you say "non-offenders", you had better have at least > > one "offender" as well. > > Yes, East. The strong consensus was that the 4H bid was illegal. One > poster thought it such a blatant infraction as to deserve a PP. > > Contrary to one poster, I don't believe East's "support double" showed > extra values, but from his point of view, and absent UI, he has shown > his three-card heart support. In that context, pass is certainly a > logical alternative, though it might not be the best bid. > > I agree, though, that both the TD and AC seem to have gone bonkers by > focussing on West's actions. That makes no sense. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 20 16:52:27 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:52:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_[blml]_Re:_[blml]_RE:_[blml_]_R=E9f._:_[_?= blml] claims forever, case n + 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030220174944.024b3e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:27 20/02/2003 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > At 16:02 20/02/2003 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > > > > > > > AG : I have. Only marked finesses are allowed. Finesses that > > > > are necessary > > > > (as here, East being known not to have the bare K) are not. > > > > > > > > >This sounds as being a very helpful statement. Could you > > tell me where to > > >find it in the laws? > > > > L70E alinea 1 (marked finesses) and 2 (finesses that will > > become marked) > > > > >I have to apologize if you took my question seriously. I know about law 70E. >Did you read it till the last words? AG : I did. And I think that neither taking nor not taking a finesse is irrational, except in the case that the finesse is marked. When the finesse is not marked, not taking it can't be called irrational, thus the last alinea doesn't apply here. YMMV. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 20 16:41:09 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:41:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <001a01c2d8f6$d97568a0$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E550525.4080009@skynet.be> Absolutely correct, David. Except for one thing: David Burn wrote: > Ton wrote something which I have amended by fixing the heart suit in > line with his suggestion: > > >> - >> 6 >> J >> AQ6 >> - - >> 73 - >> 8 6 >> K5 J732 >> Q74 >> - >> - >> 98 >> >>south plays 4S with his RHO on lead who plays the diamond 6. South now >>claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the spade queen >> > and > >>with the statement: 3 spade tricks, the diamond Jack and the ace of >> > clubs. > >>This is my first case in which the TD has to substitute normal for >>irrational play. >>Any objection against awarding 5 tricks to declarer? >> Yes. > > You cannot be serious. Am I supposed to award a man a trick with a card > he doesn't have? South has claimed three spade tricks and the ace of > clubs - he gets them. He has claimed the jack of diamonds, but he > doesn't have the jack of diamonds any more, since he has just ruffed it. Of course. > He does not get the queen of clubs, for: > > The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the > success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other > with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit > of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to > follow to that suit on any normal line of play; or unless failure to > adopt this line of play would be irrational. > > Now, a man who has just ruffed his own winner, and thinks that he still > has that winner, is obviously incapable of rational thought (remember > that "irrational" now means "irrational for the class of player > involved", thanks to a recent pronouncement that was irrational for the > class of WBFLC involved). Why should he not discard dummy's non-aces of > clubs on the spades? After all, if he thinks dummy still has the jack of > diamonds, he would not retain the queen of clubs. > I don't buy that one. It is irrational to throw the queen of clubs. > This is what is completely wrong with the Herman approach that a man who > has claimed under a false impression will thereafter be deemed to play > under a true impression. If the guy had continued to play cards, he > *might* have noticed that he didn't have the jack of diamonds any more, > and he *might* have kept - and finessed - the queen of clubs. But he > didn't continue to play cards. He claimed a trick with a winner he > didn't have, and he doesn't get it. > No, but he still won't be deemed to throw the ace of clubs for that. I allow him to come down to the AQ of clubs and then play towards it. If West has the bare king, declarer gets 2 tricks. He hasn't, so I award 3 spade tricks + the ace of clubs to declarer, and the king of clubs to defence. I'm not as soft as you think, David. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 20 17:00:49 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:00:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <200302201616.LAA19073@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030220175508.024baec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:16 20/02/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >The TD's (and later AC's) duty is to figure out the "likely" and "at >all probable" results after East passes 3H. Then perhaps to consider >L12C3 if it applies in your jurisdiction. I don't say these tasks are >easy, and certainly reasonable people can disagree on the result. AG : I would find quite normal, aften having read the comments of blmlers about the plausibility of different actions, to give an adjusted score of -140 to NS and of -130 to EW on L12C3 grounds. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 20 17:06:21 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:06:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 In-Reply-To: <3E550525.4080009@skynet.be> References: <001a01c2d8f6$d97568a0$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030220180351.0249caf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:41 20/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >No, but he still won't be deemed to throw the ace of clubs for that. >I allow him to come down to the AQ of clubs and then play towards it. >If West has the bare king, declarer gets 2 tricks. >He hasn't, so I award 3 spade tricks + the ace of clubs to declarer, and >the king of clubs to defence. AG : I'm on Herman's side. Playing the CQ if the King appears would be irrational. But nothing short of it would - thus 5 tricks only in this very peculiar case. Please note that we all seem to consider discarding the CQ as irrational. This should be remembered when we discuss the possibility of unblocking plays after a claim. There shouldn't be any. Best regards, Alain. From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Feb 20 16:56:40 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:56:40 -0600 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <001a01c2d8f6$d97568a0$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: I am not ready to rule on a contested claim until I have all the objections and claimer's rebuttal to the objections. This notion that it is the TD's job to come up with objections and rebuttal is kaka. regards roger pewick ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > Ton wrote something which I have amended by fixing the heart suit in > line with his suggestion: > > > - > > 6 > > J > > AQ6 > > - - > > 73 - > > 8 6 > > K5 J732 > > Q74 > > - > > - > > 98 > > > > south plays 4S with his RHO on lead who plays the diamond 6. South now > > claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the spade queen > and > > with the statement: 3 spade tricks, the diamond Jack and the ace of > clubs. > > > > This is my first case in which the TD has to substitute normal for > > irrational play. > > Any objection against awarding 5 tricks to declarer? > > You cannot be serious. Am I supposed to award a man a trick with a card > he doesn't have? South has claimed three spade tricks and the ace of > clubs - he gets them. He has claimed the jack of diamonds, but he > doesn't have the jack of diamonds any more, since he has just ruffed it. > He does not get the queen of clubs, for: > > The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the > success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other > with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit > of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to > follow to that suit on any normal line of play; or unless failure to > adopt this line of play would be irrational. > > Now, a man who has just ruffed his own winner, and thinks that he still > has that winner, is obviously incapable of rational thought (remember > that "irrational" now means "irrational for the class of player > involved", thanks to a recent pronouncement that was irrational for the > class of WBFLC involved). Why should he not discard dummy's non-aces of > clubs on the spades? After all, if he thinks dummy still has the jack of > diamonds, he would not retain the queen of clubs. > > This is what is completely wrong with the Herman approach that a man who > has claimed under a false impression will thereafter be deemed to play > under a true impression. If the guy had continued to play cards, he > *might* have noticed that he didn't have the jack of diamonds any more, > and he *might* have kept - and finessed - the queen of clubs. But he > didn't continue to play cards. He claimed a trick with a winner he > didn't have, and he doesn't get it. > > David Burn > London, England From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 20 16:38:14 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:38:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <200302191604.LAA13341@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20030220081600.00a5b120@pop.starpower.net> <3E54DDE2.80408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00a401c2d900$f17fb0e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman: > Yes, I believe that opponents have the right to know East's view of > things. They have not gotten this, and they should get redress. > Yes, I believe that opponents have the right to know West's view of > things. They did get that information, with West telling them it's a > penalty double and pulling it nevertheless. > No, opponents are not "entitled" to know EW are having a bidding > misunderstanding. 1. This seems logically inconsistent to me. If you have the right to know both East's and West's version of a sequence then you also know whether or not the have some kind of misunderstanding. Please explain to me how you can have one without the other. 2. I am not a rule expert (on AC the CTD always helps me out on the gory details) but I am quite sure it is currently illegal [without screens] to ask someone questions about a bid he made himself and [with screens] to ask your not screen mate anything. Have the rules been changed ? Actually I would support such changes but that is another discussion. 3. I don't like the use of 'believe'. There are some rules for tournament bridge. Either they have the right to know something or not. What do you try to say using 'I believe' ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > Hello Eric, > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > At 06:36 AM 2/20/03, Jaap wrote: > > > >> Misbid/wrong explanation > >> I am sure double is a 'misbid' but I am not sure 'penalty' is the right > >> explanation. For me the EW system cannot be established. But there is no > >> real damage to NS. If they where alerted and or told 'no specific > >> agreements' they where in much the same situation. > > > > > > I don't think it's relevant to ruling on the original case, but FWIW N-S > > are much better off with the explanation they got. The inferences from > > knowing that West bid 3H as a pull of a penalty double tell them a lot > > more about West's hand than would those from believing that South had > > pulled a "no specific agreement" double. > > > > Does this support the De Wael school view on informing opponents about > > partner's bidding? > > > > > Only in a tangential way. > Yes, I believe that opponents have the right to know East's view of > things. They have not gotten this, and they should get redress. > Yes, I believe that opponents have the right to know West's view of > things. They did get that information, with West telling them it's a > penalty double and pulling it nevertheless. > No, opponents are not "entitled" to know EW are having a bidding > misunderstanding. The redress given about the misexplanation (if such > is considered - I have never said it had to - only that such a ruling > is possible) should be given in the light of them receiving the > explanation that the double is for support, without them realizing > that the pull to 3He is anything else than an acceptance to play there > and not higher. > > The only other influence the dWS has on this case is that East should > not explain West's bid as weak, since he heard a support double. East > is required, however, to act as if that is what he knows. He should > not raise 3H to 4H, IMO. > > > > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 20 17:00:59 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:00:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: Message-ID: <00af01c2d901$a60475a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton: > I have to apologize if you took my question seriously. I know about law 70E. > Did you read it till the last words? I guess Ton refers to 'or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational'. These are the last words. For Ton to arrive at five tricks I guess he wants to allow the declarer the club finesse (after demoting the H7 to H6). For starters I agree completely with David and AG on this one. But now just for the sake of Ton's 'irrational' argument. To me playing for the drop rather than to take a finesse (apart from the fact that some posters want south to discard the CQ on the spades) is not irrational. Why should it be irrational. Maybe South has some (real or imaginary) indication that east has some points and is short in clubs. Maybe he is superstitious and there where a couple of singleton club-kings around. I can find a dozen reasons more. If have seen people tackling suits against all odds. But it might easily be considered 'foolish' to play for the drop rather than the finesse. Guess how 'irrational' is translated into the Dutch version of the laws. 'Dwaas' which is the Dutch equivalent of 'foolish'. So maybe Ton has a case. In Holland that is. Actually I don't blame the Dutch translators too much on this one. The word irrational exists in the Dutch language but it is not that easy an word. So I can understand that they choose to use a much more common word which very often means roughly the same. But for legal purposes this is a rather foolish thing to do (it creates this kind of problems) although not irrational at all (most ordinairy Dutch players tend to understand the text better this way). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Alain Gottcheiner'" ; "Kooijman, A." ; Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:27 PM Subject: [blml] RE: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml ] Réf. : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > > > At 16:02 20/02/2003 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > > > > > > > AG : I have. Only marked finesses are allowed. Finesses that > > > > are necessary > > > > (as here, East being known not to have the bare K) are not. > > > > > > > > >This sounds as being a very helpful statement. Could you > > tell me where to > > >find it in the laws? > > > > L70E alinea 1 (marked finesses) and 2 (finesses that will > > become marked) > > > > > I have to apologize if you took my question seriously. I know about law 70E. > Did you read it till the last words? > > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 20 17:23:36 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:23:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <200302191604.LAA13341@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20030220081600.00a5b120@pop.starpower.net> <3E54DDE2.80408@skynet.be> <00a401c2d900$f17fb0e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E550F18.3080207@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman: > >>Yes, I believe that opponents have the right to know East's view of >>things. They have not gotten this, and they should get redress. >>Yes, I believe that opponents have the right to know West's view of >>things. They did get that information, with West telling them it's a >>penalty double and pulling it nevertheless. >>No, opponents are not "entitled" to know EW are having a bidding >>misunderstanding. >> > > 1. This seems logically inconsistent to me. If you have the right to know > both East's and West's version of a sequence then you also know whether or > not the have some kind of misunderstanding. Please explain to me how you can > have one without the other. > Because they are both theoretical. You are entitled to know that East believes his double is support. You are entitled to know that West believes the double is punitive. Or rather that he believes his 3He is running away from a punitive double. But you are not entitled to know both. Or to put it another way - The Director has the choice of ruling the system either way, but he must choose only one way. In that event, there is one misinformation and one correct one. You are entitled to redress for the wrong one, but in the adjudication, you are not entitled to the additional knowledge of the misunderstanding. > 2. I am not a rule expert (on AC the CTD always helps me out on the gory > details) but I am quite sure it is currently illegal [without screens] to > ask someone questions about a bid he made himself and [with screens] to ask > your not screen mate anything. Have the rules been changed ? Actually I > would support such changes but that is another discussion. > > 3. I don't like the use of 'believe'. There are some rules for tournament > bridge. Either they have the right to know something or not. What do you try > to say using 'I believe' ? > Only that it is my belief, not commonly accepted fact. And that I feel more strongly about it than if I'd said "I think", and less strongly than if I'd said "I'm certain". > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 20 17:27:37 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:27:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00af01c2d901$a60475a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E551009.4080206@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > I guess Ton refers to 'or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be > irrational'. These are the last words. For Ton to arrive at five tricks I > guess he wants to allow the declarer the club finesse (after demoting the H7 > to H6). For starters I agree completely with David and AG on this one. But > now just for the sake of Ton's 'irrational' argument. > > To me playing for the drop rather than to take a finesse (apart from the > fact that some posters want south to discard the CQ on the spades) is not > irrational. Why should it be irrational. Maybe South has some (real or > imaginary) indication that east has some points and is short in clubs. Maybe > he is superstitious and there where a couple of singleton club-kings around. > I can find a dozen reasons more. If have seen people tackling suits against > all odds. > I am fully with Alain and Jaap in this one. Except in one particular case. If the Queen is needed to fulfil a contract in teams play (and if two down won't matter), then to not take the finesse would be irrational. But that's not the case here. > But it might easily be considered 'foolish' to play for the drop rather than > the finesse. Guess how 'irrational' is translated into the Dutch version of > the laws. 'Dwaas' which is the Dutch equivalent of 'foolish'. So maybe Ton > has a case. In Holland that is. > > Actually I don't blame the Dutch translators too much on this one. The word The main translator was a Belgian ;-) > irrational exists in the Dutch language but it is not that easy an word. So > I can understand that they choose to use a much more common word which very > often means roughly the same. But for legal purposes this is a rather > foolish thing to do (it creates this kind of problems) although not > irrational at all (most ordinairy Dutch players tend to understand the text > better this way). > > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 20 17:59:14 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:59:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 In-Reply-To: <3E551009.4080206@skynet.be> References: <00af01c2d901$a60475a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030220185303.024bdd60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:27 20/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >I am fully with Alain and Jaap in this one. Except in one particular case. >If the Queen is needed to fulfil a contract in teams play (and if two down >won't matter), AG :this would be quite an uncommon occurrence. 2-3 IMPs for avoiding the second undertrick can always be useful. The only situation that I can think of is BAM. I'm wondering whether the following argument could hold : any player who is so wildly off-target as to ruff his master DJ and make a grotesque claim is able to do irrational things thereafter, so don't discard irrationalities. At the very least, a player in such a state of mind won't be able to reason on IMPs/MPs expectancies, and I wouldn't make any allowance for Herman's exceptional case. Declarer might even be unable to know how much tricks he needs to fulfil his contract. Best regards, Alain. >then to not take the finesse would be irrational. >But that's not the case here. From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 20 17:41:05 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:41:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00af01c2d901$a60475a0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E551009.4080206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <010101c2d907$4091f160$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman: > I am fully with Alain and Jaap in this one. Except in one particular > case. If the Queen is needed to fulfil a contract in teams play (and > if two down won't matter), then to not take the finesse would be > irrational. > But that's not the case here. Well on the K-singleton onside I tend to side with David because it ends all this endless discussions. But under current laws I can live with allowing 5 tricks for declarer if the stiff K is onside (depends who is on the AC whether or not I will put up a fight). Although in this case declarer might easily discard the QC and play for the H7 or H6 to be high (even Ton didn't know if it was good or not so it cannot be irrational or even foolish to try for that one). Or maybe some TD will rule it is an clear show-up squeeze that cannot possible be missed even if declarer is careless (because of course declarer remembers it is west who guards this H6 and a half). Of course David is right. Current laws are 'foolish'. But I cannot understand why you want to give the club Q to declarer if it is teams and he needs two tricks. That might be the best change given no info (but there is always some info) but it is by definition not irrational to try to drop the king. And why should it be more or less irrational if it where pairs (a trick more or less almost always matters at pairs)? No Herman, the player should play the board, not the TD. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > > I guess Ton refers to 'or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be > > irrational'. These are the last words. For Ton to arrive at five tricks I > > guess he wants to allow the declarer the club finesse (after demoting the H7 > > to H6). For starters I agree completely with David and AG on this one. But > > now just for the sake of Ton's 'irrational' argument. > > > > To me playing for the drop rather than to take a finesse (apart from the > > fact that some posters want south to discard the CQ on the spades) is not > > irrational. Why should it be irrational. Maybe South has some (real or > > imaginary) indication that east has some points and is short in clubs. Maybe > > he is superstitious and there where a couple of singleton club-kings around. > > I can find a dozen reasons more. If have seen people tackling suits against > > all odds. > > > > > I am fully with Alain and Jaap in this one. Except in one particular > case. If the Queen is needed to fulfil a contract in teams play (and > if two down won't matter), then to not take the finesse would be > irrational. > But that's not the case here. > > > > But it might easily be considered 'foolish' to play for the drop rather than > > the finesse. Guess how 'irrational' is translated into the Dutch version of > > the laws. 'Dwaas' which is the Dutch equivalent of 'foolish'. So maybe Ton > > has a case. In Holland that is. > > > > Actually I don't blame the Dutch translators too much on this one. The word > > > The main translator was a Belgian ;-) > > > > irrational exists in the Dutch language but it is not that easy an word. So > > I can understand that they choose to use a much more common word which very > > often means roughly the same. But for legal purposes this is a rather > > foolish thing to do (it creates this kind of problems) although not > > irrational at all (most ordinairy Dutch players tend to understand the text > > better this way). > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > -- > 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 svenpran@online.no Thu Feb 20 20:26:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:26:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: Message-ID: <001301c2d91e$69c91fb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Kooijman, A." > Dutch bridge really does its utmost to develop the laws of bridge, to > support constructive ideas about this subject and to supply all we need to > succeed. Yesterday the following case was brought to my attention: > > > - > 7 > J > AQ6 > - - > 73 - > 8 6 > K5 J732 > Q74 > - > - > 98 > > south plays 4S with his RHO on lead who plays the diamond 6. South now > claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the spade queen and > with the statement: 3 spade tricks, the diamond Jack and the ace of clubs. > > This is my first case in which the TD has to substitute normal for > irrational play. > Any objection against awarding 5 tricks to declarer? Yes, according to your description he ruffed the diamond and claims with four (not five!) cards left. But now he has no diamond trick (the Jack had to be discarded under the trump) and he is only allowed one club trick. One trick to the defence. Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Feb 20 20:42:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:42:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <001a01c2d8f6$d97568a0$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20030220180351.0249caf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005901c2d920$868bb980$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 17:41 20/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >No, but he still won't be deemed to throw the ace of clubs for that. > >I allow him to come down to the AQ of clubs and then play towards it. > >If West has the bare king, declarer gets 2 tricks. > >He hasn't, so I award 3 spade tricks + the ace of clubs to declarer, and > >the king of clubs to defence. > > AG : I'm on Herman's side. Playing the CQ if the King appears would be > irrational. But nothing short of it would - thus 5 tricks only in this very > peculiar case. > Please note that we all seem to consider discarding the CQ as irrational. No I don't. Please explain to me why it is more irrational to discard the QC than the 6H? I am not sure you realize that after three rounds of spades with two cards left South has a perfect squeeze against West, only he is not allowed to discover that once he has claimed the way he did. Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Feb 20 20:52:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:52:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <200302191604.LAA13341@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20030220081600.00a5b120@pop.starpower.net> <3E54DDE2.80408@skynet.be> <00a401c2d900$f17fb0e0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E550F18.3080207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006501c2d922$061acb90$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Herman: > > > >>Yes, I believe that opponents have the right to know East's view of > >>things. They have not gotten this, and they should get redress. > >>Yes, I believe that opponents have the right to know West's view of > >>things. They did get that information, with West telling them it's a > >>penalty double and pulling it nevertheless. > >>No, opponents are not "entitled" to know EW are having a bidding > >>misunderstanding. > >> > > > > 1. This seems logically inconsistent to me. If you have the right to know > > both East's and West's version of a sequence then you also know whether or > > not the have some kind of misunderstanding. Please explain to me how you can > > have one without the other. > > > > > Because they are both theoretical. > You are entitled to know that East believes his double is support. > You are entitled to know that West believes the double is punitive. Or > rather that he believes his 3He is running away from a punitive double. > But you are not entitled to know both. You are NOT entitled to know what East believes his double is. You are NOT entitled to know what West believes this double is. You are entitled to know what agreement exist between the two on what the double shall be. If you are told something that afterwards is deemed to be inconsistent with the agreement(s) then (and only then) are you entitled to possible redress. Do we still discuss this in blml? > > Or to put it another way - The Director has the choice of ruling the > system either way, but he must choose only one way. In that event, > there is one misinformation and one correct one. You are entitled to > redress for the wrong one, but in the adjudication, you are not > entitled to the additional knowledge of the misunderstanding. I agree, but is this "another way" of stating the same? If so there should be some difference between this statement and mine just above? Only I fail to see any difference. Sven From k.wignall@netaccess.co.nz Thu Feb 20 21:07:33 2003 From: k.wignall@netaccess.co.nz (Keith Wignall) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:07:33 +1300 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 Message-ID: <3E554395.9030505@netaccess.co.nz> OK, how about this (contrived) case: S97 HAQ opposite SJ6 H32. Spades are trumps, defenders have none. Hearts have not been played. There are not enough non-heart cards outstanding for either defender to have a singleton heart. Declarer claims all the tricks. The only possible way of making all the tricks is to finesse the HQ, so do we award all the tricks whenever the HK is onside? Keith (not John) Wignall From svenpran@online.no Thu Feb 20 21:24:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:24:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 References: <3E554395.9030505@netaccess.co.nz> Message-ID: <008501c2d926$77bee8e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Keith Wignall" To: Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:07 PM Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 > OK, how about this (contrived) case: > > S97 HAQ opposite SJ6 H32. Spades are trumps, defenders have none. > Hearts have not been played. There are not enough non-heart cards > outstanding for either defender to have a singleton heart. Declarer > claims all the tricks. The only possible way of making all the tricks > is to finesse the HQ, so do we award all the tricks whenever the HK is > onside? No, the only case declarer is permitted to try the finesse is when he explicitly says with his claim: "I will try the finesse, if it holds then I have the rest, otherwise I concede one trick" or other words to the same effect. If he doesn't explicitly state that he will try the finesse he shall be deemed to play (a small to) the Ace if the King is onside and (to) the Queen if the King is offside. (In that last case it doesn't really matter). Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Feb 20 22:55:58 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:55:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <4A256CD3.007C1641.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Herman De Wael wrote: [snip] >You are entitled to know that East believes his double is support. >You are entitled to know that West believes the double is punitive. >Or rather that he believes his 3He is running away from a punitive >double. But you are not entitled to know both. My alternative phrasing is: You are entitled to know the East-West partnership agreement about the meaning of East's double (Law 75A). You are not entitled to know if East has violated the East-West partnership agreement about the meaning of East's double (Law 75B). >Or to put it another way - The Director has the choice of ruling >the system either way, Incorrect. The TD can choose the third option of ruling "no agreement". >but he must choose only one way. In that event, there is one >misinformation and one correct one. Or two misinformations and zero correct ones if the TD ruled "no agreement". >You are entitled to redress for the wrong one, but in the >adjudication, you are not entitled to the additional knowledge of >the misunderstanding. Partially correct. The exception is you are entitled to the Edgar Kaplan metaphor of a printout of the opponent's system. Therefore, you are entitled to the additional knowledge of a misunderstanding should the opponents' auction become non-systemic. [snip] Best wishes Richard From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 20 22:10:04 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:10:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Simutaneous bids by the same player References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030219122831.00ba04a8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <001f01c2d92d$0577fae0$bcf2193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Simutaneous bids by the same player > > > >The verbal call was 1D but the card put on table was 1H. > >All agree that the calls was simultaneous. > >The normal opening bid with this hand is 1D. > >Your ruling ? > > Ask the player which bid he intended to make, and treat > the other bid as an inadvertent call made without pause > for thought. No penalty, and an opponent who could > reasonably have noticed the wrong call may withdraw > his subsequent call without penalty. > +=+ Before reaching a conclusion I would want to be certain the player has made two simultaneous bids. Or has he made a bid and an extraneous utterance? What do the regulations say about use of the bidding box? about spoken calls? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ziffbridge@t-online.de Thu Feb 20 22:26:16 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:26:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00af01c2d901$a60475a0$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030220185303.024bdd60@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E555608.2090708@t-online.de> Hi folks, it`s time to come out of hiding. Has anyone stopped to consider what would have happened instead of perusing the rulebook (never a bad idea in itself, but it can be taken to extremes)? Declarer discards his club loser (which happens to be the queen of trumps, in this case...) on the diamond jack. Let`s assume that "no diamonds, partner?" won`t help, for he indeed has no diamonds left. Now he will try to play the ace of clubs from dummy, and the whole world will tell him that he is in the wrong hand. This is the moment when he will discover - without any doubt - what has happened. There is no question wether he will realize his mistake or not. He will be _told_! From now on there are two rational plans: taking the club finesse (which will work) and cashing his spades to see what develops. If he does so a show-up-squeeze will be the result. As long as he doesn`t throw the heart six after West discards the seven he can`t go down. If the club finesse loses we could probably rule down two, couldn`t we? Theories like David`s (if it claims sloppily, shoot it!) have a certain charme. In some areas even I am a fan of these views. Sloppy claims are a nuisance, and bridge would be better off without them. But disregarding what would have happened at the table isn`t the solution either. I suggest reading the first sentence of Law 70 A (the actual laws, not what the next laws could be). Best regards Matthias From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 20 22:26:41 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:26:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 References: <3E554395.9030505@netaccess.co.nz> Message-ID: <000a01c2d92f$26be6f20$25b54351@noos.fr> Keith, Your example is a good example of the foolishness of the current laws. Somebody who cannot count his tricks probably cannot count the number of outstanding non-hearts as well. So finessing is not the only change or at least might not be perceived as the only change. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Wignall" To: Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:07 PM Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 > OK, how about this (contrived) case: > > S97 HAQ opposite SJ6 H32. Spades are trumps, defenders have none. > Hearts have not been played. There are not enough non-heart cards > outstanding for either defender to have a singleton heart. Declarer > claims all the tricks. The only possible way of making all the tricks > is to finesse the HQ, so do we award all the tricks whenever the HK is > onside? > > Keith (not John) Wignall > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Feb 20 23:42:00 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:42:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 Message-ID: <4A256CD3.00804BA8.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Keith wrote: >>OK, how about this (contrived) case: >> >>S97 HAQ opposite SJ6 H32. Spades are trumps, defenders >>have none. Hearts have not been played. There are not >>enough non-heart cards outstanding for either defender >>to have a singleton heart. Declarer claims all the >>tricks. The only possible way of making all the tricks >>is to finesse the HQ, so do we award all the tricks >>whenever the HK is onside? Sven replied: >No, the only case declarer is permitted to try the >finesse is when he explicitly says with his claim: "I >will try the finesse, if it holds then I have the rest, >otherwise I concede one trick" or other words to the >same effect. I would rather argue that that is the only case when the claim does not result in a TD call. >If he doesn't explicitly state that he will try the >finesse he shall be deemed to play (a small to) the Ace if >the King is onside and (to) the Queen if the King is >offside. (In that last case it doesn't really matter). I would support Keith's implicit position that small to the Ace is irrational (last phrase of Law 70E). Can Sven provide a merely careless or inferior reason for playing the Ace? Best wishes Richard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Feb 20 23:00:50 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:00:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <200302202300.SAA19434@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : I would find quite normal, aften having read the comments of blmlers > about the plausibility of different actions, to give an adjusted score of > -140 to NS and of -130 to EW on L12C3 grounds. I don't understand this. Wasn't an EW heart contract making 11 tricks? In any case, you don't need L12C3 to give a split score. You are apparently ruling that 3H= is "likely" but 4C= is "at all probable." Nothing illegal about that under L12C2. A ruling under L12C3 might look like 20% of 4C= and 80% of 3H= (or really 3H+2) for both sides. It might also include some percentage of 4Cx or other contracts, but it cannot include anything where East bids an illegal 4H. In either case, you are ruling that South probably will pass 3H, but may decide to bid 4C, which all will pass. Certainly that is a legal result, though not everyone will agree with your bridge judgment. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Feb 21 00:36:51 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:36:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Mike Flader on psyches (was Horrible?) Message-ID: <4A256CD4.00017B54.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> The column of Mike Flader: >>Question: I'm still having a problem with this situation. One of >>our players likes to psych a 2S response to his partner's weak >>two-bid of 2D or 2H. The word "frequent" is so subjective that I >>am not clear as to what I should tell this player. Many of his >>partners are novices and probably don't even know what's going >>on, and, worse, his opponents aren't raising a fuss. I just >>heard about it from a couple of sources over the past few >>months. So what are the guidelines? I know what Law 40 says, and >>I know about concealed partnership agreements. But it seems to >>me that this falls in the cracks. >> >>Answer: I think this should be treated as a private >>understanding. If he wants to psych this response, he is >>entitled to, but the opponents are entitled to an Alert. If they >>don't get one, and you feel they are damaged as a direct result >>of the misinformation, adjust the score. Ed Reppert replied: >Basically, the (I think) club TD who submitted the question says >that a player has a habit of psyching a 2S response to his >partner's 2D or 2H weak two opening. He says "many of his >partners are novices and probably don't even know what's going on, >and worse, his opponents aren't raising a fuss." Mike Flader then >asserts that in his view, the pair concerned has a CPU. I don't >see how a pair can have a CPU if one player of that pair has no >clue what's going on. Further, if the opponents aren't raising a >fuss, what's the problem? Law 81C6. A call for the TD is not necessary. The TD normally rectifies an irregularity they become aware of in any manner. >Either they know what's going on and aren't concerned, or they, >like the player's novice partners, are clueless. In the former >case, at least, I don't think the TD oughta be sticking his oar >in. "Oughta" is not relevant to Law 81C6, although this Law is likely to be amended in the 2005 Laws. >I'm not sure I put quite the interpretation on Mike's comments that >Steve did. It seems to me that Mike is saying that (a) a CPU is >illegal (which is true) and (b) if one player of a pair has a habit >of making a particular psyche, the pair has a CPU even if the >player's partner has no clue what's going on. As I said above, I >don't buy that. I do buy the Mike Flader position. Law 40B (which prohibits CPUs) does not provide sufficient detail on what a partnership understanding is. However, the bracketed statement in Law 75B clarifies the issue, in my opinion: "(but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed)." Measuring the frequency of habitual violations is an objective assessment. Measuring the cluelessness of partner is a subjective assessment. And even a clueless partner may remember a previous psyche. If I had to be satisfied under Law 85A whether or not an implicit agreement existed, I would be more satisfied by objective evidence than by subjective evidence. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Feb 21 01:34:38 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:34:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <4A256CD4.0006C5C5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Jaap wrote: [snip] >My basic statement is that someone who doesn't >understand his agreements/system has no agreements/ >system. Among other reasons because someone who doesn't >understand his 'agreements' cannot bid according to his >'agreements' (so 'misbid' has no real meaning) and >cannot explain his 'agreements' (so right or wrong >explanation has no real meaning). And this is not >intended as playing with words. [snip] >The most well known (but there are many more) is the 3C >jumpovercall. They all play it as a twosuiter (suit >mix-up's are common of course) but whenever they hold >KQ-7th of clubs they promptly forget and bid 3C anyway. >The only way to deal with this kind of nonsense is not >to accept any CC or whatever automatically at face value. Good point by Jaap. I will have to retract my previous position that the CC is equivalent to tablets of stone. *However*; it seems to me that there are two types of players: 1. The "nonsensicals", who do not have a system, and for whom the CC cannot be accepted at face value; and, 2. The majority, who do have a system, which on occasion they misbid or misinform. In category 2, I retain my tablets of stone default for the CC when ruling whether a misbid or MI has occurred. Therefore, I disagree with Jaap's conclusion, "not to accept any CC or whatever automatically". It is ridiculous to rule that a long-standing expert partnership's CC can be ignored in deciding whether MI exists, merely because a different inexpert partnership does not have a meaningful CC. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Feb 21 01:32:02 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 01:32:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 References: <4A256CD3.00804BA8.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <006201c2d949$0937ff60$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: > I would support Keith's implicit position that small to the > Ace is irrational (last phrase of Law 70E). Can Sven > provide a merely careless or inferior reason for playing > the Ace? Of course. Declarer thinks (carelessly) that the king has already been played. David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Feb 21 03:47:41 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:47:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ivory Tower Message-ID: <4A256CD4.0012F3D8.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> The discussions we have on blml have an Ivory Tower blind spot caused by us all being experts. However, I found the attached non-expert critique on the Internet. It raises three interesting issues. Best wishes Richard http://members.aol.com/SS1440/esbnews/concern.htm The following article was first published in the July Newsletter under the heading Handcuffed by the Laws. It was then reproduced in the Christmas edition of Bridge magazine entitled My Main Concern. My Main Concern One area which, sooner or later, the English Bridge Union will surely have to address, if they wish to embrace anything but a small percentage of bridge players, is how the Laws should be applied. The Laws as written are primarily devised to answer all the questions which arise at the higher levels of the game, and, to be blunt, to endeavour to stop devious practices within the game. Fine, but what takes place at international and county level really has little bearing on the needs of those who wish to play competitive duplicate bridge in a social and competitive yet friendly atmosphere and who have no aspirations to progress beyond that point. And in this statement, "social" is all important. I know it; you know it; everyone knows it: there are countless numbers of bridge players who have wanted to play in a club environment but who have been put off by the attitude of other players, but does anyone do anything about it? FIRST EXPERIENCES Of course, it is nice to do well and come near the top, but that is not what most players play bridge for: they play to give themselves an interest, to meet friends, and to allow them to get their grey matter working! And I have to say that there is little in what I have experienced over the years to suggest that much is being done to ensure bridge players can play duplicate bridge with these objectives firmly to the fore. I remember the first time I went to a bridge club and how, on the very first hand, I leaned across and touched a card in dummy before changing my mind. My goodness. It felt like the wrath of the Almighty himself had landed upon me and I was made to feel like a common criminal. Of course, I should not have touched the original card, but was it that serious? Did it really make any difference to the outcome of the Game? I doubt it. But what it did do was throw me into a state of dire panic which lasted throughout the evening. Then there was a time when each player passed on the first round and I made as if to re-deal. This time it was the turn of the devil himself to vent his anger. Phew! BAD EXPERIENCES Okay. So I survived and stuck with a bridge club, but I know from bitter experience how difficult it is to persuade those who have been put off to come back. We have one lady now who refused to go near a bridge club for four years because she had been reduced to a tearful bumbling wreck by an experienced and good player. He should have been ashamed of himself but instead all I got were questions about my teaching ability. And no, I do not teach re- opening doubles nor two suited overcalls, nor Extended Stayman in the first couple of years of someone`s learning! The problem here is that the game is influenced far too much by those who see it as being an avenue to demonstrate their own opinions and egos, and by those whose sole purpose is to show everyone else how superior they are. You might say that that is exactly what I am doing now, but there is a difference, and it comes down to not so much what is said but to when and where. A Newsletter, surely, is one place where discussion, argument and opinion are justified: the bridge table certainly is not. I wonder if those who are for ever lecturing and those showing dissent at the bridge table realise how many other would-be duplicate players they have frightened away: that number must in itself be frightening. I also wonder if those who bemoan falling numbers of players have ever stopped to consider this and what can be done about it. So far as I know, the EBU do little to face up to this problem. The SCCBA have brought in an excellent Zero Tolerance Policy but it is voluntary and rarely applied in clubs. THE REASON WHY But it is my belief that the problem is not only with players. Insidiously, the Laws of the game also contribute to the problem. The fact is that in promoting this game of duplicate bridge one is handcuffed by its own laws. That is unless one is prepared to make run for it. In the first place we have a book of laws which is virtually unintelligible to the average player and is not understood by many who direct, qualified or not. And now I perhaps speak heresy. One can only have sensible social bridge where the Laws, whilst important, are secondary to the general enjoyment of those playing. I have already mentioned the banning of re-dealing hands thrown in on the first round of a session. What utter nonsense this surely is. Take the East Sussex. On a Monday and Thursday afternoon we usually play twenty-two or twenty-four boards in the three hours. If two boards are passed out then the number can be as low as twenty boards actually played. If there is a half table this can come down to eighteen. Is that what players come out for: to sit and look at thrown in boards? Of course not, which is why at a regular session I have hands re-dealt when thrown in on the first round. What is more, it is done in virtually every club I have played at, although not readily admitted! Oh, I know the arguments against re-dealing, the main one being that other pairs might bid the hand. Okay. So they might. But most of the time they do not. I agree if pairs are playing weak-two opening bids, multi two diamond openings, or two notrump to show a weak hand with both minors then they may miss out. Tough on them. But then the majority of social duplicate players do not play these conventions. Such bids are not permitted at the East Sussex and many clubs would benefit from taking the same stance. And no, you do not have to play them in order to win, although it helps if you understand them. Then there is the nonsense of saying the Director must be called at every possible opportunity. There are some situations where it is necessary to call the Director, such as revokes, claims which are not accepted, and disagreement over how many tricks have been made. But do we really need to call the Director because someone forgot to show the Stop Card? It is no good saying players should not be put out by the Director being called. They very often are. And remember, we are talking about social duplicate bridge, not serious competitions. There are other situations which need to be dealt with, such as players telling others what they should have done or talking about a previous hand once the next hand has been started. But surely it is better that the Director has a quiet word rather than invoking the full powers of the Laws. But having had the quiet word there should be no excuses for repetitions. I said earlier that I was going to speak heresy, but before anyone jumps on me from a great height let me give you examples of why I also said earlier that people are not honest about the Laws. A FEW EXAMPLES Some time ago a Director wrote in a bridge magazine that you must call the Director at every opportunity. No ifs or buts, must. At that time I would regularly take students to their first No Fear, Simple System competitions. At the last one I went to, half way through the afternoon I called the Director to say that our opponents were playing Transfers, something expressly not permitted. What was his ruling? "Ah well, its only a friendly afternoon." But those two players were experienced players who well knew they should not be playing Transfers. My partner did not understand! Then there was a major congress at which I came across two county players who were playing a somewhat complex system which I did not know. I asked the player on my left for his convention card, only to be told they only had one between them and that probably was not exactly what they were playing. So I called the Director, who should have told them to play only Simple System whilst they had only one convention card. What did he do? He said my partner and I would be allowed extra time so that we could pass the one card between us! Amazing - and appalling, the more so that had it been the other way round and it had been my partner and I with only one card between us the full force of the Laws would almost certainly have fallen upon us. Another example. It was a competition so when the first hand was thrown in I said we had better ask the Director if we could re-deal. The lady on my left said I was ignorant and stupid, they always re-dealt at her club. Because it was a competition I insisted the Director make a ruling. What did he rule? "So long as you all agree it will be all right to re-deal." As he walked away the lady again accused me of being ignorant and stupid so I called the Director again. What did he rule? "Don`t worry about it" And we wonder why players are put off going to competitions! Another. It was the penultimate round in a county competition. My partner and I were at Table 2, which meant we were up close to the top of a large number of players. We had just started the second hand when a rasping voice shouts out from Table 1, "Director, fine Table 2 for slow play." It is not easy to concentrate with such an interruption, the more so that we had been kept waiting for the boards form the previous table. Now the player who shouted out was a top county player, a top Director, and the eventual winner. He should have known better, and the Director of the day should have put him in his place. But of course, he did not, and I would suggest if it had been a more lowly player who had shouted out he most certainly would have been spoken to. CONCLUSIONS So where are we now? Much as it will be denied it is my firmly held belief that the top players are often favoured in the way they are treated, but that apart, surely somewhere along the line there has to be an accepted distinction between social duplicate bridge where the Laws are not sacrosanct and those events where everything is very serious and the Laws strictly applied. And I do not decry the latter as I also enjoy serious competitive bridge albeit I sadly have little time to give to it. But whichever, the sooner the game rids itself of those who make life a misery for others and the Laws applied sensibly the better the game will be and the more it will prosper. And we need it to prosper, for if it does not then it will further decline. Bridge magazine is published by Mr Bridge and distributed free of charge. Write to: Mr Bridge, Ryden Grange, Bisley, Surrey, GU21 2TH From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Feb 21 05:56:25 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:56:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 Message-ID: <4A256CD4.001EBCC9.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >Richard wrote: > >>I would support Keith's implicit position that small to the >>Ace is irrational (last phrase of Law 70E). Can Sven >>provide a merely careless or inferior reason for playing >>the Ace? > >Of course. Declarer thinks (carelessly) that the king has already been >played. > >David Burn >London, England David Burn has convinced me on the issue of irrationality; I retract my previous stance. So this S97 HAQ opposite SJ6 H32 example follows the same principle as the exhaustively discussed SAKQJ7 HK example. If declarer carelessly thinks that the king has already been played, is it irrational for declarer to avoid a just-in-case cost-nothing heart finesse? No, it is merely careless to eschew the finesse. In the SAKQJ7 HK example, the parallel question was whether it was irrational for declarer to keep a claimed S7 "winner" and discard a HK winner. Or rationally keep the HK, just in case the S7 was not a winner (as in fact it was not). Again, if all cards are thought to be winners, keeping a deep loser is merely careless. Best wishes Richard From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Feb 21 07:51:01 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:51:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f=2E_=3A_=5B_blml=5D_claim?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?s__forever=2C_case_n_+_1?= Message-ID: >>>> AG : I have. Only marked finesses are allowed. Finesses that > >>>> are necessary > >>>> (as here, East being known not to have the bare K) are not. > >>> > >>> > >>> This sounds as being a very helpful statement. Could you > >> tell me where to > >>> find it in the laws? > >> > >> L70E alinea 1 (marked finesses) and 2 (finesses that will > >> become marked) > > > > > > > > > > I have to apologize if you took my question seriously. I know about > > law 70E. > > Did you read it till the last words? ton > I have. > > It depends when you imagine declarer will realise the mistake he has > made, whether or not taking the finesse is even possible, > never mind it > being irrational to fail to take it. How about: ruffed > diamond, club to > Ace to cash....damn, where did I put that diamond trick? Yes, this is the problem. We are not supposed to include irrational play in our decisions but what if declarer suggests to play so himself? Despite David's pleads I still think that in establishing the alternatives within the range of normal play they all lead to allowing the finesse, being the only legal play available with which declarer can make his 5 tricks. ton > > Or, ruffed diamond, CA from dummy, condoned. > > Isn't this one of those Laws with which people never used to have a > problem until it was "improved" in 1997? As far as I remember '97 we didn't change this law at all, having no problem whatsoever applying it. And we did read the whole paragraph. ton > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 07:57:44 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:57:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <4A256CD3.007C1641.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3E55DBF8.9060009@skynet.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > [snip] > > >>You are entitled to know that East believes his double is support. >>You are entitled to know that West believes the double is punitive. >>Or rather that he believes his 3He is running away from a punitive >>double. But you are not entitled to know both. >> > > My alternative phrasing is: > > You are entitled to know the East-West partnership agreement about > the meaning of East's double (Law 75A). > > You are not entitled to know if East has violated the East-West > partnership agreement about the meaning of East's double (Law 75B). > That presupposes that we consider West's explanation to be the correct one. But we don't necessarily have to. We could be faced with a situation where neither explanation can be proven sufficiently. The TD is then in the possibility of ruling either way - which inherently means that both explanations are "entitled" to NS. > >>Or to put it another way - The Director has the choice of ruling >>the system either way, >> > > Incorrect. The TD can choose the third option of ruling "no > agreement". > Yes, he could - but I don't like that in cases like this. East thought they had an agreement, West thought they had an agreement, so ruling "no agreement" is not my cup of tea. "no agreement" can be correct about situations not very common, where the explanation starts "well, we play this in this situation and that in that one, but this particular situation has not been discussed". That's not the case in the horrible case. > >>but he must choose only one way. In that event, there is one >>misinformation and one correct one. >> > > Or two misinformations and zero correct ones if the TD ruled "no > agreement". > > >>You are entitled to redress for the wrong one, but in the >>adjudication, you are not entitled to the additional knowledge of >>the misunderstanding. >> > > Partially correct. The exception is you are entitled to the Edgar > Kaplan metaphor of a printout of the opponent's system. Therefore, > you are entitled to the additional knowledge of a misunderstanding > should the opponents' auction become non-systemic. > No, untrue - If you have the Kaplan printout, you don't need to ask any questions (I'd even say, you are not entitled to ask any more) so you have no knowledge of the misunderstanding. > [snip] > > Best wishes > > Richard > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 08:03:23 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:03:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <4A256CD4.0006C5C5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3E55DD4B.4080206@skynet.be> So Richard, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Jaap wrote: > > [snip] > > >>My basic statement is that someone who doesn't >>understand his agreements/system has no agreements/ >>system. Among other reasons because someone who doesn't >>understand his 'agreements' cannot bid according to his >>'agreements' (so 'misbid' has no real meaning) and >>cannot explain his 'agreements' (so right or wrong >>explanation has no real meaning). And this is not >>intended as playing with words. >> > > [snip] > > >>The most well known (but there are many more) is the 3C >>jumpovercall. They all play it as a twosuiter (suit >>mix-up's are common of course) but whenever they hold >>KQ-7th of clubs they promptly forget and bid 3C anyway. >>The only way to deal with this kind of nonsense is not >>to accept any CC or whatever automatically at face value. >> > > Good point by Jaap. I will have to retract my previous > position that the CC is equivalent to tablets of stone. > > *However*; it seems to me that there are two types of > players: > > 1. The "nonsensicals", who do not have a system, and > for whom the CC cannot be accepted at face value; and, > > 2. The majority, who do have a system, which on occasion > they misbid or misinform. > > In category 2, I retain my tablets of stone default for > the CC when ruling whether a misbid or MI has occurred. > > Therefore, I disagree with Jaap's conclusion, "not to > accept any CC or whatever automatically". > so Richard, you do agree with Jaap! You agree that you do not accept some CC's. So you agree that you do not accept all CC's _automatically_. We didn't know if we are accepting the Norwegian CC (now we do, Tommy told us), so we could not from here say whether the explanation is right or wrong, so we could not rule out that 5C was a sensible ruling. Jaap was merely commenting on Sven (who did not know the case either) saying that since the CC agreed with West, there was no MI. That is not automatically true, and you have now agreed with that principle. > It is ridiculous to rule that a long-standing expert > partnership's CC can be ignored in deciding whether MI > exists, merely because a different inexpert partnership > does not have a meaningful CC. > Indeed, but we don't (didn't) know who we are dealing with. Tommy asked whether the ruling was horrible, and it wasn't (the TD's ruling of MI and 5C). > Best wishes > > Richard > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Feb 21 08:09:47 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:09:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: > > No, untrue - If you have the Kaplan printout, you don't need to ask > any questions (I'd even say, you are not entitled to ask any more) so > you have no knowledge of the misunderstanding. Could you please tell me where in the laws you find any support for this opinion? Does this mean that the whole bridge world asking questions when having system cards on the table is acting illegally in your opinion? ton From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Feb 21 08:14:33 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:14:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ivory Tower References: <4A256CD4.0012F3D8.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <002a01c2d981$459caea0$25b54351@noos.fr> Perfect well writen article. And yes I agree on all basic issues raised (maybe not on all details but that is irrelevant). It raises a couple of points. 1. There should be entry level competitions where newbies face other newbies or (very) weak regular players. The regular players should be instructed that newbies tend to violate the laws from time to time simply because they have no idea what the laws are. Of course this kind of tournaments should have strong protection against silly systems. The problem here is that there is no uniform view on that. Dutch tourists cannot play in low level French events because what we teach beginners in Holland (four card majors) is considered illegal in low level French events (French standard obligatory which means fivecard majors). These are by far the two biggest European NCBO's and France is number one tourist destination for Holland. Who wants to promote bridge anyway. 2. TD's. We often forget that the most important qualification of a TD is his/her (women tend to be better) social and communication skills. Even at a WC (where a TD obviously needs to be good at rules etc) it can be the difference between grateful acceptance of a ruling and a big row including appeals following the same ruling. But at club level and below it is only social skills that really matter. Your guess is as good as mine but 50% or more of current TD's might be utterly incompetent to direct at low level (where the only real issue is to keep the people happy). Low level is where 90% of the regulars and 100% of the newbies play so it is important. All this blml discussions are fun and yes important for high level bridge but completely irelevant for the issues raised in the article. 3. The laws should be simple and in a normal language. It is important that players can understand the rules of the game, if not how can they adhere to them. All non essential exceptions should be scrapped. All this 'normal', 'irrational' etc should dissapear. Etc. Now this is not that simple because some rules (no redealing, no undo of bids/plays (partly) made) seem to be very harsh or silly in the beginning. As mentioned in the article. Two solutions. One is different rules for low-level and high-level. This is heresay of course. On the other hand it is long reality. Certain rules differ from one country to another and application of certain rules is very different depending on level. I also redeal playing a christmas drive or whatever when they want to. The other solution needs simple well written rules. If you can hand out to newbies half a A4 or so with the 'how to play' essentials they know what to do. If you start on chess you also have to accept that once touched you have to play a piece. But that is not the real problem. It is how opps and TD react to their first ten mistakes. They expect to make mistakes, they expect to be corrected, but they also expect to be treated in a normal way. And normal might mean something completely different to a newbie then to a regular who is used to some neurotic club members and a insensitive TD. 4. The laws should be simple and in a normal language for other reasons as well. Calling for a TD should be minimized. Everybody hates it when there is a TD intervention at their table or nearby. It cost lots of time, lots of irritation, and it creates lots of noise. Take chess. When you touch a piece you know it and opp doesn't have to call a TD to enforce the rule. All rules that can should be made simple enough that the players can handle it themselves at least some of the time. Example. At high level we very often don't call the TD for a penalty card. We all know the rules and we all know finding a TD (often not in the room) and let him do his thing might cost us 5 to 10 minutes and our concentration. Guess what happens in real life. A low level example. Declarer plays from the wrong hand (very frequent problem). Now first we change the law to a simple 'next opp can accept or not, he can think about it'. The moment somebody notices the infraction and enough players at the table know this rule you don't need a TD to continue play. This approach also helps a lot when there is no TD available or when he is playing himself which at low level is a normal problem. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 4:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ivory Tower > > > The discussions we have on blml have an Ivory Tower > blind spot caused by us all being experts. > > However, I found the attached non-expert critique on > the Internet. It raises three interesting issues. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > http://members.aol.com/SS1440/esbnews/concern.htm > > The following article was first published in the July > Newsletter under the heading Handcuffed by the Laws. It was > then reproduced in the Christmas edition of Bridge magazine > entitled My Main Concern. > > My Main Concern > > One area which, sooner or later, the English Bridge Union > will surely have to address, if they wish to embrace anything > but a small percentage of bridge players, is how the Laws > should be applied. > > The Laws as written are primarily devised to answer all the > questions which arise at the higher levels of the game, and, > to be blunt, to endeavour to stop devious practices within the > game. Fine, but what takes place at international and county > level really has little bearing on the needs of those who wish > to play competitive duplicate bridge in a social and > competitive yet friendly atmosphere and who have no > aspirations to progress beyond that point. And in this > statement, "social" is all important. > > I know it; you know it; everyone knows it: there are countless > numbers of bridge players who have wanted to play in a club > environment but who have been put off by the attitude of other > players, but does anyone do anything about it? > > FIRST EXPERIENCES > > Of course, it is nice to do well and come near the top, but > that is not what most players play bridge for: they play to > give themselves an interest, to meet friends, and to allow them > to get their grey matter working! And I have to say that there > is little in what I have experienced over the years to suggest > that much is being done to ensure bridge players can play > duplicate bridge with these objectives firmly to the fore. > > I remember the first time I went to a bridge club and how, on > the very first hand, I leaned across and touched a card in > dummy before changing my mind. My goodness. It felt like the > wrath of the Almighty himself had landed upon me and I was made > to feel like a common criminal. > > Of course, I should not have touched the original card, but was > it that serious? Did it really make any difference to the > outcome of the Game? I doubt it. But what it did do was throw me > into a state of dire panic which lasted throughout the evening. > > Then there was a time when each player passed on the first round > and I made as if to re-deal. This time it was the turn of the > devil himself to vent his anger. Phew! > > BAD EXPERIENCES > > Okay. So I survived and stuck with a bridge club, but I know from > bitter experience how difficult it is to persuade those who have > been put off to come back. We have one lady now who refused to go > near a bridge club for four years because she had been reduced to > a tearful bumbling wreck by an experienced and good player. He > should have been ashamed of himself but instead all I got were > questions about my teaching ability. And no, I do not teach re- > opening doubles nor two suited overcalls, nor Extended Stayman in > the first couple of years of someone`s learning! > > The problem here is that the game is influenced far too much by > those who see it as being an avenue to demonstrate their own > opinions and egos, and by those whose sole purpose is to show > everyone else how superior they are. You might say that that is > exactly what I am doing now, but there is a difference, and it > comes down to not so much what is said but to when and where. A > Newsletter, surely, is one place where discussion, argument and > opinion are justified: the bridge table certainly is not. > > I wonder if those who are for ever lecturing and those showing > dissent at the bridge table realise how many other would-be > duplicate players they have frightened away: that number must in > itself be frightening. I also wonder if those who bemoan falling > numbers of players have ever stopped to consider this and what can > be done about it. > > So far as I know, the EBU do little to face up to this problem. The > SCCBA have brought in an excellent Zero Tolerance Policy but it is > voluntary and rarely applied in clubs. > > THE REASON WHY > > But it is my belief that the problem is not only with players. > Insidiously, the Laws of the game also contribute to the problem. > > The fact is that in promoting this game of duplicate bridge one is > handcuffed by its own laws. That is unless one is prepared to make > run for it. > > In the first place we have a book of laws which is virtually > unintelligible to the average player and is not understood by many > who direct, qualified or not. > > And now I perhaps speak heresy. One can only have sensible social > bridge where the Laws, whilst important, are secondary to the > general enjoyment of those playing. > > I have already mentioned the banning of re-dealing hands thrown in > on the first round of a session. What utter nonsense this surely is. > > Take the East Sussex. On a Monday and Thursday afternoon we usually > play twenty-two or twenty-four boards in the three hours. If two > boards are passed out then the number can be as low as twenty boards > actually played. If there is a half table this can come down to > eighteen. Is that what players come out for: to sit and look at > thrown in boards? Of course not, which is why at a regular session I > have hands re-dealt when thrown in on the first round. What is more, > it is done in virtually every club I have played at, although not > readily admitted! > > Oh, I know the arguments against re-dealing, the main one being that > other pairs might bid the hand. Okay. So they might. But most of the > time they do not. I agree if pairs are playing weak-two opening bids, > multi two diamond openings, or two notrump to show a weak hand with > both minors then they may miss out. Tough on them. But then the > majority of social duplicate players do not play these conventions. > Such bids are not permitted at the East Sussex and many clubs would > benefit from taking the same stance. And no, you do not have to play > them in order to win, although it helps if you understand them. > > Then there is the nonsense of saying the Director must be called at > every possible opportunity. > > There are some situations where it is necessary to call the Director, > such as revokes, claims which are not accepted, and disagreement over > how many tricks have been made. But do we really need to call the > Director because someone forgot to show the Stop Card? > > It is no good saying players should not be put out by the Director > being called. They very often are. And remember, we are talking about > social duplicate bridge, not serious competitions. > > There are other situations which need to be dealt with, such as players > telling others what they should have done or talking about a previous > hand once the next hand has been started. But surely it is better that > the Director has a quiet word rather than invoking the full powers of > the Laws. But having had the quiet word there should be no excuses for > repetitions. > > I said earlier that I was going to speak heresy, but before anyone jumps > on me from a great height let me give you examples of why I also said > earlier that people are not honest about the Laws. > > A FEW EXAMPLES > > Some time ago a Director wrote in a bridge magazine that you must call > the Director at every opportunity. No ifs or buts, must. At that time I > would regularly take students to their first No Fear, Simple System > competitions. At the last one I went to, half way through the afternoon > I called the Director to say that our opponents were playing Transfers, > something expressly not permitted. What was his ruling? "Ah well, its > only a friendly afternoon." But those two players were experienced > players who well knew they should not be playing Transfers. My partner > did not understand! > > Then there was a major congress at which I came across two county players > who were playing a somewhat complex system which I did not know. I asked > the player on my left for his convention card, only to be told they only > had one between them and that probably was not exactly what they were > playing. So I called the Director, who should have told them to play only > Simple System whilst they had only one convention card. What did he do? > He said my partner and I would be allowed extra time so that we could > pass the one card between us! Amazing - and appalling, the more so that > had it been the other way round and it had been my partner and I with > only one card between us the full force of the Laws would almost > certainly have fallen upon us. > > Another example. It was a competition so when the first hand was thrown > in I said we had better ask the Director if we could re-deal. The lady on > my left said I was ignorant and stupid, they always re-dealt at her club. > Because it was a competition I insisted the Director make a ruling. What > did he rule? "So long as you all agree it will be all right to re-deal." > As he walked away the lady again accused me of being ignorant and stupid > so I called the Director again. What did he rule? "Don`t worry about it" > And we wonder why players are put off going to competitions! > > Another. It was the penultimate round in a county competition. My partner > and I were at Table 2, which meant we were up close to the top of a large > number of players. We had just started the second hand when a rasping > voice shouts out from Table 1, "Director, fine Table 2 for slow play." It > is not easy to concentrate with such an interruption, the more so that we > had been kept waiting for the boards form the previous table. > > Now the player who shouted out was a top county player, a top Director, > and the eventual winner. He should have known better, and the Director of > the day should have put him in his place. But of course, he did not, and I > would suggest if it had been a more lowly player who had shouted out he > most certainly would have been spoken to. > > CONCLUSIONS > > So where are we now? Much as it will be denied it is my firmly held belief > that the top players are often favoured in the way they are treated, but > that apart, surely somewhere along the line there has to be an accepted > distinction between social duplicate bridge where the Laws are not > sacrosanct and those events where everything is very serious and the Laws > strictly applied. And I do not decry the latter as I also enjoy serious > competitive bridge albeit I sadly have little time to give to it. But > whichever, the sooner the game rids itself of those who make life a misery > for others and the Laws applied sensibly the better the game will be and > the more it will prosper. And we need it to prosper, for if it does not > then it will further decline. > > Bridge magazine is published by Mr Bridge and distributed free of charge. > Write to: Mr Bridge, Ryden Grange, Bisley, Surrey, GU21 2TH > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 08:40:10 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:40:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <001301c2d91e$69c91fb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E55E5EA.4020107@skynet.be> Now I was waiting for Ton to comment, but he doesn't, so: Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Kooijman, A." > > >>Dutch bridge really does its utmost to develop the laws of bridge, to >>support constructive ideas about this subject and to supply all we need to >>succeed. Yesterday the following case was brought to my attention: >> >> >> - >> 7 >> J >> AQ6 >>- - >>73 - >>8 6 >>K5 J732 >> Q74 >> - >> - >> 98 >> >>south plays 4S with his RHO on lead who plays the diamond 6. South now >>claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the spade queen and >>with the statement: 3 spade tricks, the diamond Jack and the ace of clubs. >> Can you imagine that it went like this: South is looking at his hand and decides he can claim. He wants to do so saying "I ruff your return and have three trumps and two master cards:CA and DJ". That would be a perfectly correct claim, wouldn't it. However, just as he wants to claim, East returns a diamond. So South facces his cards but foolishly puts a spade on the table. Can we rule that the facing of the spade is part of the beginning of the claim (which would then be correct), and not a play to this trick? I believe we can. >>This is my first case in which the TD has to substitute normal for >>irrational play. >>Any objection against awarding 5 tricks to declarer? >> As I said, yes, if you consider the spade to be played. But no objection to ruling that the spade was not played but shown as the start of a claim. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 08:50:41 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:50:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 References: <3E554395.9030505@netaccess.co.nz> <008501c2d926$77bee8e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E55E861.1050902@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Keith Wignall" > To: > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:07 PM > Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 > > > >>OK, how about this (contrived) case: >> >>S97 HAQ opposite SJ6 H32. Spades are trumps, defenders have none. >> Hearts have not been played. There are not enough non-heart cards >>outstanding for either defender to have a singleton heart. Declarer >>claims all the tricks. The only possible way of making all the tricks >>is to finesse the HQ, so do we award all the tricks whenever the HK is >>onside? >> > > No, the only case declarer is permitted to try the finesse is when > he explicitly says with his claim: "I will try the finesse, if it holds > then I have the rest, otherwise I concede one trick" or other words > to the same effect. > > If he doesn't explicitly state that he will try the finesse he shall > be deemed to play (a small to) the Ace if the King is onside and > (to) the Queen if the King is offside. (In that last case it doesn't > really matter). > I'm with Sven AND Keith on this one. In the simple case, Sven is right. A claimer who sees these cards and claims nevertheless should not get the benefit of the doubt. But that case will never happen, because it is irrational to claim at this point, except with saying to finesse. So in reality, this can only occur as part of some other problem. Before we arrive at this simple ending, something else must have happened, with of course some mistake from claimer, which has been solved and ruled in his disfavour. I'm not good at constructing cases, but you can imagine cases where these hearts are claimed for just the one trick, with the queen being jettisoned on a high diamond. However, claimer has forgotten about a last trump and so he cannot throw the HQ but needs to overruff. Now we cannot blame him for irrationally claiming two tricks with these hearts without mentioning how to play them, and so we should be allowed to be a bit more lenient. In my book, a suit which has not been played, and which lies xx opp AQ is played with a finesse. Nothing else is normal. So I'd tend to agree with Keith, but only as a general principle if claimer cannot be blamed for irrationally claiming. > Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Feb 21 08:50:07 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:50:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 Message-ID: >=20 > OK, how about this (contrived) case: >=20 > S97 HAQ opposite SJ6 H32. Spades are trumps, defenders have none.=20 > Hearts have not been played. There are not enough non-heart cards=20 > outstanding for either defender to have a singleton heart. Declarer=20 > claims all the tricks. The only possible way of making all=20 > the tricks=20 > is to finesse the HQ, so do we award all the tricks whenever=20 > the HK is=20 > onside? >=20 > Keith (not John) Wignall >=20 no, we don't.=20 There is no other choice but to ask declarer why he claimed for 4 = tricks and if for example he thinks the HQ to be high he certainly looses a trick. = The difference is that here I can't imagine why declarer claimed, while = in case n+1 I do understand that, he 'clearly' explained his play for all tricks.=20 But meanwhile there where some considerations worth to take notice of. = In one of the first reactions we could read that the CK couldn't be bare = behind the A, given the number of clubs still in play, which makes playing for = the drop in trick 10 irrational in my definition of that word. But this = asks for counting and it seems within the range of normal not to count that = well. And when declarer starts playing trumps (it probably not being irrational = to play them all) he will see club discards from east. Couldn't east have = CK and a heart left? Not if declarer counts, then he knows that there are = just clubs left when reaching trick 12, which makes playing the ace in trick = 12 foolish (I have abandoned the word '=EDrrational'). So we are back at the doughs and the hawks and the laws allow both = species to live within the bridge world. =20 ton From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 08:53:36 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:53:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 References: <4A256CD3.00804BA8.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <006201c2d949$0937ff60$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E55E910.5000202@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Richard wrote: > > >>I would support Keith's implicit position that small to the >>Ace is irrational (last phrase of Law 70E). Can Sven >>provide a merely careless or inferior reason for playing >>the Ace? >> > > Of course. Declarer thinks (carelessly) that the king has already been > played. > Indeed - and that might be the reason why he claims at this point. We must see that the action of claiming here is very strange, so we need to examine why it is he claimed at this point. Until we know that, there is no way we can tell what is normal and not normal for this claimer at this stage of the game. > David Burn > London, England > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Fri Feb 21 08:53:27 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:53:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <001301c2d91e$69c91fb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E55E5EA.4020107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005c01c2d986$b392c2a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" .......... > >> - > >> 7 > >> J > >> AQ6 > >>- - > >>73 - > >>8 6 > >>K5 J732 > >> Q74 > >> - > >> - > >> 98 > >> > >>south plays 4S with his RHO on lead who plays the diamond 6. South now > >>claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the spade queen and > >>with the statement: 3 spade tricks, the diamond Jack and the ace of clubs. > >> > > > Can you imagine that it went like this: > > South is looking at his hand and decides he can claim. He wants to do > so saying "I ruff your return and have three trumps and two master > cards:CA and DJ". That would be a perfectly correct claim, wouldn't > it. However, just as he wants to claim, East returns a diamond. So > South facces his cards but foolishly puts a spade on the table. > Can we rule that the facing of the spade is part of the beginning of > the claim (which would then be correct), and not a play to this trick? > I believe we can. I trust that you can, but given the facts as described I would "claim" that you are twisting the facts to accomodate the claimer. > > > >>This is my first case in which the TD has to substitute normal for > >>irrational play. > >>Any objection against awarding 5 tricks to declarer? > >> > > > As I said, yes, if you consider the spade to be played. > > But no objection to ruling that the spade was not played but shown as the start of a claim. But he didn't claim, he ruffed the diamond return and then claimed. I'll allow your view if we get a message that the original description was inaccurate on this point. Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Feb 21 09:10:08 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:10:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5Bblml=5D_RE:_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f._:_=5B_blml=5D_cla?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ims__forever=2C_case_n_+_1?= References: Message-ID: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton: > Despite David's pleads I still think that in establishing the alternatives > within the range of normal play they all lead to allowing the finesse, being > the only legal play available with which declarer can make his 5 tricks. Are you still connected to reality ? Do we still speak the same language ? Do we still play the same game ? Why cannot the legal play of trying to cash the H6 produce 5 tricks. Because the H7 is still around ? Why is declarer allowed to know this ? Why cannot the legal play of trying to drop the CK produce 5 tricks. Because there is one club too many around ? Why is declarer allowed to know this ? But ok, this declarer knows that his H6 is not high and the CK cannot drop. This good a declarer (will never make such a silly claim) and might well play for the show-up squeeze rather than to take a silly finesse. This is a kind of squeeze that requires counting to execute (..... I claimed it an a double squeeze ......). On the actual hand the show-up squeeze doesn't improve your changes over a finesse but this is not always the case. Do we want to get involved in this kind of analysis when resolving this kind of silly claims ? Anyway if you don't like David's views or mine what is wrong with (AG and others said more or less the same): Sven: > If he doesn't explicitly state that he will try the finesse he shall > be deemed to play (a small to) the Ace if the King is onside and > (to) the Queen if the King is offside. (In that last case it doesn't > really matter). And then there is another structural problem with the last couple of cases we get from Ton. There is always an ending without bidding or early play. But there might be a 99% clue from the bidding that the CK is offside. I have seen cases on AC where all players and the TD missed that kind of 'simple' and 'obvious' info. But even if not after playing 8 odd tricks a player of my level tends to have a pretty good idea of the location of major honnors (I do count, suits, hands, points, and I aks myself why they led a heart and not a spade at a certain stage, etc, this is why I 'guess' so much better then most of you do). How can I tell without info if this declarer after losing his DJ (which might not even be legal info for him) is more likely (it shouldn't be an issue but just for the sake of Ton's argument) to go after the finesse rather then after the H6 or the drop in clubs ? Lets do a simple linear translation. Change the postion to H9 and CJ8 with the H10 and the C976432 outstanding. Nothing has changed. Would Ton still consider taking the finesse 'the only legal play available with which declarer can make his 5 tricks'. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Gordon Rainsford'" Cc: Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 8:51 AM Subject: [blml] RE: [blml] Réf. : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > >>>> AG : I have. Only marked finesses are allowed. Finesses that > > >>>> are necessary > > >>>> (as here, East being known not to have the bare K) are not. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> This sounds as being a very helpful statement. Could you > > >> tell me where to > > >>> find it in the laws? > > >> > > >> L70E alinea 1 (marked finesses) and 2 (finesses that will > > >> become marked) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have to apologize if you took my question seriously. I know about > > > law 70E. > > > Did you read it till the last words? > > > ton > > > > I have. > > > > It depends when you imagine declarer will realise the mistake he has > > made, whether or not taking the finesse is even possible, > > never mind it > > being irrational to fail to take it. How about: ruffed > > diamond, club to > > Ace to cash....damn, where did I put that diamond trick? > > > Yes, this is the problem. > We are not supposed to include irrational play in our decisions but what if > declarer suggests to play so himself? > > > Despite David's pleads I still think that in establishing the alternatives > within the range of normal play they all lead to allowing the finesse, being > the only legal play available with which declarer can make his 5 tricks. > > ton > > > > > > > Or, ruffed diamond, CA from dummy, condoned. > > > > Isn't this one of those Laws with which people never used to have a > > problem until it was "improved" in 1997? > > > As far as I remember '97 we didn't change this law at all, having no problem > whatsoever applying it. > > And we did read the whole paragraph. > > ton > > > > > > > -- > > Gordon Rainsford > > London UK > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Feb 21 09:18:13 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:18:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 References: Message-ID: <00d701c2d98a$2a7acb80$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton: But meanwhile there where some considerations worth to take notice of. In one of the first reactions we could read that the CK couldn't be bare behind the A, given the number of clubs still in play, which makes playing for the drop in trick 10 irrational in my definition of that word. But this asks for counting and it seems within the range of normal not to count that well. And when declarer starts playing trumps (it probably not being irrational to play them all) he will see club discards from east. Couldn't east have CK and a heart left? Not if declarer counts, then he knows that there are just clubs left when reaching trick 12, which makes playing the ace in trick 12 foolish (I have abandoned the word 'írrational'). We almost agree. Declarer shouldn't be allowed to count the clubs. But why should he know that it is west rather than east who has this H7. Which has interesting implications for the show-up squeeze, I have dropped lots of kings off-side after what is called a Dutch squeeze (not a real one) or after some greedy guy kept his K singleton with a winner (a diamond in this case). But why should the guy be allowed to know that it is the H7 and not the H5 that is still out there ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:50 AM Subject: RE: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 > > OK, how about this (contrived) case: > > S97 HAQ opposite SJ6 H32. Spades are trumps, defenders have none. > Hearts have not been played. There are not enough non-heart cards > outstanding for either defender to have a singleton heart. Declarer > claims all the tricks. The only possible way of making all > the tricks > is to finesse the HQ, so do we award all the tricks whenever > the HK is > onside? > > Keith (not John) Wignall > no, we don't. There is no other choice but to ask declarer why he claimed for 4 tricks and if for example he thinks the HQ to be high he certainly looses a trick. The difference is that here I can't imagine why declarer claimed, while in case n+1 I do understand that, he 'clearly' explained his play for all tricks. But meanwhile there where some considerations worth to take notice of. In one of the first reactions we could read that the CK couldn't be bare behind the A, given the number of clubs still in play, which makes playing for the drop in trick 10 irrational in my definition of that word. But this asks for counting and it seems within the range of normal not to count that well. And when declarer starts playing trumps (it probably not being irrational to play them all) he will see club discards from east. Couldn't east have CK and a heart left? Not if declarer counts, then he knows that there are just clubs left when reaching trick 12, which makes playing the ace in trick 12 foolish (I have abandoned the word 'írrational'). So we are back at the doughs and the hawks and the laws allow both species to live within the bridge world. ton _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri Feb 21 10:24:05 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 01:24:05 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f=2E_=3A_=5B_blml=5D_claim?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?s__forever=2C_case_n_+_1?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Kooijman, A. wrote: > >>>> AG : I have. Only marked finesses are allowed. Finesses that > > >>>> are necessary > > >>>> (as here, East being known not to have the bare K) are not. > > > Yes, this is the problem. > We are not supposed to include irrational play in our decisions but what if > declarer suggests to play so himself? > > > Despite David's pleads I still think that in establishing the alternatives > within the range of normal play they all lead to allowing the finesse, being > the only legal play available with which declarer can make his 5 tricks. > I am surprised how many people are considering awarding 5 tricks. I can just barely see a case for it, if the show-up squeeze is unavoidable (but I will rule that H6 is pitched before C6, on the same trick West pitches H3.) But I *don't* hold with the logic of "he claimed 5 tricks, so let's consider only lines of play which might result in 5 tricks, even after one of the five named winners is gone." Suppose we replaced the CAQ6 with CAxx. Now, when the DJ is gone, tough cheese, there's no way to ever come to more than 4 tricks. In fact, a very common situation at the table is this: "I have all the rest: __, __, and __." "But your __ isn't a winner" (or "But your __ is already being played on this trick" in this specific case." "Oh - yes, all the rest but one." and we have no fuss and no director call. Now, back to the CQ. We have a general principle that we follow declarer's claim statement as far as we can before it breaks down (which happens here as soon as the DJ goes poof), after which we consider all normal lines. Once you no longer have 5 sure winners, it may happen that there are two separate families of normal lines: lines which guarantee 4 winners (some may have a small chance for 5), and lines which offer a larger chance of 5 tricks but carry a risk of taking only 3. It's not my business to get inside declarer's head and figure out how important overtricks are to him. That will vary according to scoring, state of the match, who is sitting at the other table, the declarer's personal preference, the phase of the moon, and God only knows what else. It is my business to assign whichever of the normal lines is least favourable to the claimer. That means, if both a certain-4 and a 5-or-3 line exist, I award 4 tricks when the 5-or-3 line succeeds, and 3 tricks when it fails. Coming back to the actual hand, I can see a 5-or-3 line (cash 3 spades then towards the Q), so you can be sure any time the CK in East I will be awarding 3 tricks only. Among the guarantees-4-tricks lines, you have to make a judgment as to whether that singleton king is possible. (I'm not sure we have enough information - has East already shown out of hearts, for instance?) If not, then, yes, taking the club finesse while retaining one spade to regain the lead, abandoning the squeeze chance, may well be the best guarantees-4 line. In that one situation (where the 5-or-3 lines AND the guarantees-4 lines all happen to produce the fifth trick) we can award the fifth trick. Given that it took me two days of fuming at my screen AND a good twenty minutes trying to carefully word this email before I found an excuse to ever give declarer a fifth trick... I think it is safe to say that my table ruling would have been 4 tricks (even halfway through this email, I was expecting to give 4 tricks!) and an AC who had time to study the hand in more detail might have given back the fifth trick. I was intending to end this post with "...so none of you should have awarded 5 tricks!", but instead I will end it with "I think most of the people who let 5 tricks through did so for the wrong reason." GRB From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 10:45:28 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:45:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <3E560348.4010100@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: >>No, untrue - If you have the Kaplan printout, you don't need to ask >>any questions (I'd even say, you are not entitled to ask any more) so >>you have no knowledge of the misunderstanding. >> > > > > Could you please tell me where in the laws you find any support for this > opinion? I find it as a corollary to a number of principles, namely what the opponents are entitled to and what not. It is a well established principle (within rulings) that opponents are not entitled to the knowledge of a misunderstanding. As a consequence, I feel that to ask the same question a second time, just to find out whether or not a player knows his system, violates that principle. I realize that this is not -yet- in the laws, but I feel it should be. > Does this mean that the whole bridge world asking questions when having > system cards > on the table is acting illegally in your opinion? > No they are not. I believe that an opponent has the right to consult whichever source of information he wishes, but only one. So checking the CC and then asking the same question should be forbidden. But not checking the CC and simply asking must be allowed. Of course asking a subsidiary question after checking the CC and finding the information incomplete must also be allowed. The same ought to be true in on-line bridge. Opponents may ask either player of a pair, but not both. > ton > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 10:52:52 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:52:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: [blml] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: Message-ID: <3E560504.9030204@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: >> >>It depends when you imagine declarer will realise the mistake he has >>made, whether or not taking the finesse is even possible, >>never mind it >>being irrational to fail to take it. How about: ruffed >>diamond, club to >>Ace to cash....damn, where did I put that diamond trick? >> > > > Yes, this is the problem. > We are not supposed to include irrational play in our decisions but what if > declarer suggests to play so himself? > > > Despite David's pleads I still think that in establishing the alternatives > within the range of normal play they all lead to allowing the finesse, being > the only legal play available with which declarer can make his 5 tricks. > I think you are wrong there, Ton. I don't believe that we must force upon claimer a line which is the only one to be able to make the number of tricks that he claimed. When the claim statement breaks down, we must award to claimer the worst of all normal lines, not the worst of all lines that lead to his stated number of tricks. So unless the only rational for him is to play for 5 tricks (as in a team game to make his contract), we must include in our normal lines those that lead to only 4 tricks. > ton > > > > >>Or, ruffed diamond, CA from dummy, condoned. >> >>Isn't this one of those Laws with which people never used to have a >>problem until it was "improved" in 1997? >> > > > As far as I remember '97 we didn't change this law at all, having no problem > whatsoever applying it. > > And we did read the whole paragraph. > > ton > > > > >>-- >>Gordon Rainsford >>London UK >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Feb 21 11:07:11 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:07:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: herman: > >>No, untrue - If you have the Kaplan printout, you don't need to ask > >>any questions (I'd even say, you are not entitled to ask > any more) so > >>you have no knowledge of the misunderstanding. me: > > Could you please tell me where in the laws you find any > support for this > > opinion? herman again: > > I find it as a corollary to a number of principles, namely what the > opponents are entitled to and what not. It is a well established > principle (within rulings) that opponents are not entitled to the > knowledge of a misunderstanding. me again: Not that I know of. It is better to restrict our principles to those described in the laws explicitly. And one of those makes clear that opponents are entitled to know that a misexplanation, creating a misunderstanding, has occurred. And indeed opponents are not entitled to be informed about a misbid. But your general principle doesn't exist as far as I know. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 11:16:38 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:16:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Ton: > >>Despite David's pleads I still think that in establishing the alternatives >>within the range of normal play they all lead to allowing the finesse, >> > being > >>the only legal play available with which declarer can make his 5 tricks. >> > > Are you still connected to reality ? Do we still speak the same language ? > Do we still play the same game ? > > Why cannot the legal play of trying to cash the H6 produce 5 tricks. Because > the H7 is still around ? Why is declarer allowed to know this ? Why cannot > the legal play of trying to drop the CK produce 5 tricks. Because there is > one club too many around ? Why is declarer allowed to know this ? > > But ok, this declarer knows that his H6 is not high and the CK cannot drop. > This good a declarer (will never make such a silly claim) and might well > play for the show-up squeeze rather than to take a silly finesse. This is a > kind of squeeze that requires counting to execute (..... I claimed it an a > double squeeze ......). On the actual hand the show-up squeeze doesn't > improve your changes over a finesse but this is not always the case. Do we > want to get involved in this kind of analysis when resolving this kind of > silly claims ? > > Anyway if you don't like David's views or mine what is wrong with (AG and > others said more or less the same): > > Sven: > >>If he doesn't explicitly state that he will try the finesse he shall >>be deemed to play (a small to) the Ace if the King is onside and >>(to) the Queen if the King is offside. (In that last case it doesn't >>really matter). >> > > > And then there is another structural problem with the last couple of cases > we get from Ton. There is always an ending without bidding or early play. > But there might be a 99% clue from the bidding that the CK is offside. I > have seen cases on AC where all players > and the TD missed that kind of 'simple' and 'obvious' info. > Come off it Jaap. This case does not lack in information. We know what claimer did wrong - he showed the spade queen instead of claiming. If he had not shown the spade queen his claim would have been accepted. if we were to rule that showing the SQ was not actually playing it, we would accept the claim. But if we stick declarer to his play at this trick, there is no need to go searching for other errors. This declarer must be deemed to know that the H6 isn't good, that the CK is still out, and that the chances of it being bare behind are slim. We may even attribute to this declarer, if he's good enough, the chance of executing the squeeze. This claimer has shown no indication that he does not know what the cards are. So if he absolutely needs 5 tricks, the finesse is the only normal play, and he receives the result of that (5 tricks or 4,*). If he's in a situation where a certain 4 tricks is about equal to a 50/50 chance of 3/5 tricks, then both lines are normal and he receives 4 tricks whereever the king lies. (*) Even more so than in the previous case, I allow claimer, who knows the lie of the hand, to execute the finesse straight away, and keep a trump to keep control. 5 tricks or 4. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Feb 21 11:10:14 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:10:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [[ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: Message-ID: <003001c2d999$d095d820$25b54351@noos.fr> Gordon, I really enjoyed your wording including the little jokes about it. Keep up the good work. Like this blml is really fun. But now back to business. I agree to most things you say and the way you 'carefully' worded them. But don't worry too much. I try to read what people try to write. Sometimes I might guess wrong but I try to avoid nut-picking (if that is correct English for attacking people about irrelevant small errors, I make them myself all the time). > Among the guarantees-4-tricks lines, you have to > make a judgment as to whether that singleton king is possible. I don't think this is correct because this judgement always require serious attention to procedings and a serious counting effort. We should judge if it is conceivable (pick any word you like) that declarer might think that a singleton K is possible. Which is true in at least 99.9% of all cases so we might as well not bother as long as 'normal play includes careless play'. > That means, if both a certain-4 and a 5-or-3 line exist, I award 4 tricks > when the 5-or-3 line succeeds, and 3 tricks when it fails. I might go along with you but I doubt if a lot of TD's would go along with only 3. I know that (knowing the K is onside) they might say that they cash all the trumps after which the finesse is 'obvious' (just see Ton's last mail). But they never imagine cashing all the trumps when they know that the K is offside (because this risks 3 tricks when 4 are 'sure'). But it is quite possible to cash the spades and then take a view. You might finesse anyway (in most cases your best change) or you might go up ace. The king might now be bare off-side because the guy thought he was squeezed (declarer might have some small red card) or simply because he is greedy. Still I think I will have a hell of a time selling to an AC that declarer might take only 3 tricks from this ending. The problem is that most TD's and quite some AC's simply lack the bridge skill to imagine the effect of different lines of play when the breaks are slightly different than the diagram they are looking at. Single dummy is very different from double dummy you know. Even for the best of players it is difficult to be objective about a single dummy problem seeing all four hands. > It's not my business to get inside declarer's head and figure out how > important overtricks are to him. That will vary according to scoring, > state of the match, who is sitting at the other table, the declarer's > personal preference, the phase of the moon, and God only knows what > else. It is my business to assign whichever of the normal lines is least > favourable to the claimer. Why is trying to cash that H6 not a normal line? Suppose you have some indication the CK is offside and you are not so sure about the H position. Maybe silly not to know if the H6 is good but so is the claim. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] RE: [blml] Réf. : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > >>>> AG : I have. Only marked finesses are allowed. Finesses that > > > >>>> are necessary > > > >>>> (as here, East being known not to have the bare K) are not. > > > > > > Yes, this is the problem. > > We are not supposed to include irrational play in our decisions but what if > > declarer suggests to play so himself? > > > > > > Despite David's pleads I still think that in establishing the alternatives > > within the range of normal play they all lead to allowing the finesse, being > > the only legal play available with which declarer can make his 5 tricks. > > > > I am surprised how many people are considering awarding 5 tricks. I can > just barely see a case for it, if the show-up squeeze is unavoidable (but > I will rule that H6 is pitched before C6, on the same trick West pitches > H3.) > > But I *don't* hold with the logic of "he claimed 5 tricks, so let's > consider only lines of play which might result in 5 tricks, even after one > of the five named winners is gone." > > Suppose we replaced the CAQ6 with CAxx. Now, when the DJ is gone, tough > cheese, there's no way to ever come to more than 4 tricks. In fact, a very > common situation at the table is this: > > "I have all the rest: __, __, and __." > "But your __ isn't a winner" (or "But your __ is already being played on > this trick" in this specific case." > "Oh - yes, all the rest but one." > > and we have no fuss and no director call. > > Now, back to the CQ. > > We have a general principle that we follow declarer's claim statement as > far as we can before it breaks down (which happens here as soon as the DJ > goes poof), after which we consider all normal lines. > > Once you no longer have 5 sure winners, it may happen that there are two > separate families of normal lines: lines which guarantee 4 winners (some > may have a small chance for 5), and lines which offer a larger chance of 5 > tricks but carry a risk of taking only 3. > > It's not my business to get inside declarer's head and figure out how > important overtricks are to him. That will vary according to scoring, > state of the match, who is sitting at the other table, the declarer's > personal preference, the phase of the moon, and God only knows what > else. It is my business to assign whichever of the normal lines is least > favourable to the claimer. > > That means, if both a certain-4 and a 5-or-3 line exist, I award 4 tricks > when the 5-or-3 line succeeds, and 3 tricks when it fails. > > Coming back to the actual hand, I can see a 5-or-3 line (cash 3 spades > then towards the Q), so you can be sure any time the CK in East I will be > awarding 3 tricks only. Among the guarantees-4-tricks lines, you have to > make a judgment as to whether that singleton king is possible. (I'm not > sure we have enough information - has East already shown out of hearts, > for instance?) If not, then, yes, taking the club finesse while retaining > one spade to regain the lead, abandoning the squeeze chance, may well be > the best guarantees-4 line. > > In that one situation (where the 5-or-3 lines AND the guarantees-4 lines > all happen to produce the fifth trick) we can award the fifth trick. Given > that it took me two days of fuming at my screen AND a good twenty minutes > trying to carefully word this email before I found an excuse to ever give > declarer a fifth trick... I think it is safe to say that my table ruling > would have been 4 tricks (even halfway through this email, I was expecting > to give 4 tricks!) and an AC who had time to study the hand in more detail > might have given back the fifth trick. > > I was intending to end this post with "...so none of you should have > awarded 5 tricks!", but instead I will end it with "I think most of the > people who let 5 tricks through did so for the wrong reason." > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 11:29:51 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:29:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <3E560DAF.5070305@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: > > me again: > > Not that I know of. It is better to restrict our principles to those > described in the laws explicitly. And one of those makes clear that > opponents are entitled to know that a misexplanation, creating a > misunderstanding, has occurred. And indeed opponents are not entitled to be > informed about a misbid. But your general principle doesn't exist as far as > I know. > Then why do we rule differently - and I know a number of cases where we did. "I would have doubled that if I had known it was a transfer and his partner did not realize." No, you are entitled to know it was a transfer, not that his partner did not know this - I don't believe you would have doubled that if you had known it. > ton > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 21 11:58:51 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:58:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <3E560DAF.5070305@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030221125635.024c3d80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:29 21/02/2003 +0100, you wrote: >Kooijman, A. wrote: > >>me again: >>Not that I know of. It is better to restrict our principles to those >>described in the laws explicitly. And one of those makes clear that >>opponents are entitled to know that a misexplanation, creating a >>misunderstanding, has occurred. And indeed opponents are not entitled to be >>informed about a misbid. But your general principle doesn't exist as far as >>I know. > > >Then why do we rule differently - and I know a number of cases where we did. > >"I would have doubled that if I had known it was a transfer and his >partner did not realize." > >No, you are entitled to know it was a transfer, not that his partner did >not know this - I don't believe you would have doubled that if you had >known it. AG : the converse could happen : I suspect some bid is a transfer, but LHO doesn't alert me. I thus take it as natural, and double it for penalties. Now LHO realizes. If I had known the bid was a transfer and LHO didn't know it, I wouldn't have doubled. What's the ruling in this case ? From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 11:49:41 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:49:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE: [blml] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: Message-ID: <3E561255.10207@skynet.be> Hello Gordon, Gordon Bower wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > I am surprised how many people are considering awarding 5 tricks. I can > just barely see a case for it, if the show-up squeeze is unavoidable (but > I will rule that H6 is pitched before C6, on the same trick West pitches > H3.) > > But I *don't* hold with the logic of "he claimed 5 tricks, so let's > consider only lines of play which might result in 5 tricks, even after one > of the five named winners is gone." > Quite true. > Suppose we replaced the CAQ6 with CAxx. Now, when the DJ is gone, tough > cheese, there's no way to ever come to more than 4 tricks. In fact, a very > common situation at the table is this: > > "I have all the rest: __, __, and __." > "But your __ isn't a winner" (or "But your __ is already being played on > this trick" in this specific case." > "Oh - yes, all the rest but one." > > and we have no fuss and no director call. > > Now, back to the CQ. > > We have a general principle that we follow declarer's claim statement as > far as we can before it breaks down (which happens here as soon as the DJ > goes poof), after which we consider all normal lines. > > Once you no longer have 5 sure winners, it may happen that there are two > separate families of normal lines: lines which guarantee 4 winners (some > may have a small chance for 5), and lines which offer a larger chance of 5 > tricks but carry a risk of taking only 3. > > It's not my business to get inside declarer's head and figure out how > important overtricks are to him. That will vary according to scoring, > state of the match, who is sitting at the other table, the declarer's > personal preference, the phase of the moon, and God only knows what > else. It is my business to assign whichever of the normal lines is least > favourable to the claimer. > > That means, if both a certain-4 and a 5-or-3 line exist, I award 4 tricks > when the 5-or-3 line succeeds, and 3 tricks when it fails. > Quite correct. But ! The 5-or-3 lines don't actually exist. They are 5-or-4 lines. Claimer holds on to one trump, takes the finesse and ruffs opponent's winner if it fails, taking the CA with the last trick. Now if a declarer (who must be supposed to know the hands, since his failure in the claim has nothing to do with a mistaken view of the hands) is faced with a certain-4 line or a 5-or-4 line, isn't it irrational for him to play the certain-4 ? So I am awarding 5 tricks in the end. I have already read Jaap's response to this mail, and it contains one more issue - could declarer think the H6 is good? I don't believe that. Claimer has not shown that he is mistaken about the holdings, only that he carelessly ruffed a winner. > Coming back to the actual hand, I can see a 5-or-3 line (cash 3 spades > then towards the Q), so you can be sure any time the CK in East I will be > awarding 3 tricks only. Among the guarantees-4-tricks lines, you have to > make a judgment as to whether that singleton king is possible. (I'm not > sure we have enough information - has East already shown out of hearts, > for instance?) If not, then, yes, taking the club finesse while retaining > one spade to regain the lead, abandoning the squeeze chance, may well be > the best guarantees-4 line. > > In that one situation (where the 5-or-3 lines AND the guarantees-4 lines > all happen to produce the fifth trick) we can award the fifth trick. Given > that it took me two days of fuming at my screen AND a good twenty minutes > trying to carefully word this email before I found an excuse to ever give > declarer a fifth trick... I think it is safe to say that my table ruling > would have been 4 tricks (even halfway through this email, I was expecting > to give 4 tricks!) and an AC who had time to study the hand in more detail > might have given back the fifth trick. > > I was intending to end this post with "...so none of you should have > awarded 5 tricks!", but instead I will end it with "I think most of the > people who let 5 tricks through did so for the wrong reason." > > GRB > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Feb 21 11:50:55 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:50:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: > > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > > me again: > > > > Not that I know of. It is better to restrict our principles to those > > described in the laws explicitly. And one of those makes clear that > > opponents are entitled to know that a misexplanation, creating a > > misunderstanding, has occurred. And indeed opponents are > not entitled to be > > informed about a misbid. But your general principle doesn't > exist as far as > > I know. > > > > > Then why do we rule differently - and I know a number of cases where > we did. > > "I would have doubled that if I had known it was a transfer and his > partner did not realize." > > No, you are entitled to know it was a transfer, not that his partner > did not know this - I don't believe you would have doubled > that if you > had known it. I am loosing track. A player is entitled to know opponents agreements. If he becomes aware of a misexplanation he knows there is a misunderstanding. He is entitled to have and use that information. If he has the CC available and discovers that he receives different information after questioning, he may assume there to be a misunderstanding. Where do we differ in opinion? ton > Herman DE WAEL From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Feb 21 11:40:57 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:40:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <004f01c2d9a0$b62ea460$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton: > Not that I know of. It is better to restrict our principles to those > described in the laws explicitly. And one of those makes clear that > opponents are entitled to know that a misexplanation, creating a > misunderstanding, has occurred. 1. Which principle are you refering to? 2. Why does a misexplanation create a misunderstanding (= partnership misunderstanding by the explaining side given the context of the discussion so far). There are plenty of cases where opponents misexplain something without having a misunderstanding. Are misexplanations which create misunderstanding treated differently from those that do not? Where can I find this in the laws? 3. To come to the real point. As far as I know you are entitled to know their systems, habits, etc. Now suppose I get misinformation. I might be damaged directly (like I do something silly I would not have done otherwise). Then the TD will help me out. But suppose there is no direct damage. I do not (have a serious) claim that I would have done something different if I was given the correct explanation. This should be end of story or not? But now I am a smart lawyer. If I had know they had a misunderstanding I could do something clever like doubling the final contract or to find an impossible lead. Do I have a right to know they have a mix-up? My personal view would be yes if I can figure it out myself from combining the explanation I got and the explanation I should be given, no otherwise. The main argument for 'no otherwise' is that 'yes otherwise' is basically equivalent to the right to ask all questions to both opponents which is currently illegal as far as I know. Your thoughts please. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Herman De Wael'" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:07 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Horrible? > herman: > > > >>No, untrue - If you have the Kaplan printout, you don't need to ask > > >>any questions (I'd even say, you are not entitled to ask > > any more) so > > >>you have no knowledge of the misunderstanding. > > me: > > > > Could you please tell me where in the laws you find any > > support for this > > > opinion? > > herman again: > > > > I find it as a corollary to a number of principles, namely what the > > opponents are entitled to and what not. It is a well established > > principle (within rulings) that opponents are not entitled to the > > knowledge of a misunderstanding. > > me again: > > Not that I know of. It is better to restrict our principles to those > described in the laws explicitly. And one of those makes clear that > opponents are entitled to know that a misexplanation, creating a > misunderstanding, has occurred. And indeed opponents are not entitled to be > informed about a misbid. But your general principle doesn't exist as far as > I know. > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 21 12:30:25 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:30:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[blml]_RE:_[blml]_R=E9f._:_[_blml]_claims?= forever, case n + 1 In-Reply-To: <3E561255.10207@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030221132831.024be750@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:49 21/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >The 5-or-3 lines don't actually exist. >They are 5-or-4 lines. >Claimer holds on to one trump, takes the finesse and ruffs opponent's >winner if it fails, taking the CA with the last trick. > >Now if a declarer (who must be supposed to know the hands, since his >failure in the claim has nothing to do with a mistaken view of the hands) >is faced with a certain-4 line or a 5-or-4 line, isn't it irrational for >him to play the certain-4 ? AG : isn't the line of trying to drop the singleton Club K a 5-or-4 line ? And it is inferior, to be sure, but not irrational. So it must be taken into account. >So I am awarding 5 tricks in the end. AG : So I don't. From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 12:18:40 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:18:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030221125635.024c3d80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E561920.7010002@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 12:29 21/02/2003 +0100, you wrote: > >> >> >> Then why do we rule differently - and I know a number of cases where >> we did. >> >> "I would have doubled that if I had known it was a transfer and his >> partner did not realize." >> >> No, you are entitled to know it was a transfer, not that his partner >> did not know this - I don't believe you would have doubled that if you >> had known it. > > > AG : the converse could happen : I suspect some bid is a transfer, but > LHO doesn't alert me. I thus take it as natural, and double it for > penalties. Now LHO realizes. If I had known the bid was a transfer and > LHO didn't know it, I wouldn't have doubled. What's the ruling in this > case ? > I could rule that you would not have doubled it if it were alerted as a transfer, so that would be it. But if you had a normal double over the other meaning as well (not very likely in as simple a case as this one) then I will not allow you to change -"I would not have doubled if I had known there was a misunderstanding"- will not wash with me. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 12:21:04 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:21:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <3E5619B0.1050103@skynet.be> Nowhere, Ton, nowhere. Kooijman, A. wrote: >>Kooijman, A. wrote: >> >> >>>me again: >>> >>>Not that I know of. It is better to restrict our principles to those >>>described in the laws explicitly. And one of those makes clear that >>>opponents are entitled to know that a misexplanation, creating a >>>misunderstanding, has occurred. And indeed opponents are >>> >>not entitled to be >> >>>informed about a misbid. But your general principle doesn't >>> >>exist as far as >> >>>I know. >>> >>> >> >>Then why do we rule differently - and I know a number of cases where >>we did. >> >>"I would have doubled that if I had known it was a transfer and his >>partner did not realize." >> >>No, you are entitled to know it was a transfer, not that his partner >>did not know this - I don't believe you would have doubled >>that if you >>had known it. >> > > > > I am loosing track. A player is entitled to know opponents agreements. If he > becomes aware of a misexplanation he knows there is a misunderstanding. He > is entitled to have and use that information. If he has the CC available and > discovers that he receives different information after questioning, he may > assume there to be a misunderstanding. > > Where do we differ in opinion? > as I said, nowhere. If a player learns about a misunderstanding, he is allowed to use that info. But he is not "entitled" to it. Meaning he cannot ask for redress based on the two facts at the same time: that it was alertable AND not-alerted. I was under the assumption that we agreed on that one. > ton > > > >>Herman DE WAEL >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 12:27:06 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:27:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <004f01c2d9a0$b62ea460$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E561B1A.6020601@skynet.be> Almost correct, Jaap. Jaap van der Neut wrote: [snip] > > But now I am a smart lawyer. If I had know they had a misunderstanding I > could do something clever like doubling the final contract or to find an > impossible lead. Do I have a right to know they have a mix-up? My personal > view would be yes if I can figure it out myself from combining the > explanation I got and the explanation I should be given, no otherwise. The No, you are not allowed to combine the explanation you should have been given AND the explanation you were given. You can have redress based on the explanation you should have been given AND the bids that have been done. Suppose someone does not alert a transfer and passes. In fourth hand, you'd be allowed to base your demand for redress on the basis that they have just shown their misunderstanding. But in second hand, not. > main argument for 'no otherwise' is that 'yes otherwise' is basically > equivalent to the right to ask all questions to both opponents which is > currently illegal as far as I know. > Well, that is circular reasoning. I believe asking both opponents is illegal because you would be discovering information you are not entitled to. The reason why asking double questions should be illegal is of course that this creates opportunities that we don't want (always asking doubly would slow the game down - so better disallow it, and make it so there is nothing worth while that can be learnt from it anyway - so the misunderstanding needs to remain info that you are not entitled to). > Your thoughts please. > > Jaap > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Feb 21 12:29:13 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:29:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5Bblml=5D_Re:_=5Bblml=5D_RE:_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f._?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?:_=5B_blml=5D_claims__forever=2C_case_n_+_1?= References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman: > Come off it Jaap. This case does not lack in information. It lacks all relevant information. There is no bidding and no early play. > We know what > claimer did wrong - he showed the spade queen instead of claiming > If he had not shown the spade queen his claim would have been accepted. > if we were to rule that showing the SQ was not actually playing it, we > would accept the claim. I have never participated in this part of the discussion. I disagree with you and I agree with David on these issues so why discuss. I know your opinion and you know mine and we won't change it. But if you force me it is hard to stay polite. In Ton's original mail he says: 'South now claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the spade queen' I am very sorry but this statement of facts means that south ruffed the diamond and I looked at the claim issue in that context. I really wonder how you manage to interprete Ton's statement differently. Besides from Ton's later input it is clear he even meant it like that. > But if we stick declarer to his play at this > trick, there is no need to go searching for other errors. First of all declarer's play to this trick has nothing to do with the claim resolve (other than interferences about his state of mind). Second, nobody, and there are about a dozen people in this discussion, is looking for errors the way you intend it. If you think so maybe you should be looking for some internal error at your side. > This declarer must be deemed to know that the H6 isn't good, WHY WHY WHY should he know the H6 is good or not. Counting the DJ as a trick he might well have given up on counting the hearts tricks ago, if he is capable of counting in the first place. You remember that Tenerife-41 where you ruled trumps last and one argument was that this was a sound safety-play against some forgotten winner in opps hands. Of course there is some truth in this silly argument. But it implies that you consider it 'possible'/'normal' (or whatever) that someone claiming the rest in an EC might have forgotten a high trump (or other winner) when claiming the rest, and it is 'irrational' not to guard against it be keeping your trumps to the end. You know what I think about that. But how can you possible accept this in a EC and than claim that in a silly low-level claim someone should know whether or not a H6 is good (with only the H7 outstanding). > that the CK is still out, and that the chances of it being bare behind are slim. Without bidding and early play I have no idea (about the change of it being offside and or stiff). So maybe you can explain me how the heck I am supposed to know that. > We may even attribute to this declarer, if he's good enough, the chance > of executing the squeeze. To atribute a squeeze to someone who claims like that is of course ridiculous. Anyway this is a silly squeeze because it is just a non consequental show up that doesn't improve your changes over a finesse and risks going two down instead of one. So a good declarer will never play like that if he has no indication the K might be off-side. But if he is crazy/smart/good enough and there is some or a strong indication the K is off-side he might play it on a Dutch squeeze (the squeeze equivalent of a Chinese finesse) going down against correct defense. I have made some contracts that way you know. And yes I have once gone down in a cold contract that way. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] Réf. : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Ton: > > > >>Despite David's pleads I still think that in establishing the alternatives > >>within the range of normal play they all lead to allowing the finesse, > >> > > being > > > >>the only legal play available with which declarer can make his 5 tricks. > >> > > > > Are you still connected to reality ? Do we still speak the same language ? > > Do we still play the same game ? > > > > Why cannot the legal play of trying to cash the H6 produce 5 tricks. Because > > the H7 is still around ? Why is declarer allowed to know this ? Why cannot > > the legal play of trying to drop the CK produce 5 tricks. Because there is > > one club too many around ? Why is declarer allowed to know this ? > > > > But ok, this declarer knows that his H6 is not high and the CK cannot drop. > > This good a declarer (will never make such a silly claim) and might well > > play for the show-up squeeze rather than to take a silly finesse. This is a > > kind of squeeze that requires counting to execute (..... I claimed it an a > > double squeeze ......). On the actual hand the show-up squeeze doesn't > > improve your changes over a finesse but this is not always the case. Do we > > want to get involved in this kind of analysis when resolving this kind of > > silly claims ? > > > > > > > > Anyway if you don't like David's views or mine what is wrong with (AG and > > others said more or less the same): > > > > Sven: > > > >>If he doesn't explicitly state that he will try the finesse he shall > >>be deemed to play (a small to) the Ace if the King is onside and > >>(to) the Queen if the King is offside. (In that last case it doesn't > >>really matter). > >> > > > > > > And then there is another structural problem with the last couple of cases > > we get from Ton. There is always an ending without bidding or early play. > > But there might be a 99% clue from the bidding that the CK is offside. I > > have seen cases on AC where all players > > and the TD missed that kind of 'simple' and 'obvious' info. > > > > > Come off it Jaap. This case does not lack in information. We know what > claimer did wrong - he showed the spade queen instead of claiming. If > he had not shown the spade queen his claim would have been accepted. > if we were to rule that showing the SQ was not actually playing it, we > would accept the claim. But if we stick declarer to his play at this > trick, there is no need to go searching for other errors. This > declarer must be deemed to know that the H6 isn't good, that the CK is > still out, and that the chances of it being bare behind are slim. We > may even attribute to this declarer, if he's good enough, the chance > of executing the squeeze. > > This claimer has shown no indication that he does not know what the > cards are. > So if he absolutely needs 5 tricks, the finesse is the only normal > play, and he receives the result of that (5 tricks or 4,*). > If he's in a situation where a certain 4 tricks is about equal to a > 50/50 chance of 3/5 tricks, then both lines are normal and he receives > > 4 tricks whereever the king lies. > > (*) Even more so than in the previous case, I allow claimer, who knows > the lie of the hand, to execute the finesse straight away, and keep > a trump to keep control. 5 tricks or 4. > > > > > > -- > 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Feb 21 12:38:00 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:38:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] =?ISO8859-1?Q?Re:_[blml]_Re:_[blml]_RE:_[blml]_R=E9f.?= =?ISO8859-1?Q?_:_[_blml]_claims_forever,_case_n___1?= Message-ID: <3878302.1045831080826.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: >Now if a declarer (who must be supposed to know the hands, since his failure in the claim has nothing to do with a mistaken view of the hands)... Herman, you must be careful not to make things up. Why must a declarer who has just ruffed his own winner be supposed to know anything? Where in the rules does it say that declarer "must be supposed to know the hands"? I know you think he must be supposed to know the hands, just as you think that I am not allowed to know that my opponents are having a bidding misunderstanding. But you are in error in both cases, for there is no legal justification for either view. And it is dangerous for you to refer to these as "well-established principles" when they are no such thing - they are simply "what Herman thinks", which is not the same at all. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Fri Feb 21 12:41:21 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:41:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030221125635.024c3d80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3E561920.7010002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003b01c2d9a6$898cf4b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ......... > > AG : the converse could happen : I suspect some bid is a transfer, but > > LHO doesn't alert me. I thus take it as natural, and double it for > > penalties. Now LHO realizes. If I had known the bid was a transfer and > > LHO didn't know it, I wouldn't have doubled. What's the ruling in this > > case ? > > > > > I could rule that you would not have doubled it if it were alerted as > a transfer, so that would be it. > But if you had a normal double over the other meaning as well (not > very likely in as simple a case as this one) then I will not allow you > to change -"I would not have doubled if I had known there was a > misunderstanding"- will not wash with me. Claim from player to the Director (you) when this MI is established: "Who are you to decide against me when I tell you that if I had been given the correct information right away I would not have doubled? Are you a mind reader deciding what I had in mind? I want to change my call as permitted in Law 21B1" And if you want some follow up: "If I double a transfer bid it is lead directing. If I double for penalty it does not ask partner to lead trump. So as you see, there is a big difference whether the bid from RHO was transfer or natural. I am not interested in a lead in that suit." Would you still reject any request for a change of call after MI? And would you request a (lengthy) explanation like this from the non-offending player in order to honor his request? I would say that is none of your business, if he wants to change his call that is his business and nobody else's. (Yes, I know Law 21B1 includes the word "probable" and I take the affected player's word for it when he claims it is probable that he would have made a different call. After all, he has not done anything irregular) Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Feb 21 12:42:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:42 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f=2E_=3A_=5B_blml=5D_claim?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote: > It's not my business to get inside declarer's head and figure out how > important overtricks are to him. That will vary according to scoring, > state of the match, who is sitting at the other table, the declarer's > personal preference, the phase of the moon, and God only knows what > else. It is my business to assign whichever of the normal lines is least > favourable to the claimer. Of course. Now there is no doubt in my mind that there exists a class of player capable of a) making a silly mistake in the claim (e.g. assuming a H would be returned and not seeing the D lead), and b) knowing that there are 4 clubs out at trick 12. It would certainly be irrational for such a player to play for the drop (even without the automatic show-up squeeze). There also exists a class of player that would finesse because playing for the drop wouldn't occur to them (probably wouldn't have claimed). As to whether the player concerned is a member of either of these classes I have no idea whatsoever. Tim From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Feb 21 12:47:22 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:47:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: > > Ton: > > > Not that I know of. It is better to restrict our principles to those > > described in the laws explicitly. And one of those makes clear that > > opponents are entitled to know that a misexplanation, creating a > > misunderstanding, has occurred. > > 1. Which principle are you refering to? > > 2. Why does a misexplanation create a misunderstanding (= partnership > misunderstanding by the explaining side given the context of > the discussion > so far). There are plenty of cases where opponents misexplain > something > without having a misunderstanding. Give me one, because I don't think so. As long as the player is honest in his explanation a misexplanation is the result of a misunderstanding: he does not understand the bid made by his partner. So I should have said that the misunderstanding creates the misexplanation. The only other possibility I can think of is an 'inadvertent' misexplanation. We are not talking about such exceptional thing to happen, are we? ton > 3. > To come to the real point. As far as I know you are entitled > to know their > systems, habits, etc. Now suppose I get misinformation. I > might be damaged > directly (like I do something silly I would not have done > otherwise). Then > the TD will help me out. But suppose there is no direct > damage. I do not > (have a serious) claim that I would have done something > different if I was > given the correct explanation. This should be end of story or not? I don't think so. A misexplanation creates UI; so a further question to be answered is whether the player receiving such UI might have used it. But if, as you say, there is no damage that question becomes more or less irrelevant. > > But now I am a smart lawyer. If I had know they had a > misunderstanding I > could do something clever like doubling the final contract or > to find an > impossible lead. Do I have a right to know they have a > mix-up? My personal > view would be yes if I can figure it out myself from combining the > explanation I got and the explanation I should be given, no > otherwise. sounds good to me. ton From svenpran@online.no Fri Feb 21 12:48:40 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:48:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <004f01c2d9a0$b62ea460$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E561B1A.6020601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004301c2d9a7$8f809650$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ......... > Suppose someone does not alert a transfer and passes. In fourth hand, > you'd be allowed to base your demand for redress on the basis that > they have just shown their misunderstanding. But in second hand, not. WHAT!?!?! Post festum I can show damage because I was under the assumption that the bid was natural so I had no reason to double. If I had known it was a transfer call I had every reason to double and the different auction would have resulted in a much better score for us. My partner had no reason to call anything but pass. Our side has been damaged by the misinformation and you say we have no cause for redress? I don't believe that I am reading this. Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Feb 21 12:47:42 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:47:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <004f01c2d9a0$b62ea460$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E561B1A.6020601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00b001c2d9a7$6e3f4040$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman > Almost correct, Jaap. I cannot be correct or not because I raised an issue and did not pretend to know the answer (although I included some opinion). Anyway before I continue I need to know the answer to some questions I posed, mainly what Ton means with: > It is better to restrict our principles to those > described in the laws explicitly. And one of those makes clear that > opponents are entitled to know that a misexplanation, creating a > misunderstanding, has occurred. For me and anybody else it is easier to mention a pagenumber or so if you refer to things that are 'described in the laws explicitly'. Or do I have to take David's very last mail more serious than this kind of statements ? Herman: > No, you are not allowed to combine the explanation you should have > been given AND the explanation you were given. > You can have redress based on the explanation you should have been > given AND the bids that have been done. Where can I find this in the laws ? Herman: > Suppose someone does not alert a transfer and passes. In fourth hand, > you'd be allowed to base your demand for redress on the basis that > they have just shown their misunderstanding. But in second hand, not. Redress for a misunderstanding ? Even I am sure this doesn't exist. You might get redress for misexplanation which is really something completely different. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > Almost correct, Jaap. > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > [snip] > > > > > But now I am a smart lawyer. If I had know they had a misunderstanding I > > could do something clever like doubling the final contract or to find an > > impossible lead. Do I have a right to know they have a mix-up? My personal > > view would be yes if I can figure it out myself from combining the > > explanation I got and the explanation I should be given, no otherwise. The > > > No, you are not allowed to combine the explanation you should have > been given AND the explanation you were given. > You can have redress based on the explanation you should have been > given AND the bids that have been done. > > Suppose someone does not alert a transfer and passes. In fourth hand, > you'd be allowed to base your demand for redress on the basis that > they have just shown their misunderstanding. But in second hand, not. > > > > main argument for 'no otherwise' is that 'yes otherwise' is basically > > equivalent to the right to ask all questions to both opponents which is > > currently illegal as far as I know. > > > > > Well, that is circular reasoning. I believe asking both opponents is > illegal because you would be discovering information you are not > entitled to. > The reason why asking double questions should be illegal is of course > that this creates opportunities that we don't want (always asking > doubly would slow the game down - so better disallow it, and make it > so there is nothing worth while that can be learnt from it anyway - so > the misunderstanding needs to remain info that you are not entitled to). > > > > Your thoughts please. > > > > Jaap > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Feb 21 12:57:12 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:57:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_=5Bblml=5D_Re=3A_=5Bblml=5D_Re=3A_=5Bblml?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=5D_RE=3A_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f=2E_=3A_=5B_blml=5D_claims__f?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?orever=2C_case_n_+_1?= Message-ID: > Onderwerp: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] R=E9f. : [=20 > blml] claims > forever, case n + 1 Is this a Amsterdamned provider joke to re: re: re forever as well in = this thread?=20 ton =20 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Feb 21 13:08:51 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:08:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mike Flader on psyches (was Horrible?) In-Reply-To: <4A256CD4.00017B54.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030221080148.00a00d70@pop.starpower.net> At 07:36 PM 2/20/03, richard.hills wrote: >Ed Reppert replied: > > >Basically, the (I think) club TD who submitted the question says > >that a player has a habit of psyching a 2S response to his > >partner's 2D or 2H weak two opening. He says "many of his > >partners are novices and probably don't even know what's going on, > >and worse, his opponents aren't raising a fuss." Mike Flader then > >asserts that in his view, the pair concerned has a CPU. I don't > >see how a pair can have a CPU if one player of that pair has no > >clue what's going on. Further, if the opponents aren't raising a > >fuss, what's the problem? > >Law 81C6. A call for the TD is not necessary. The TD normally >rectifies an irregularity they become aware of in any manner. What irregularity? The problem here is that the ACBL, after a roughly 30-year-long campaign, has succeeded in convincing people that any psych is a presumptive irregularity. Only if you believe that can you argue that TDs can or should investigate psychs under L81C6 when no objection is raised by a player. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Feb 21 13:11:18 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:11:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: > Herman: > > No, you are not allowed to combine the explanation you should have > > been given AND the explanation you were given. how can you say this? Could you give an example to illustrate this? > > You can have redress based on the explanation you should have been > > given AND the bids that have been done. > > Where can I find this in the laws ? > > Herman: > > Suppose someone does not alert a transfer and passes. In > fourth hand, > > you'd be allowed to base your demand for redress on the basis that > > they have just shown their misunderstanding. But in second > hand, not. I don't understand what you are saying. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 13:21:14 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:21:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030221125635.024c3d80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3E561920.7010002@skynet.be> <003b01c2d9a6$898cf4b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E5627CA.9080601@skynet.be> Sven, you are _COMPLETELY_ missing the point. You can have redress if you receive misinformation. But the redress cannot be based on the correct information _AND_ the knowledge that there is a misunderstanding. Other than that, nothing you write is wrong. Please stop trying to nit-pick on everything I write and try reading it first. Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > ......... > >>>AG : the converse could happen : I suspect some bid is a transfer, but >>>LHO doesn't alert me. I thus take it as natural, and double it for >>>penalties. Now LHO realizes. If I had known the bid was a transfer and >>>LHO didn't know it, I wouldn't have doubled. What's the ruling in this >>>case ? >>> >>> >> >>I could rule that you would not have doubled it if it were alerted as >>a transfer, so that would be it. >>But if you had a normal double over the other meaning as well (not >>very likely in as simple a case as this one) then I will not allow you >>to change -"I would not have doubled if I had known there was a >>misunderstanding"- will not wash with me. >> > > Claim from player to the Director (you) when this MI is established: > > "Who are you to decide against me when I tell you that if I had been > given the correct information right away I would not have doubled? > Are you a mind reader deciding what I had in mind? > I want to change my call as permitted in Law 21B1" > > And if you want some follow up: > > "If I double a transfer bid it is lead directing. > If I double for penalty it does not ask partner to lead trump. > So as you see, there is a big difference whether the bid from RHO > was transfer or natural. I am not interested in a lead in that suit." > > Would you still reject any request for a change of call after MI? > > And would you request a (lengthy) explanation like this from the > non-offending player in order to honor his request? I would say > that is none of your business, if he wants to change his call that > is his business and nobody else's. > > (Yes, I know Law 21B1 includes the word "probable" and I > take the affected player's word for it when he claims it is > probable that he would have made a different call. After all, > he has not done anything irregular) > > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 13:24:19 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:24:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <004f01c2d9a0$b62ea460$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E561B1A.6020601@skynet.be> <004301c2d9a7$8f809650$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E562883.3060301@skynet.be> Sven, please. Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > ......... > >>Suppose someone does not alert a transfer and passes. In fourth hand, >>you'd be allowed to base your demand for redress on the basis that >>they have just shown their misunderstanding. But in second hand, not. >> > > WHAT!?!?! > > Post festum I can show damage because I was under the assumption > that the bid was natural so I had no reason to double. If I had known > it was a transfer call I had every reason to double and the different > auction would have resulted in a much better score for us. > > My partner had no reason to call anything but pass. > > Our side has been damaged by the misinformation and you say we > have no cause for redress? > > I don't believe that I am reading this. > Again, try and understand what I am saying. You have no right to redress on the basis of the knowledge of the misunderstanding, in second seat. Of coursde you have right to redress on other reasons, but not on that one. Please read my posts more thoroughly before replying. > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 13:27:52 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:27:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <004f01c2d9a0$b62ea460$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E561B1A.6020601@skynet.be> <00b001c2d9a7$6e3f4040$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E562958.7040703@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >>Suppose someone does not alert a transfer and passes. In fourth hand, >>you'd be allowed to base your demand for redress on the basis that >>they have just shown their misunderstanding. But in second hand, not. >> > > Redress for a misunderstanding ? Even I am sure this doesn't exist. You > might get redress for misexplanation which is really something completely > different. > > Redress on the basis of a misunderstanding. As in "I would have done something else had I known they were in the dark". That is not permitted. Of course "I would have done something else if I had received the other explanation" is permitted. But not "I would have done something else if I had received both the right and the wrong explanations". > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Fri Feb 21 13:33:20 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:33:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030221125635.024c3d80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3E561920.7010002@skynet.be> <003b01c2d9a6$898cf4b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E5627CA.9080601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006501c2d9ad$cd478060$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Sven, you are _COMPLETELY_ missing the point. OK???? > > You can have redress if you receive misinformation. Glad to hear that. > But the redress cannot be based on the correct information _AND_ the > knowledge that there is a misunderstanding. In the example given the misunderstanding resulted in misinformation as it usually will do. I don't care for distinguishing between misinforation by intent and misinformation by misunderstanding. As far as I am concerned they both result in misinformation and that is what counts. > > Other than that, nothing you write is wrong. > Please stop trying to nit-pick on everything I write and try reading > it first. Did I? You wrote: -"I would not have doubled if I had known there was a misunderstanding - will not wash with me". How could he know there was a misunderstanding unless there was misinformation? This is just fiddling with words. Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 13:42:25 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:42:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <3E562CC1.8090803@skynet.be> Presumably I'm talking double dutch, certainly not single one, because I fail to get through to my fellow dutch speakers. I'm usually not very good at examples but I think I have two simple ones: Kooijman, A. wrote: >>Herman: >> >>>No, you are not allowed to combine the explanation you should have >>>been given AND the explanation you were given. >>> > > how can you say this? Could you give an example to illustrate this? > I shall try. ... 4NT pass 5Cl pass 6Sp all pass "how many aces ?" "1" there are zero aces. "If I had known they were off two aces, I would have doubled". NO: you are entitled to the knowledge that 5Cl shows zero aces, not to the knowledge that partner believes there is one ace there. If you receive the (correct) explanation that responder had zero aces, there is no reason to double. For all you know, Blackwood bidder was trying for seven and there is only that one ace out that you have. The only reason you would have for doubling is the combined knowledge of the exact meaning _and_ the misunderstanding. Please don't start criticising the example but see it for what it is, an attempt to explain what I mean. I quite realize there might be other reasons why one should double with the correct explanation, but the knowledge of a misunderstanding is not a valid reason. > > > >>>You can have redress based on the explanation you should have been >>>given AND the bids that have been done. >>> >>Where can I find this in the laws ? >> >>Herman: >> >>>Suppose someone does not alert a transfer and passes. In >>> >>fourth hand, >> >>>you'd be allowed to base your demand for redress on the basis that >>>they have just shown their misunderstanding. But in second >>> >>hand, not. >> > > > I don't understand what you are saying. > In fourth hand, you are entitled to the information that it is a transfer and you know that the partner passed anyway. You can suspect the misunderstanding from that. In second hand, you are also entitled to the information that it is a transfer, but you don't know -yet- that partner shall pass it. In deciding what you would have done with correct information the TD should not take into account that you also know of the misunderstanding. So if it goes: 1NT X 2Di 2Sp and the 2Di is explained as diamonds while it should be hearts, you have no reason to redress if your hand is Kxxxx xx xx AKxx. Whether 2Di shows diamonds or hearts does not matter to you. The only reason you have for not bidding 2Sp would be if you realize they are ending up in a bad fit. You are not entitled to that information. It goes without saying that you are authorized to use the information if you have it, but you are not entitled to it. > > ton > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 13:56:59 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:56:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E56302B.5030508@skynet.be> Jaap, Jaap, Jaap, please. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman: >=20 >=20 >>Come off it Jaap. This case does not lack in information. >> >=20 > It lacks all relevant information. There is no bidding and no early pla= y. >=20 And I don't believe that matters. And neither does Ton. >=20 >>We know what >>claimer did wrong - he showed the spade queen instead of claiming >>If he had not shown the spade queen his claim would have been accepted. >>if we were to rule that showing the SQ was not actually playing it, we >>would accept the claim. >> >=20 > I have never participated in this part of the discussion. I disagree wi= th > you and I agree with David on these issues so why discuss. I know your > opinion and you know mine and we won't change it. But if you force me i= t is > hard to stay polite. In Ton's original mail he says: > 'South now claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the sp= ade > queen' > I am very sorry but this statement of facts means that south ruffed the > diamond and I looked at the claim issue in that context. I really wonde= r how > you manage to interprete Ton's statement differently. Besides from Ton'= s > later input it is clear he even meant it like that. >=20 And I agree. But don't you agree that the claim would be valid if he=20 hadn't shown the SQ? From that, I deduce that claimer knew the state of play. I always look at the mistake claimer made in claiming. On all other=20 issues, I consider him to be a normal individual. I deduce from the facts that Ton told us that claimer knew the H6 was=20 not high, nor the CQ. If you don't agree with those deductions, fine.=20 That's not important. What is important is how we shall rule if we=20 agree with those deductions. Now, shall we stop the discussion or go on? >=20 >>But if we stick declarer to his play at this >>trick, there is no need to go searching for other errors. >> >=20 > First of all declarer's play to this trick has nothing to do with the c= laim > resolve (other than interferences about his state of mind). Second, nob= ody, > and there are about a dozen people in this discussion, is looking for e= rrors > the way you intend it. If you think so maybe you should be looking for = some > internal error at your side. >=20 Well, if no-one else is looking for the error that claimer made, then=20 no-one else is going to resolve claims ever. The error that claimer=20 made is very important, because it tells us what future lines are=20 normal and not. This declarer made a mechanical error (showing the SQ)=20 which resulted in him having to play it in that trick. There is no=20 evidence that this declarer thought the H6 was high or that the CK was=20 out, rather the contrary (he claimed the DJ and CA, remember?). Looking for the error that claimer made is IMO the most important=20 piece of information we have about claims. >=20 >>This declarer must be deemed to know that the H6 isn't good, >> >=20 > WHY WHY WHY should he know the H6 is good or not. Counting the DJ as a = trick > he might well have given up on counting the hearts tricks ago, if he is WHY WHY WHY should we assume he thinks the H6 is good ? > capable of counting in the first place. You remember that Tenerife-41 w= here > you ruled trumps last and one argument was that this was a sound safety= -play > against some forgotten winner in opps hands. Of course there is some tr= uth > in this silly argument. But it implies that you consider it > 'possible'/'normal' (or whatever) that someone claiming the rest in an = EC > might have forgotten a high trump (or other winner) when claiming the r= est, > and it is 'irrational' not to guard against it be keeping your trumps t= o the > end. You know what I think about that. But how can you possible accept = this > in a EC and than claim that in a silly low-level claim someone should k= now > whether or not a H6 is good (with only the H7 outstanding). >=20 Because there is no need for this. This declarer had a perfect=20 knowledge of the hand, he made a mechanical, not a bridge error. He must suffer for his mechanical error, but not for any bridge one. >=20 >>that the CK is still out, and that the chances of it being bare behind = are >> > slim. >=20 > Without bidding and early play I have no idea (about the change of it b= eing > offside and or stiff). So maybe you can explain me how the heck I am > supposed to know that. >=20 Because he did not claim two tricks with AQ, just one. Because you are=20 presuming this declarer made two errors, when you have evidence of=20 just one. Because once in a while, people do remember that kings are=20 higher than queens. Because this declarer might well be able to tell=20 you all 32 cards played thus far, if you were to ask him. Because you=20 were not at the table, someone else was, and that TD did not report to=20 Ton and us that he believed declarer was in the dark. Because of=20 Occam's razor. Because it's far more likely that this declarer knew=20 the CK was still out than not. >=20 >>We may even attribute to this declarer, if he's good enough, the chance >>of executing the squeeze. >> >=20 > To atribute a squeeze to someone who claims like that is of course > ridiculous. Anyway this is a silly squeeze because it is just a non > consequental show up that doesn't improve your changes over a finesse a= nd > risks going two down instead of one. So a good declarer will never play= like > that if he has no indication the K might be off-side. But if he is > crazy/smart/good enough and there is some or a strong indication the K = is > off-side he might play it on a Dutch squeeze (the squeeze equivalent of= a > Chinese finesse) going down against correct defense. I have made some > contracts that way you know. And yes I have once gone down in a cold > contract that way. > > Jaap >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:16 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] R=E9f. : [ blml] claims forev= er, > case n + 1 >=20 >=20 >=20 >>Jaap van der Neut wrote: >> >> >>>Ton: >>> >>> >>>>Despite David's pleads I still think that in establishing the >>>> > alternatives >=20 >>>>within the range of normal play they all lead to allowing the finesse= , >>>> >>>> >>>being >>> >>> >>>>the only legal play available with which declarer can make his 5 tric= ks. >>>> >>>> >>>Are you still connected to reality ? Do we still speak the same langua= ge >>> > ? >=20 >>>Do we still play the same game ? >>> >>>Why cannot the legal play of trying to cash the H6 produce 5 tricks. >>> > Because >=20 >>>the H7 is still around ? Why is declarer allowed to know this ? Why >>> > cannot >=20 >>>the legal play of trying to drop the CK produce 5 tricks. Because ther= e >>> > is >=20 >>>one club too many around ? Why is declarer allowed to know this ? >>> >>>But ok, this declarer knows that his H6 is not high and the CK cannot >>> > drop. >=20 >>>This good a declarer (will never make such a silly claim) and might we= ll >>>play for the show-up squeeze rather than to take a silly finesse. This >>> > is a >=20 >>>kind of squeeze that requires counting to execute (..... I claimed it = an >>> > a >=20 >>>double squeeze ......). On the actual hand the show-up squeeze doesn't >>>improve your changes over a finesse but this is not always the case. D= o >>> > we >=20 >>>want to get involved in this kind of analysis when resolving this kind >>> > of >=20 >>>silly claims ? >>> >>> >> >> >> >>>Anyway if you don't like David's views or mine what is wrong with (AG >>> > and >=20 >>>others said more or less the same): >>> >>>Sven: >>> >>> >>>>If he doesn't explicitly state that he will try the finesse he shall >>>>be deemed to play (a small to) the Ace if the King is onside and >>>>(to) the Queen if the King is offside. (In that last case it doesn't >>>>really matter). >>>> >>>> >>> >>>And then there is another structural problem with the last couple of >>> > cases >=20 >>>we get from Ton. There is always an ending without bidding or early >>> > play. >=20 >>>But there might be a 99% clue from the bidding that the CK is offside.= I >>>have seen cases on AC where all players >>>and the TD missed that kind of 'simple' and 'obvious' info. >>> >>> >> >>Come off it Jaap. This case does not lack in information. We know what >>claimer did wrong - he showed the spade queen instead of claiming. If >>he had not shown the spade queen his claim would have been accepted. >>if we were to rule that showing the SQ was not actually playing it, we >>would accept the claim. But if we stick declarer to his play at this >>trick, there is no need to go searching for other errors. This >>declarer must be deemed to know that the H6 isn't good, that the CK is >>still out, and that the chances of it being bare behind are slim. We >>may even attribute to this declarer, if he's good enough, the chance >>of executing the squeeze. >> >>This claimer has shown no indication that he does not know what the >>cards are. >>So if he absolutely needs 5 tricks, the finesse is the only normal >>play, and he receives the result of that (5 tricks or 4,*). >>If he's in a situation where a certain 4 tricks is about equal to a >>50/50 chance of 3/5 tricks, then both lines are normal and he receives >> >>4 tricks whereever the king lies. >> >>(*) Even more so than in the previous case, I allow claimer, who knows >> the lie of the hand, to execute the finesse straight away, and keep >>a trump to keep control. 5 tricks or 4. >> >> >> >>-- >>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 >> >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 13:58:23 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:58:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030221132831.024be750@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E56307F.7080506@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 12:49 21/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> The 5-or-3 lines don't actually exist. >> They are 5-or-4 lines. >> Claimer holds on to one trump, takes the finesse and ruffs opponent's >> winner if it fails, taking the CA with the last trick. >> >> Now if a declarer (who must be supposed to know the hands, since his >> failure in the claim has nothing to do with a mistaken view of the >> hands) is faced with a certain-4 line or a 5-or-4 line, isn't it >> irrational for him to play the certain-4 ? > > > AG : isn't the line of trying to drop the singleton Club K a 5-or-4 line > ? And it is inferior, to be sure, but not irrational. So it must be > taken into account. > Well, maybe we need to know the bidding and the play for that one. Yes, Jaap, I realize that I just told you we did not need the bidding and the play. > >> So I am awarding 5 tricks in the end. > > > AG : So I don't. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 14:01:10 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:01:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : [ blml] claims forever, case n 1 References: <3878302.1045831080826.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E563126.3000001@skynet.be> dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Now if a declarer (who must be supposed to know the hands, since his failure in the claim has nothing to do with a mistaken view of the hands)... >> > > Herman, you must be careful not to make things up. Why must a declarer who has just ruffed his own winner be supposed to know anything? Where in the rules does it say that declarer "must be supposed to know the hands"? I know you think he must be supposed to know the hands, just as you think that I am not allowed to know that my opponents are having a bidding misunderstanding. But you are in error in both cases, for there is no legal justification for either view. And it is dangerous for you to refer to these as "well-established principles" when they are no such thing - they are simply "what Herman thinks", which is not the same at all. > David, Occam's razor. This declarer has put a SQ on the table rather than claim. A mechanical error which might cost him a trick. I don't believe this declarer did not know the rest of the hands. His claim statement proved to me that he did. You are continuously under the impression that someone who makes one silly mistake must now per force make five whopping big errors. That is not the way the claims laws work. > David Burn > London, England > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 14:02:42 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:02:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: Message-ID: <3E563182.8070306@skynet.be> Apparently you're the culprit, Ton. It's your mailer that insists on making a new thread every time. Kooijman, A. wrote: >>Onderwerp: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] R=E9f. : [=20 >>blml] claims >>forever, case n + 1 >> >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Is this a Amsterdamned provider joke to re: re: re forever as well in t= his > thread?=20 >=20 > ton =20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Feb 21 13:08:51 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:08:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <00c901c2d9aa$62a8e9e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton: > Give me one, because I don't think so. As long as the player is honest in > his explanation a misexplanation is the result of a misunderstanding: he > does not understand the bid made by his partner. So I should have said that > the misunderstanding creates the misexplanation. The only other possibility > I can think of is an 'inadvertent' misexplanation. We are not talking about > such exceptional thing to happen, are we? Oops. This is a language mixup. In this thread 'misunderstanding' was used in a different meaning than you use here. So you did nothing wrong. The point is that I/we used misunderstanding as a bidding mix-up between lets say E-W. Now it is quite possible that S (or N) gets a misexplanation without E-W actually having a bidding mix-up. Because they made both the same mistake, because the S question has no real consequence for the E-W sequence, or whatever. But the discussion is interesting. Of course S has the right for compensation if there is damage caused by the misexplanation. Of course S has the right to full explanation of methods used etc. But does S has the right to know that E-W have a bidding mix-up (say they arrived at a silly contract that can be doubled). I said: > But now I am a smart lawyer. If I had know they had a > misunderstanding I > could do something clever like doubling the final contract or > to find an > impossible lead. Do I have a right to know they have a > mix-up? My personal > view would be yes if I can figure it out myself from combining the > explanation I got and the explanation I should be given, no > otherwise. Ton: > sounds good to me. Nice to agree from time to time. I am positive about the second part (no otherwise). But I am not sure about the first part (combination of the two). Of course it is practical to do it like that. But I didn't study the text of the laws so far. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:47 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Horrible? > > > > > Ton: > > > > > Not that I know of. It is better to restrict our principles to those > > > described in the laws explicitly. And one of those makes clear that > > > opponents are entitled to know that a misexplanation, creating a > > > misunderstanding, has occurred. > > > > 1. Which principle are you refering to? > > > > 2. Why does a misexplanation create a misunderstanding (= partnership > > misunderstanding by the explaining side given the context of > > the discussion > > so far). There are plenty of cases where opponents misexplain > > something > > without having a misunderstanding. > > > Give me one, because I don't think so. As long as the player is honest in > his explanation a misexplanation is the result of a misunderstanding: he > does not understand the bid made by his partner. So I should have said that > the misunderstanding creates the misexplanation. The only other possibility > I can think of is an 'inadvertent' misexplanation. We are not talking about > such exceptional thing to happen, are we? > > ton > > > > 3. > > To come to the real point. As far as I know you are entitled > > to know their > > systems, habits, etc. Now suppose I get misinformation. I > > might be damaged > > directly (like I do something silly I would not have done > > otherwise). Then > > the TD will help me out. But suppose there is no direct > > damage. I do not > > (have a serious) claim that I would have done something > > different if I was > > given the correct explanation. This should be end of story or not? > > > I don't think so. > A misexplanation creates UI; so a further question to be answered is whether > the player receiving such UI might have used it. But if, as you say, there > is no damage that question becomes more or less irrelevant. > > > > > > > > > > But now I am a smart lawyer. If I had know they had a > > misunderstanding I > > could do something clever like doubling the final contract or > > to find an > > impossible lead. Do I have a right to know they have a > > mix-up? My personal > > view would be yes if I can figure it out myself from combining the > > explanation I got and the explanation I should be given, no > > otherwise. > > sounds good to me. > > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Feb 21 14:03:42 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:03:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <004f01c2d9a0$b62ea460$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E561B1A.6020601@skynet.be> <004301c2d9a7$8f809650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E562883.3060301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006f01c2d9b2$0af10950$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Sven, please. > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > ......... > > > >>Suppose someone does not alert a transfer and passes. In fourth hand, > >>you'd be allowed to base your demand for redress on the basis that > >>they have just shown their misunderstanding. But in second hand, not. > >> > > > > WHAT!?!?! > > > > Post festum I can show damage because I was under the assumption > > that the bid was natural so I had no reason to double. If I had known > > it was a transfer call I had every reason to double and the different > > auction would have resulted in a much better score for us. > > > > My partner had no reason to call anything but pass. > > > > Our side has been damaged by the misinformation and you say we > > have no cause for redress? > > > > I don't believe that I am reading this. > > > > > Again, try and understand what I am saying. > > You have no right to redress on the basis of the knowledge of the > misunderstanding, in second seat. > > Of coursde you have right to redress on other reasons, but not on that > one. > > Please read my posts more thoroughly before replying. I do. So you please give an example of misunderstanding that can give reason for redress in the fourth seat but not in the second seat? (According to your own words the applicable misunderstanding must not have resulted in misinformation to opponents, or the distinction between misunderstanding and misinformation becomes meaningless). In the meantime I can give you a very real cause for redress (IMO!) in the second seat: LHO opens 1NT, RHO bids 2H which is not alerted. I have the Ace and King in hearts, but no other values and no real reason to double for penalty. LHO responds with 2NT and eventually they end in 6NT. Before the opening lead RHO warns about a misinformation, LHO denies it and claims misbid by RHO. Because I did not double the 2H transfer bid (which would be lead directing) partner has no reason to lead hearts and 6NT makes. If I had doubled the 2H bid opponents would have stopped in 3NT (finding that they lack the necessary control in hearts) and made say 11 tricks. TD is summoned and "decides" that he cannot establish whether 2H is transfer or not as part of their agreements, it could equally well be RHO who made a misbid, so he rules no redress to our side because the only reason LHO did not alert the 2H bid was "misunderstanding" (by RHO). Do you agree? I don't, and I never shall. A quote from the EBL commentaries to the 1987 laws: The Director will note that the laws require him to rule that there is Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Bid in the absence of evidence to the contrary. My understanding is that this comment is equally valid today. Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Feb 21 14:07:58 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:07:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: > > Presumably I'm talking double dutch, certainly not single > one, because > I fail to get through to my fellow dutch speakers. > I'm usually not very good at examples but I think I have two > simple ones: > > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >>Herman: > >> > >>>No, you are not allowed to combine the explanation you should have > >>>been given AND the explanation you were given. > >>> > > > > how can you say this? Could you give an example to illustrate this? > > > > > I shall try. > > ... > 4NT > pass > 5Cl > pass > 6Sp > all pass > > "how many aces ?" "1" > there are zero aces. > > "If I had known they were off two aces, I would have doubled". > > NO: you are entitled to the knowledge that 5Cl shows zero > aces, not to > the knowledge that partner believes there is one ace there. You are right: I am not entitled to the knowledge that partner believes etc. But once I ask him the information I receive is authorized and can be used. And since I am entitled to know that it shows zero aces I am entitled to discover the misunderstanding. The following should happen. The player bidding 5Cl has to inform the opponents that his bid showed zero aces. The TD being called should offer the last 'pass' to change his call and this player has the right to double now, assuming that 2 aces are missing and knowing for sure if he has one himself. I am really puzzled here, you sound so convincing that I don't dare to push the send button even. But if you are right I really need severe re-education. So here it comes. ton > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Feb 21 14:10:22 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:10:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 Message-ID: <5214025.1045836622726.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > David, Occam's razor. Good idea, Herman. I suggest you see if he will lend it to you. >This declarer has put a SQ on the table rather than claim. A mechanical error which might cost him a trick. >I don't believe this declarer did not know the rest of the hands. His claim statement proved to me that he did. How? Why? He didn't say anything about the king of clubs. He certainly didn't say he was going to finesse against it. All his claim statement proves to anyone is that he *thought he still had the jack of diamonds in the dummy*. Now, you have no idea for how long he was going to continue to think this. His claim statement proved nothing, except that he was seriously out of touch with reality - and yet not only do you want this deluded individual to take a finesse, other people want him to execute a show-up squeeze. >You are continuously under the impression that someone who makes one silly mistake must now per force make five whopping big errors. That is not the way the claims laws work. The claim laws do not work. One of the reasons they do not work is that people like you assume that a man who is a proven idiot one moment is going to become a genius the next. That is not the way real life works. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Fri Feb 21 14:18:38 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:18:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <3E562CC1.8090803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007501c2d9b4$20dde970$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ...... > I shall try. > > ... > 4NT > pass > 5Cl > pass > 6Sp > all pass > > "how many aces ?" "1" > there are zero aces. > > "If I had known they were off two aces, I would have doubled". > > NO: you are entitled to the knowledge that 5Cl shows zero aces, not to > the knowledge that partner believes there is one ace there. I assume you tell us the agreement is that 5Cl shows zero Aces. So telling opponents that responder has one ace is misinformation. If opponents fail in their auction or defence because they believe that the responder has one ace while he actually has none then they are entitled to redress. But I agree with you when you say that if opponents fail to draw advantage of the fact that declarer expects one Ace (because of his own misunderstanding) but finds none, then that fact alone gives them little or no cause for redress. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Feb 21 14:32:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:32:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ivory Tower In-Reply-To: <4A256CD4.0012F3D8.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On 2/21/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >The discussions we have on blml have an Ivory Tower >blind spot caused by us all being experts. Thanks for the compliment, but we're not. As for the article, while it may make some good points, I don't have time right now to separate them from all the whinging. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Feb 21 14:19:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:19:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mike Flader on psyches (was Horrible?) In-Reply-To: <4A256CD4.00017B54.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On 2/21/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: [snip] >Law 81C6. A call for the TD is not necessary. The TD normally >rectifies an irregularity they become aware of in any manner. [snip] >"Oughta" is not relevant to Law 81C6, although this Law is likely >to be amended in the 2005 Laws. Uh, huh. Well, the 2005 laws, whatever they turn out to be, are irrelevant in 2003. Yes, TD has that responsibility. We disagree as to whether an irregularity has occurred. >I do buy the Mike Flader position. Like I said, we disagree. >Law 40B (which prohibits CPUs) does not provide sufficient detail on >what a partnership understanding is. However, the bracketed >statement in Law 75B clarifies the issue, in my opinion: > >"(but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit >agreements, which must be disclosed)." > >Measuring the frequency of habitual violations is an objective >assessment. Measuring the cluelessness of partner is a subjective >assessment. And even a clueless partner may remember a previous >psyche. > >If I had to be satisfied under Law 85A whether or not an implicit >agreement existed, I would be more satisfied by objective evidence >than by subjective evidence. You seem to be saying that the existence of objective evidence would cause you to ignore subjective evidence. If so, I disagree with that, too. IAC, if you are going to rule that Mr. Clueless has an implicit agreement with his partner when he doesn't even know what's going on, well, you're the TD. But *you* explain it to him. From ziffbridge@t-online.de Fri Feb 21 14:49:11 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:49:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5Bblml=5D_Re=3A_=5Bblml=5D_Re=3A_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=5Bblml=5D_RE=3A_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f=2E_=3A_=5B_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?blml=5D_claims__forever=2C_case_n_+_1?= References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> Jaap van der Neut schrieb: > > To atribute a squeeze to someone who claims like that is of course > ridiculous. So what did he do? He claimed five tricks with high cards, these cards actually being high. Big deal. Now he makes an error (most probably mechanical rather than mental, but of course this can`t be proven), and now a lot of people (not just you, I just happen to reply to your mail) want to treat him as a complete imbecile. Declarer demonstrated firm contact with reality by claiming the last five tricks (which is more or less his duty, all necessary cards being high), so why should he do something silly now? We can always discuss H6. Keeping this card until trick 11 (when the show-up-squeeze has already been executed) is just basic card-play technique for me. I would call it irrational (for me) to discard it earlier, but others may not share this view :-) Of course this tells us nothing about the actual declarer. And we don`t know anything about the early play (as you pointed out correctly in another post). So H6 may be in the picture, or it may not. But to let declarer discard CQ (as someone wanted to, but I can`t find the mail where this "plan" was mentioned) is truly ridiculous. > Anyway this is a silly squeeze because it is just a non > consequental show up that doesn't improve your changes over a finesse and > risks going two down instead of one. Come again? If West keeps H7 his CK will pop up on trick 12, so what finesse is there? If we allow declarer to realize that H6 is the second highest heart(and the highest if H7 is discarded) in the game this squeeze is automatic. What is "non-consequential" about this? Wether he realizes this (not wether we allow him to realize) depends on things we have no information about, so we can`t "decide" this. > So a good declarer will never play like > that if he has no indication the K might be off-side. See above. Basic technique. How would you play the hand if you had never owned the diamond jack in the first place? Wouldn`t you have ruffed East`s diamond play and cash two more trumps, discarding H6 on trick 11 if it hadn`t become a winner? > But if he is > crazy/smart/good enough and there is some or a strong indication the K is > off-side he might play it on a Dutch squeeze (the squeeze equivalent of a > Chinese finesse) going down against correct defense. I have made some > contracts that way you know. So have I. But only when there was no alternative line. Of course it`s your privilege to play for a psychological coup if you think that`s your best (or only) chance, but letting a declarer choose such a line (with 0% probability against correct defense) is not only irrational, it`s inhuman. > And yes I have once gone down in a cold > contract that way. > Well, I haven`t, but if your tablefeel is good you may be ahead of me in the long run :-) > Jaap > Best regards Matthias From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Feb 21 14:59:53 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:59:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <200302211459.JAA25601@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > I am loosing track. A player is entitled to know opponents agreements. If he > becomes aware of a misexplanation he knows there is a misunderstanding. He > is entitled to have and use that information. Herman's point seems to have been misunderstood. He is using the word "entitled" very carefully. In his view, there are _three_ classes of information, not just two: 1. "Entitled information" is information you must be given if you ask: the opponent's CC, true explanations of their agreements, a review of the auction, whose lead it is, and probably more. If you are damaged by being misinformed on any of these, you will get redress. 2. "Authorized information" is information you are allowed to use if you get it, but you have no entitlement to receive it. It includes opponents' remarks, tempo, and mannerisms, information that an opponent has misbid, and (relevant here) knowledge that opponents disagree on their system. 3. "Unauthorized information"... well, we mostly know what that is. While the Laws don't enumerate the three classes in so many words, I think there is sound support in the Laws that these three classes exist. Ton's first "entitled" refers to 1 and agrees with Herman, but his "entitled" in the last sentence refers to class 2 and should in Herman's view be "authorized." What may be more controversial is how redress under item 1 is to be given. Are adjusted scores supposed to include information that is "authorized" but not "entitled?" For example, because of MI (probably a Ghestem mixup by EW!), NS miss their spade contract, cold for 10 tricks and with a possible 11th if declarer takes an apparently unlikely line. Normally we adjust the score to 4S=, but what if the would-be declarer claims "I always would have gotten that one right because of East's hesitation on the second round of the auction?" Do we now give 11 tricks? Herman, I think, says "no." The hesitation is authorized but not entitled. Similarly, the knowledge of opponents' system mixup is authorized but not entitled, so we don't take it into account when adjusting a score, according to Herman. This is the "Kaplan printout" view, so it has some support, but it is certainly possible to argue the contrary. One way or another, this is something the next Laws edition ought to clear up. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Feb 21 15:07:41 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:07:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Re: [blml]: claims forever, case n + 1 Message-ID: <200302211507.KAA25621@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > The 5-or-3 lines don't actually exist. > They are 5-or-4 lines. How about (spades trumps, none out, lead in West, x is a card where opponents own a higher one in the suit): 954 - x xxx - - x AQ The club finesse looks like 5 or 3, although it might luckily make four if South has only clubs left. I think this is the sort of layout Gordon meant. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Feb 21 15:13:34 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:13:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] claims forever case n + 1 Message-ID: <200302211513.KAA25637@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > We are not supposed to include irrational play in our decisions but what if > declarer suggests to play so himself? Others have answered, but maybe it's worth repeating. If declarer has made an irrational play prior to the claim, obviously that play stands (unless the rare conditions for it to be retracted exist). If declarer mentions an irrational play as part of the claim statement, the TD has to judge whether it is a "flawed statement" -- declarer's words and/or actions failed to express his actual meaning -- or a "flawed claim" -- declarer really intended an irrational play. From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 15:20:53 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:20:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030221125635.024c3d80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3E561920.7010002@skynet.be> <003b01c2d9a6$898cf4b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E5627CA.9080601@skynet.be> <006501c2d9ad$cd478060$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E5643D5.1080207@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> > > Did I? You wrote: -"I would not have doubled if I had known there > was a misunderstanding - will not wash with me". > > How could he know there was a misunderstanding unless there was > misinformation? This is just fiddling with words. > There are cases (I have given examples) where the action that opponents claim they would have done depend on the knowledge of the misunderstanding, not just the misinformation. This is not fiddling with words. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 15:24:20 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:24:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <004f01c2d9a0$b62ea460$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E561B1A.6020601@skynet.be> <004301c2d9a7$8f809650$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E562883.3060301@skynet.be> <006f01c2d9b2$0af10950$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E5644A4.1060202@skynet.be> Sven, you have not yet understood my point, yet you try and say that I have stated something wrong. I have never said that you cannot have redress for misinformation, what do you think I am ? I have said that you cannot have redress for not knowing that opponents have a misunderstanding. Your example is fine but it is totally beside the point. You would double because it would be lead-directing. My examples deal with people who would want to double because opponents end up playing in hearts instead of spades. That is totally different. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Feb 21 15:25:47 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:25:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Ivory Tower Message-ID: <200302211525.KAA25677@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > However, I found the attached non-expert critique on > the Internet. It raises three interesting issues. > http://members.aol.com/SS1440/esbnews/concern.htm > But it is my belief that the problem is not only with players. > Insidiously, the Laws of the game also contribute to the problem. This is an interesting statement, but _all_ the specific examples given in the message boil down to a failure to _enforce_ the Laws, especially the ones relevant to conduct. (Some of the examples are horrifying, and yet I have no doubt they occur every day.) The critic is certainly right that club TD's are vitally important in retaining new players and that maintaining a cordial atmosphere should be their top priority. The Laws give TD's enormous authority to do just that. It is not (directly) the fault of the Laws if TD's fail in their duties. As the critic says, new players expect to make mistakes and to pay penalties for them, but they don't expect or deserve rudeness in any form. Despite the Laws not being directly at fault for the problems the critic identifies, his general comment that the laws should be simpler and clearer is well worth attention. And from all we hear (Grattan and Ton, especially), simpler and clearer are important goals for the next revision. From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 15:28:07 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:28:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <3E562CC1.8090803@skynet.be> <007501c2d9b4$20dde970$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E564587.9010407@skynet.be> You've got it, Sven! Sven Pran wrote: > > I assume you tell us the agreement is that 5Cl shows zero Aces. > > So telling opponents that responder has one ace is misinformation. > > If opponents fail in their auction or defence because they > believe that the responder has one ace while he actually > has none then they are entitled to redress. > yes. > But I agree with you when you say that if opponents fail to > draw advantage of the fact that declarer expects one Ace > (because of his own misunderstanding) but finds none, then > that fact alone gives them little or no cause for redress. > indeed. Now do you see the difference? In order to act differently, the player has to know not only what the meaning is, but also what partner thinks it is. The first must be told, the second not. > Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 15:33:42 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:33:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <3E5646D6.5090001@skynet.be> It seems as if we are getting somewhere. Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >> >>"how many aces ?" "1" >>there are zero aces. >> >>"If I had known they were off two aces, I would have doubled". >> >>NO: you are entitled to the knowledge that 5Cl shows zero >>aces, not to >>the knowledge that partner believes there is one ace there. >> > > > You are right: I am not entitled to the knowledge that partner believes etc. > But once I ask him the information I receive is authorized and can be used. > And since I am entitled to know that it shows zero aces I am entitled to > discover the misunderstanding. > If you had received the correct information, you would have no reason to ask what partner believes it is. You cannot have, in real play, the two pieces of information at the same time. So you should not rule as if you had. > The following should happen. The player bidding 5Cl has to inform the > opponents that his bid showed zero aces. The TD being called should offer > the last 'pass' to change his call and this player has the right to double > now, assuming that 2 aces are missing and knowing for sure if he has one > himself. > Well, that is what would be happening indeed - but should it? I don't believe the right to change the final call is intended for this reason. I would like to see it removed from the laws. It creates more problems than it solves. The bidding is actually over and re-opening it is like re-opening a can of worms. Actually, I had realized this and made my example such that it is 2nd hand who asks to double. > > I am really puzzled here, you sound so convincing that I don't dare to push > the send button even. But if you are right I really need severe > re-education. So here it comes. > I would not dare to assume that I can teach you anything about the laws, but this is something I have been firm about for a long time already. > > ton > > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 15:37:59 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:37:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <3E563182.8070306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3E5647D7.9020307@skynet.be> and now apparently, it's mine. Just look at them - every thread before this one started with a mail=20 from Ton. Herman De Wael wrote: > Apparently you're the culprit, Ton. >=20 > It's your mailer that insists on making a new thread every time. >=20 > Kooijman, A. wrote: >=20 >>> Onderwerp: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] R=E9f. : [ blml] c= laims >>> forever, case n + 1 >>> >> >> >> >> >> Is this a Amsterdamned provider joke to re: re: re forever as well in=20 >> this >> thread? >> ton=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 15:40:28 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:40:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [blml]: claims forever, case n + 1 References: <200302211507.KAA25621@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3E56486C.8020805@skynet.be> Yes Steve, Steve Willner wrote: >>From: Herman De Wael >>The 5-or-3 lines don't actually exist. >>They are 5-or-4 lines. >> > > How about (spades trumps, none out, lead in West, x is a card where > opponents own a higher one in the suit): > > 954 - > x xxx > - - > x AQ > > The club finesse looks like 5 or 3, although it might luckily make > four if South has only clubs left. > > I think this is the sort of layout Gordon meant. > But Gordon was talking of the actual deal, not of a fabrication like this one. And I did say that I agree that if there are certain-4 lines and 5-or-3 lines, both are considered normal. But in the case at hand, there are no 5-or-3 lines, only 5-or-4 ones. And in that case the certain-4 lines should not be considered normal. > _______________________________________________ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Feb 21 15:44:40 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:44:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 References: <5214025.1045836622726.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E564968.40304@skynet.be> David, apparently we have a totally different view of this case, so our differences in the claims laws are irrelevant to it. dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > How? Why? He didn't say anything about the king of clubs. He certainly didn't say he was going to finesse against it. All his claim statement proves to anyone is that he *thought he still had the jack of diamonds in the dummy*. Now, you have no idea for how long he was going to continue to think this. H: yes I do - 1 second. His claim statement proved nothing, except that he was seriously out of touch with reality - and yet not only do you want this deluded individual to take a finesse, other people want him to execute a show-up squeeze. H:This is where we disagree. You call this person a deluded individual. I call him a malfortunate who happens to show his SQ while issueing a perfectly valid claim statement. If our only difference is going to be about what state of mind this player is in, there is no need to go on. I agree that if the story is different and I also conclude that declarer is a deluded individual, all your rulings are correct. > > >>You are continuously under the impression that someone who makes one silly mistake must now per force make five whopping big errors. That is not the way the claims laws work. >> > > The claim laws do not work. One of the reasons they do not work is that people like you assume that a man who is a proven idiot one moment is going to become a genius the next. That is not the way real life works. > No David, your impression of players is wrong - not our claim laws. > 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Feb 21 16:08:26 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:08:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 In-Reply-To: <3E564968.40304@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Friday, February 21, 2003, at 03:44 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > H:This is where we disagree. You call this person a deluded individual. > I call him a malfortunate who happens to show his SQ while issueing a > perfectly valid claim statement. I'm puzzled by why you continue to assert this, when it is so clearly at odds with the statement given by the person who originally brought us the case. He said "South now claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the spade queen..." Nothing here about accidentally showing a card while making a claim. Had it really been the case that the card was accidentally dropped during a claim statement, we wouldn't have to discuss the irrationality of failing to take the finesse in order to give declarer all the tricks. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 21 16:43:00 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:43:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 In-Reply-To: References: <3E564968.40304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030221173638.024c6310@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:08 21/02/2003 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >On Friday, February 21, 2003, at 03:44 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>H:This is where we disagree. You call this person a deluded individual. >>I call him a malfortunate who happens to show his SQ while issueing a >>perfectly valid claim statement. > >I'm puzzled by why you continue to assert this, when it is so clearly at >odds with the statement given by the person who originally brought us the >case. He said "South now claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond >with the spade queen..." Nothing here about accidentally showing a card >while making a claim. AG : this is how it was said, bot it is inconsistent with the fact that declarer claimed 5 tricks, including the Queen of spades. If he claimed after ruffing, he should have claimed 4 tricks, including two trumps. There are two possibilities, which are more probable than voluntarily ruffing the diamond : a) thought the card led by RHO was a heart b) pulled the wrong card and didn't notice Both of those are quite compatible with the statement. I don't say we should award him the number of tricks he would have made hadn't he ruffed ; I only suggest that declarer wasn't conscious of the fact that he ruffed a diamond. His claim is strong suggestion that he wasn't. "South claims after ruffing" indeed ; this doesn't mean it was his intention. And perhaps we should take this into account when making our decision. Best regards, Alain. From axman22@hotmail.com Fri Feb 21 16:57:13 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:57:13 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] Réf. : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" Cc: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 8:49 AM Subject: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] Réf. : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > > > Jaap van der Neut schrieb: > > > We can always discuss H6. Keeping this card until trick 11 (when the > show-up-squeeze has already been executed) I have been noticing a lot of references to show up squeeze. On what basis does claimer know with certainty that one of west's last two cards is the heart? So how does he know that a squeeze has been performed after W plays the small club at T11? Which is to say that the [possible] squeeze is no basis for it being irrational to discard the CQ. It might be east with the K and heart so a finesse gives the last two tricks to east. regards roger pewick > is just basic card-play > technique for me. I would call it irrational (for me) to discard it > earlier, but others may not share this view :-) > > Jaap > Best regards > Matthias From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Feb 21 18:40:12 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:40:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <004f01c2d9a0$b62ea460$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E561B1A.6020601@skynet.be> <00b001c2d9a7$6e3f4040$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E562958.7040703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005b01c2d9dc$cf9b7720$25b54351@noos.fr> STOP I didn't write that piece of text. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > >>Suppose someone does not alert a transfer and passes. In fourth hand, > >>you'd be allowed to base your demand for redress on the basis that > >>they have just shown their misunderstanding. But in second hand, not. > >> > > > > Redress for a misunderstanding ? Even I am sure this doesn't exist. You > > might get redress for misexplanation which is really something completely > > different. > > > > > > > Redress on the basis of a misunderstanding. > As in "I would have done something else had I known they were in the > dark". > That is not permitted. > Of course "I would have done something else if I had received the > other explanation" is permitted. > > But not "I would have done something else if I had received both the right and the wrong explanations". > > > > > > > -- > 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 jaapb@noos.fr Fri Feb 21 19:11:58 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:11:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> Message-ID: <005c01c2d9dd$1ca3eca0$25b54351@noos.fr> Matthias: > Come again? If West keeps H7 his CK will pop up on trick 12, so what > finesse is there? If we allow declarer to realize that H6 is the second > highest heart(and the highest if H7 is discarded) in the game this > squeeze is automatic. What is "non-consequential" about this? > Wether he realizes this (not wether we allow him to realize) depends on > things we have no information about, so we can`t "decide" this. 1. With non-consequential I mean that the squeeze is as good as the finesse (you only get to know for sure that the finesse works before taking it). 2. The show-up squeeze works (automatic if you want) if south knows the H7 is in west (and he is sure there is only one high heart around). But it might be in east (nobody told me there was any evidence to the contrary). So if you execute your squeeze and the H7 never appears, the finesse is now 3 or 5 rather than 4 or 5 before the squeeze. This is why it is a silly squeeze. By the way I only mentioned this because Herman wanted declarer to execute this 'squeeze' and Ton said in another mail that cashing all the trumps makes the finesse the only rational line because there will be only clubs around by then (which is of course silly because nobody is going to stop east from keeping a red card). I think myself it is insane that you allow a misclaimer any kind of squeeze. Matthias: > See above. Basic technique. How would you play the hand if you had never > owned the diamond jack in the first place? Wouldn`t you have ruffed > East`s diamond play and cash two more trumps, discarding H6 on trick 11 > if it hadn`t become a winner? Probably I would play like that. I might try a Dutch squeeze if I was sufficiently sure about the CK being off-side. But that is not the point. Someone who misclaims doesn't get you or me to play the hand at the best of our abilities. This whole discussion was only to show Ton that there are other 'not irrational' ways to play the hand than to take a finesse. Back to the basics. I would rule 4 tricks on this deal. Consult Burn for the arguments. He words them better then I do. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" Cc: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 3:49 PM Subject: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] Réf. : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > > > Jaap van der Neut schrieb: > > > > > > > To atribute a squeeze to someone who claims like that is of course > > ridiculous. > > So what did he do? He claimed five tricks with high cards, these cards > actually being high. Big deal. Now he makes an error (most probably > mechanical rather than mental, but of course this can`t be proven), and > now a lot of people (not just you, I just happen to reply to your mail) > want to treat him as a complete imbecile. Declarer demonstrated firm > contact with reality by claiming the last five tricks (which is more or > less his duty, all necessary cards being high), so why should he do > something silly now? > > We can always discuss H6. Keeping this card until trick 11 (when the > show-up-squeeze has already been executed) is just basic card-play > technique for me. I would call it irrational (for me) to discard it > earlier, but others may not share this view :-) > > Of course this tells us nothing about the actual declarer. And we don`t > know anything about the early play (as you pointed out correctly in > another post). So H6 may be in the picture, or it may not. But to let > declarer discard CQ (as someone wanted to, but I can`t find the mail > where this "plan" was mentioned) is truly ridiculous. > > > Anyway this is a silly squeeze because it is just a non > > consequental show up that doesn't improve your changes over a finesse and > > risks going two down instead of one. > > Come again? If West keeps H7 his CK will pop up on trick 12, so what > finesse is there? If we allow declarer to realize that H6 is the second > highest heart(and the highest if H7 is discarded) in the game this > squeeze is automatic. What is "non-consequential" about this? > Wether he realizes this (not wether we allow him to realize) depends on > things we have no information about, so we can`t "decide" this. > > > So a good declarer will never play like > > that if he has no indication the K might be off-side. > > See above. Basic technique. How would you play the hand if you had never > owned the diamond jack in the first place? Wouldn`t you have ruffed > East`s diamond play and cash two more trumps, discarding H6 on trick 11 > if it hadn`t become a winner? > > > But if he is > > crazy/smart/good enough and there is some or a strong indication the K is > > off-side he might play it on a Dutch squeeze (the squeeze equivalent of a > > Chinese finesse) going down against correct defense. I have made some > > contracts that way you know. > > So have I. But only when there was no alternative line. Of course it`s > your privilege to play for a psychological coup if you think that`s your > best (or only) chance, but letting a declarer choose such a line (with > 0% probability against correct defense) is not only irrational, it`s > inhuman. > > > And yes I have once gone down in a cold > > contract that way. > > > > Well, I haven`t, but if your tablefeel is good you may be ahead of me in > the long run :-) > > > Jaap > > > > > Best regards > Matthias > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Feb 21 19:42:11 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:42:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5Bblml=5D_Re:_=5Bblml=5D_Re:_=5Bblml=5D_Re:_=5Bblml?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=5D_RE:_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f._:_=5B_blml=5D_claims__fore?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ver=2C_case_n_+_1?= References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> Message-ID: <007301c2d9e1$5738bb80$25b54351@noos.fr> Thanks Roger, I have said this (H7 might be in East) already a couple of times but some people just don't get it. And as I said in another mail, it is difficult for everybody (including me) to discuss single dummy when seeing all four hands, and it is probably too difficult for most people. This focus on H7 being on-side is just an example of that. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 5:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] Réf. : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > Cc: "blml" > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 8:49 AM > Subject: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] Réf. : [ > blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > > > > > > > > Jaap van der Neut schrieb: > > > > > > > We can always discuss H6. Keeping this card until trick 11 (when the > > show-up-squeeze has already been executed) > > I have been noticing a lot of references to show up squeeze. On what > basis does claimer know with certainty that one of west's last two cards > is the heart? So how does he know that a squeeze has been performed > after W plays the small club at T11? Which is to say that the [possible] > squeeze is no basis for it being irrational to discard the CQ. It might > be east with the K and heart so a finesse gives the last two tricks to > east. > > regards > roger pewick > > > is just basic card-play > > technique for me. I would call it irrational (for me) to discard it > > earlier, but others may not share this view :-) > > > > > Jaap > > > Best regards > > Matthias > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Feb 21 19:55:34 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:55:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [blml]: claims forever, case n + 1 References: <200302211507.KAA25621@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3E56486C.8020805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00f301c2d9e5$8b43a6c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman, I might be better if you stop discussing bridge technique. It is simply not your field. Herman (this mail): > But in the case at hand, there are no 5-or-3 lines, only 5-or-4 ones. > And in that case the certain-4 lines should not be considered normal. Herman (another mail): > We may even attribute to this declarer, if he's good enough, the chance > of executing the squeeze. Executing this squeeze (which is silly see my other mails) is actually (or might be depending on the position of H7) a 5-or-3 line. Knowing you I understand that you don't realize that. But knowing your own weaknesses you might once in a while take others serious. I don't propose to rule 3 tricks (even if CK is wrong). I go with David. The guy named 5 winners. There are only four. So four it is. But there are non-irrational lines of play (they might even qualify as normal) that take only 3 tricks (when CK is off-side). One of them was mentioned by Herman, requiring a declarer that is good enough. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: [blml]: claims forever, case n + 1 > Yes Steve, > > Steve Willner wrote: > > >>From: Herman De Wael > >>The 5-or-3 lines don't actually exist. > >>They are 5-or-4 lines. > >> > > > > How about (spades trumps, none out, lead in West, x is a card where > > opponents own a higher one in the suit): > > > > 954 - > > x xxx > > - - > > x AQ > > > > The club finesse looks like 5 or 3, although it might luckily make > > four if South has only clubs left. > > > > I think this is the sort of layout Gordon meant. > > > > > But Gordon was talking of the actual deal, not of a fabrication like > this one. > And I did say that I agree that if there are certain-4 lines and > 5-or-3 lines, both are considered normal. > But in the case at hand, there are no 5-or-3 lines, only 5-or-4 ones. > And in that case the certain-4 lines should not be considered normal. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > -- > 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 jaapb@noos.fr Fri Feb 21 21:10:32 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 22:10:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E56302B.5030508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <012301c2d9ed$ae84a3c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Herman, Herman: >Jaap, Jaap, Jaap, please. Looking for a fight or what ? Herman: > And I don't believe that matters. And neither does Ton. [about no bidding and no early play] 1. Please let Ton speak for himself. I can understand that he considered it irrelevant at the time of the posting (explains also this silly H7-H7). But I do not think Ton still thinks so at this stage of the discussion. But that is just an educated 'guess'. I am curious how you happen to 'know' those things. 2. You now say for the n-th time that bidding and early play doesn't matter when discussing lines of play after a claim. At the same time you make statements about the chance of certain cards being in certain hands and the chance of certain breaks being such or so. Maybe I should get some bridge lessons from you because I have never learned how to do that without analyzing the available evidence which is (mainly) the bidding and the early play. To put it less friendly, you have no idea what you are talking about. Herman: > But don't you agree that the claim would be valid if he > hadn't shown the SQ? You keep going on about this showing of SQ story. Of course I also think that the guy made a silly mistake (almost sure he thought he was ruffing a heart). Bad luck. We have to pay for our silly mistakes. I also make silly mistakes playing bridge (fortunately not as many as you do). And I pay. Herman: > I deduce from the facts that Ton told us that claimer knew the H6 was > not high Come on, are you still there. In the original posting there where two H7. Ton thought the H suit was irrelevant at that time. Silly but no big deal. But now you twist this to 'Ton told us that declarer knew the H6 was not high'. You just make up stories. Ton told us nothing about that. Want to take a bet that Ton has no idea about what the guy thought about his Hx. In his second mail Ton said: 'That was not meant to be the clue in this problem, let us give north the 6 of hearts if that is still free. Herman: > ... This declarer had a perfect knowledge of the hand, What makes you think that. Do you always assume claimers to have a perfect knowledge of the hand? If not why you do in this case ? This is not what the laws say. It is just plain crazy. Herman: > Because this declarer might well be able to tell > you all 32 cards played thus far, if you were to ask him. Because you > were not at the table, someone else was, and that TD did not report to > Ton and us that he believed declarer was in the dark. Of course it is possible that declarer can tell me every single card in the deck. But very unlikely and completely irrelevant. Is it EBL-AC policy nowadays that a claimer has perfect knowledge, and thus can play (almost) double-dummy, unless the TD provides unsolicited evidence to the contrary ? Or (to quote David Burn) is this just another 'Herman thinks' or rather 'Herman dreams'. In the end it doesn't matter whether the guy is in the dark or not. I agree that the misclaim was probably caused by a silly mistake (the claim proves he was not paying attention to proceedings, the claim doesn't prove that he did or didn't have count in certain suits). But who cares. We just have to apply a bridge law. This is about unstated lines of play. Most people award 4 tricks because it is 'not irrational' to try to drop the CK so we just apply 70E as it was intended. David rules 4 with a slightly different motivation. Some want to rule 5. Ton because he wants to modify the meaning of 'irrational'. I strongly disagree but at least I can understand his arguments. But I really don't get what you are doing. You are twisting the facts and the laws in one big crazy blend. Herman: > he made a mechanical, not a bridge error ....... Avoiding mechanical errors is also part of bridge because a mechanical error also counts as a bridge error. Consult the laws. They are full of articles dealing with mechanical errors. Still we call it the bridge laws. I think that is enough for now. Herman, please think a little longer before you write your mails. Try to seperate facts and opinion. Don't invent facts (you do this quite often), nobody will take you serious anymore if you don't stop doing that. Mails like this one is just emotional crap. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:56 PM Subject: Re: Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] Réf. : [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 Jaap, Jaap, Jaap, please. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman: > > >>Come off it Jaap. This case does not lack in information. >> > > It lacks all relevant information. There is no bidding and no early play. > And I don't believe that matters. And neither does Ton. > >>We know what >>claimer did wrong - he showed the spade queen instead of claiming >>If he had not shown the spade queen his claim would have been accepted. >>if we were to rule that showing the SQ was not actually playing it, we >>would accept the claim. >> > > I have never participated in this part of the discussion. I disagree with > you and I agree with David on these issues so why discuss. I know your > opinion and you know mine and we won't change it. But if you force me it is > hard to stay polite. In Ton's original mail he says: > 'South now claims all the tricks after ruffing this diamond with the spade > queen' > I am very sorry but this statement of facts means that south ruffed the > diamond and I looked at the claim issue in that context. I really wonder how > you manage to interprete Ton's statement differently. Besides from Ton's > later input it is clear he even meant it like that. > And I agree. But don't you agree that the claim would be valid if he hadn't shown the SQ? From that, I deduce that claimer knew the state of play. I always look at the mistake claimer made in claiming. On all other issues, I consider him to be a normal individual. I deduce from the facts that Ton told us that claimer knew the H6 was not high, nor the CQ. If you don't agree with those deductions, fine. That's not important. What is important is how we shall rule if we agree with those deductions. Now, shall we stop the discussion or go on? > >>But if we stick declarer to his play at this >>trick, there is no need to go searching for other errors. >> > > First of all declarer's play to this trick has nothing to do with the claim > resolve (other than interferences about his state of mind). Second, nobody, > and there are about a dozen people in this discussion, is looking for errors > the way you intend it. If you think so maybe you should be looking for some > internal error at your side. > Well, if no-one else is looking for the error that claimer made, then no-one else is going to resolve claims ever. The error that claimer made is very important, because it tells us what future lines are normal and not. This declarer made a mechanical error (showing the SQ) which resulted in him having to play it in that trick. There is no evidence that this declarer thought the H6 was high or that the CK was out, rather the contrary (he claimed the DJ and CA, remember?). Looking for the error that claimer made is IMO the most important piece of information we have about claims. > >>This declarer must be deemed to know that the H6 isn't good, >> > > WHY WHY WHY should he know the H6 is good or not. Counting the DJ as a trick > he might well have given up on counting the hearts tricks ago, if he is WHY WHY WHY should we assume he thinks the H6 is good ? > capable of counting in the first place. You remember that Tenerife-41 where > you ruled trumps last and one argument was that this was a sound safety-play > against some forgotten winner in opps hands. Of course there is some truth > in this silly argument. But it implies that you consider it > 'possible'/'normal' (or whatever) that someone claiming the rest in an EC > might have forgotten a high trump (or other winner) when claiming the rest, > and it is 'irrational' not to guard against it be keeping your trumps to the > end. You know what I think about that. But how can you possible accept this > in a EC and than claim that in a silly low-level claim someone should know > whether or not a H6 is good (with only the H7 outstanding). > Because there is no need for this. This declarer had a perfect knowledge of the hand, he made a mechanical, not a bridge error. He must suffer for his mechanical error, but not for any bridge one. > >>that the CK is still out, and that the chances of it being bare behind are >> > slim. > > Without bidding and early play I have no idea (about the change of it being > offside and or stiff). So maybe you can explain me how the heck I am > supposed to know that. > Because he did not claim two tricks with AQ, just one. Because you are presuming this declarer made two errors, when you have evidence of just one. Because once in a while, people do remember that kings are higher than queens. Because this declarer might well be able to tell you all 32 cards played thus far, if you were to ask him. Because you were not at the table, someone else was, and that TD did not report to Ton and us that he believed declarer was in the dark. Because of Occam's razor. Because it's far more likely that this declarer knew the CK was still out than not. > >>We may even attribute to this declarer, if he's good enough, the chance >>of executing the squeeze. >> > > To atribute a squeeze to someone who claims like that is of course > ridiculous. Anyway this is a silly squeeze because it is just a non > consequental show up that doesn't improve your changes over a finesse and > risks going two down instead of one. So a good declarer will never play like > that if he has no indication the K might be off-side. But if he is > crazy/smart/good enough and there is some or a strong indication the K is > off-side he might play it on a Dutch squeeze (the squeeze equivalent of a > Chinese finesse) going down against correct defense. I have made some > contracts that way you know. And yes I have once gone down in a cold > contract that way. > > Jaap > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:16 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: [blml] RE: [blml] Réf. : [ blml] claims forever, > case n + 1 > > > >>Jaap van der Neut wrote: >> >> >>>Ton: >>> >>> >>>>Despite David's pleads I still think that in establishing the >>>> > alternatives > >>>>within the range of normal play they all lead to allowing the finesse, >>>> >>>> >>>being >>> >>> >>>>the only legal play available with which declarer can make his 5 tricks. >>>> >>>> >>>Are you still connected to reality ? Do we still speak the same language >>> > ? > >>>Do we still play the same game ? >>> >>>Why cannot the legal play of trying to cash the H6 produce 5 tricks. >>> > Because > >>>the H7 is still around ? Why is declarer allowed to know this ? Why >>> > cannot > >>>the legal play of trying to drop the CK produce 5 tricks. Because there >>> > is > >>>one club too many around ? Why is declarer allowed to know this ? >>> >>>But ok, this declarer knows that his H6 is not high and the CK cannot >>> > drop. > >>>This good a declarer (will never make such a silly claim) and might well >>>play for the show-up squeeze rather than to take a silly finesse. This >>> > is a > >>>kind of squeeze that requires counting to execute (..... I claimed it an >>> > a > >>>double squeeze ......). On the actual hand the show-up squeeze doesn't >>>improve your changes over a finesse but this is not always the case. Do >>> > we > >>>want to get involved in this kind of analysis when resolving this kind >>> > of > >>>silly claims ? >>> >>> >> >> >> >>>Anyway if you don't like David's views or mine what is wrong with (AG >>> > and > >>>others said more or less the same): >>> >>>Sven: >>> >>> >>>>If he doesn't explicitly state that he will try the finesse he shall >>>>be deemed to play (a small to) the Ace if the King is onside and >>>>(to) the Queen if the King is offside. (In that last case it doesn't >>>>really matter). >>>> >>>> >>> >>>And then there is another structural problem with the last couple of >>> > cases > >>>we get from Ton. There is always an ending without bidding or early >>> > play. > >>>But there might be a 99% clue from the bidding that the CK is offside. I >>>have seen cases on AC where all players >>>and the TD missed that kind of 'simple' and 'obvious' info. >>> >>> >> >>Come off it Jaap. This case does not lack in information. We know what >>claimer did wrong - he showed the spade queen instead of claiming. If >>he had not shown the spade queen his claim would have been accepted. >>if we were to rule that showing the SQ was not actually playing it, we >>would accept the claim. But if we stick declarer to his play at this >>trick, there is no need to go searching for other errors. This >>declarer must be deemed to know that the H6 isn't good, that the CK is >>still out, and that the chances of it being bare behind are slim. We >>may even attribute to this declarer, if he's good enough, the chance >>of executing the squeeze. >> >>This claimer has shown no indication that he does not know what the >>cards are. >>So if he absolutely needs 5 tricks, the finesse is the only normal >>play, and he receives the result of that (5 tricks or 4,*). >>If he's in a situation where a certain 4 tricks is about equal to a >>50/50 chance of 3/5 tricks, then both lines are normal and he receives >> >>4 tricks whereever the king lies. >> >>(*) Even more so than in the previous case, I allow claimer, who knows >> the lie of the hand, to execute the finesse straight away, and keep >>a trump to keep control. 5 tricks or 4. >> >> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Feb 21 21:58:13 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:58:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <004f01c2d9a0$b62ea460$25b54351@noos.fr> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030221165245.00a08490@pop.starpower.net> At 06:40 AM 2/21/03, Jaap wrote: >To come to the real point. As far as I know you are entitled to know their >systems, habits, etc. Now suppose I get misinformation. I might be damaged >directly (like I do something silly I would not have done otherwise). Then >the TD will help me out. But suppose there is no direct damage. I do not >(have a serious) claim that I would have done something different if I was >given the correct explanation. This should be end of story or not? > >But now I am a smart lawyer. If I had know they had a misunderstanding I >could do something clever like doubling the final contract or to find an >impossible lead. Do I have a right to know they have a mix-up? My personal >view would be yes if I can figure it out myself from combining the >explanation I got and the explanation I should be given, no otherwise. The >main argument for 'no otherwise' is that 'yes otherwise' is basically >equivalent to the right to ask all questions to both opponents which is >currently illegal as far as I know. > >Your thoughts please. I don't think this goes quite far enough. To have a "right to know" that the opponents are having a misunderstanding, it must be the case that you would have known so had you been given *only* the correct explanation. You are not "entitled" to both the correct explanation *and* the incorrect one assumed by the explainer (i.e. actually given). 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 Feb 21 22:08:36 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:08:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030221125635.024c3d80@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3E560DAF.5070305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030221170035.00a69070@pop.starpower.net> At 06:58 AM 2/21/03, Alain wrote: >AG : the converse could happen : I suspect some bid is a transfer, but >LHO doesn't alert me. I thus take it as natural, and double it for >penalties. Now LHO realizes. If I had known the bid was a transfer and >LHO didn't know it, I wouldn't have doubled. What's the ruling in this >case ? What would you have done if you'd known the bid was a transfer but didn't know that LHO didn't know it? If you would have done something different from what you did, and were damaged by not having done it, you are entitled to an adjustment. What you would have done if you'd known the bid was a transfer *and* known that LHO didn't know it doesn't matter. IOW, you can claim damage only if the presumptive damage would not have occurred had you been offered the correct explanation *rather than* (*not* in addition to) the one you got. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ziffbridge@t-online.de Fri Feb 21 23:14:18 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:14:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> Message-ID: <3E56B2CA.60406@t-online.de> Roger Pewick schrieb: > I have been noticing a lot of references to show up squeeze. On what > basis does claimer know with certainty that one of west's last two cards > is the heart? So how does he know that a squeeze has been performed > after W plays the small club at T11? Hi Roger, in the actual position he may not "know" anything, but he doesn`t have to, that`s the beauty of it. If the heart isn`t high by now he discards it at trick 11 and the king of clubs will show up seconds later when he plays a club up. > Which is to say that the [possible] > squeeze is no basis for it being irrational to discard the CQ. Probably not. But then, nothing is. Different kettle of fish altogether, in my eyes. > It might > be east with the K and heart so a finesse gives the last two tricks to > east. > I have no problem with giving East two tricks if he holds the K and there may be a chance that he blanks it. > regards > roger pewick > regards Matthias From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Feb 21 23:54:52 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:54:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> <3E56B2CA.60406@t-online.de> Message-ID: <015f01c2da04$a0821840$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Matthias wrote: > in the actual position he may not "know" anything, but he doesn`t have > to, that`s the beauty of it. If the heart isn`t high by now he discards > it at trick 11 and the king of clubs will show up seconds later when he > plays a club up. This presumes that: West knows his seven of hearts is the only one in the game higher than the six; and that declarer knows it also. But declarer is paying no attention whatsoever to the hearts. He has just claimed the rest of the tricks with a lot of cards that are not hearts. You seem to me to have even worse ideas about adjudicating claims than Herman, and that is saying a very great deal. When a claim is being adjudicated, we do not care if the referees know what a show-up squeeze is, or a trump coup, or anything else. In fact, the better a card player someone is, the less I would trust him to produce an even vaguely sensible ruling on any claim at all. If in actual play, West were to discard the seven of hearts, there is no presumption at all that declarer would pitch the queen of clubs and make the last two tricks with the ace of clubs and the six of hearts. But "actual play" is not relevant where claims are concerned, whatever Herman thinks. What matters is: does declarer have the tricks he has claimed? (in this case, he does not, for he has just ruffed one of them); can declarer fluke the number of tricks he has claimed because he cannot be denied them? (in this case he cannot, for the queen of clubs is a loser, and Law 70 is firm upon the point that declarer cannot make a trick with it, whatever Ton thinks). This is not rec.games.bridge. We know what show-up squeezes are, and we know what show-offs are as well. But neither the one nor the other is relevant to the matter under discussion. David Burn London, England From ziffbridge@t-online.de Sat Feb 22 00:03:07 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 01:03:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> <005c01c2d9dd$1ca3eca0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E56BE3B.2080004@t-online.de> Jaap van der Neut schrieb: > Matthias: > >>Come again? If West keeps H7 his CK will pop up on trick 12, so what >>finesse is there? If we allow declarer to realize that H6 is the second >>highest heart(and the highest if H7 is discarded) in the game this >>squeeze is automatic. What is "non-consequential" about this? >>Wether he realizes this (not wether we allow him to realize) depends on >>things we have no information about, so we can`t "decide" this. > > > 1. With non-consequential I mean that the squeeze is as good as the finesse > (you only get to know for sure that the finesse works before taking it). > Not quite. If the squeeze worked you will need no finesse. Of course the H7 may be with East (we can`t be sure since we don`t know the earlier play), in which case you may or may not take the finesse. > 2. The show-up squeeze works (automatic if you want) if south knows the H7 > is in west (and he is sure there is only one high heart around). It works if it is in West, wether declarer knows this or not. If he knows he can be sure of the position of the king at trick. If he doesn`t know he can`t be sure until trick 12, but this doesn`t matter (at least in the actual example. It may well matter in other cases, that`s true). > But it > might be in east (nobody told me there was any evidence to the contrary). So > if you execute your squeeze and the H7 never appears, the finesse is now 3 > or 5 rather than 4 or 5 before the squeeze. It would indeed be if West could produce a small club at trick 12, yes. I would not object to being ruled 2 down if it were possible (not even probable) that East would keep the king and some other cashing non-club for the last two tricks. >This is why it is a silly > squeeze. By the way I only mentioned this because Herman wanted declarer to > execute this 'squeeze' and Ton said in another mail that cashing all the > trumps makes the finesse the only rational line because there will be only > clubs around by then (which is of course silly because nobody is going to > stop east from keeping a red card). I think myself it is insane that you > allow a misclaimer any kind of squeeze. I didn`t want to "allow" him anything. IMHO this is just something he can`t escape doing after being informed that he is in hand after unexpectedly ruffing his winner (and he will be informed of this!). > > Matthias: > >>See above. Basic technique. How would you play the hand if you had never >>owned the diamond jack in the first place? Wouldn`t you have ruffed >>East`s diamond play and cash two more trumps, discarding H6 on trick 11 >>if it hadn`t become a winner? > > > Probably I would play like that. I might try a Dutch squeeze if I was > sufficiently sure about the CK being off-side. But that is not the point. > Someone who misclaims doesn't get you or me to play the hand at the best of > our abilities. No, indeed. But did he misclaim? He claimed 5 tricks which would actually have been his if he hadn`t played a card to this trick. Now he makes an error (a mechanical one, IMO). Does this show he doesn`t know what he`s doing? I don`t think so. He pulled a wrong card. He wanted to discard a club loser, obviating any need for a finesse. Does this mean he is now bereft of all sense? > This whole discussion was only to show Ton that there are > other 'not irrational' ways to play the hand than to take a finesse. > > Back to the basics. I would rule 4 tricks on this deal. Consult Burn for the > arguments. He words them better then I do. > At the moment I would rule 5 tricks (doesn`t surprise you, does it? :-) ), but I concede that I have some sympathy for anyone ruling 4 tricks on account of Law 70 E. This depends somewhat on the class of player involved. As for David Burn`s argument: I have read them (more than once, his perseverance is admirable (this is _not_ a joke,David)), but can it be the right way to go for bridge (in the long run) to rule the same way when someone just showed he doesn`t know what he`s doing by making some abominable claim (with or without some statement) and when someone showed he knows what`s going on and then makes a mechanical error (yes, David, this is kind of stupid too, but is it in the same class? Not in my eyes)? > Jaap > Regards Matthias From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Feb 22 00:08:04 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:08:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? Message-ID: <016d01c2da06$78b0b220$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> I thought I would start a separate thread, for things have got a bit confused of late. West North East South 1NT Pass 2H West thinks this shows hearts. East thinks it shows spades. Now, what system are East-West playing? Do they play that 2H shows hearts? No, "they" do not, for one of them does not. Do they play that 2H shows spades? I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave some moments ago. What they are actually playing is that for East, 2H shows spades, whereas for West, it shows hearts. That is their actual partnership method, such as it is. Now then, Herman: I am entitled to know what system my opponents play, am I not? That is to say, I am entitled to know that East thinks he has shown spades while West thinks East has shown hearts, am I not? In the light of this, would you like to reconsider your position that I am not allowed to know that my opponents are having a bidding misunderstanding? David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Sat Feb 22 00:32:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 01:32:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: <016d01c2da06$78b0b220$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <008c01c2da09$f2ff3e90$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "David Burn" > I thought I would start a separate thread, for things have got a bit > confused of late. > > West North East South > 1NT Pass 2H > > West thinks this shows hearts. East thinks it shows spades. > > Now, what system are East-West playing? Do they play that 2H shows > hearts? No, "they" do not, for one of them does not. Do they play that > 2H shows spades? I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave some > moments ago. > > What they are actually playing is that for East, 2H shows spades, > whereas for West, it shows hearts. That is their actual partnership > method, such as it is. Now then, Herman: I am entitled to know what > system my opponents play, am I not? That is to say, I am entitled to > know that East thinks he has shown spades while West thinks East has > shown hearts, am I not? > > In the light of this, would you like to reconsider your position that I > am not allowed to know that my opponents are having a bidding > misunderstanding? He doesn't have to because this case is extremely simple to rule: You get the explanation from West: that 2H shows hearts. (East is not allowed at this time to give you any information on his own call). You base your actions on that information, and sooner or later you get surprised when you discover that East actually meant 2H as a transfer bid. You feel damaged so TD enters the scene and tries to establish what are the true agreements. Assuming that he is unable to determine who is right: East or West, he is required to rule mistaken information rather than mistaken call so you will get your redress if you can show damage due to the assumed faulty explanation by West. And if you followed me this far you will notice that the question of a misunderstanding between East and West has become completely irrelevant except for the Director (and of course for East and West themselves). regards Sven From ziffbridge@t-online.de Sat Feb 22 00:38:04 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 01:38:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> <3E56B2CA.60406@t-online.de> <015f01c2da04$a0821840$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E56C66C.1040502@t-online.de> David Burn schrieb: > Matthias wrote: > > >>in the actual position he may not "know" anything, but he doesn`t have >>to, that`s the beauty of it. If the heart isn`t high by now he > discards it at trick 11 and the king of clubs will show up seconds later when > he plays a club up. > > > This presumes that: West knows his seven of hearts is the only one in > the game higher than the six; No, it doesn`t, just wether he discards it or not (and South realizes what happens). > and that declarer knows it also. > But > declarer is paying no attention whatsoever to the hearts. This may or may not be true. In fact we have no information about this. > He has just > claimed the rest of the tricks with a lot of cards that are not hearts. > You seem to me to have even worse ideas about adjudicating claims than > Herman, and that is saying a very great deal. Your insight into other people`s views and abilities from reading about three or four postings is indeed awesome. > When a claim is being > adjudicated, we do not care if the referees know what a show-up squeeze > is, or a trump coup, or anything else. In fact, the better a card player > someone is, the less I would trust him to produce an even vaguely > sensible ruling on any claim at all. > If there is human being you would trust to give a sensible ruling alive on Earth you have not named her/him in any posting of yours since I read BLML, and that is saying a great deal. > If in actual play, West were to discard the seven of hearts, there is no > presumption at all that declarer would pitch the queen of clubs and make > the last two tricks with the ace of clubs and the six of hearts. But > "actual play" is not relevant where claims are concerned, whatever > Herman thinks. What matters is: does declarer have the tricks he has > claimed? (in this case, he does not, for he has just ruffed one of > them); can declarer fluke the number of tricks he has claimed because he > cannot be denied them? (in this case he cannot, for the queen of clubs > is a loser, and Law 70 is firm upon the point that declarer cannot make > a trick with it, whatever Ton thinks). Is that so? I could cite Law 70 A, but since you know it perfectly well I won`t. > > This is not rec.games.bridge. We know what show-up squeezes are, and we > know what show-offs are as well. This is not Psychology 101 either. If you can indeed judge other people`s personalities from a couple of e-mail you have probably picked the wrong job. General Secretary of the UN is one that comes to mind. But I can take that. I didn`t expect politeness from you. Why should I be unique? You are a great bridge-player (reaching the final stages of international championships qualifies, in my eyes) and a great writer (I had lots of fun with many of your articles and postings). What has made you so bitter? > But neither the one nor the other is > relevant to the matter under discussion. > > David Burn > London, England > Matthias From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Feb 22 00:45:55 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:45:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: <016d01c2da06$78b0b220$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <008c01c2da09$f2ff3e90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <018101c2da0b$c2050700$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: > He doesn't have to because this case is extremely simple to rule Yes, I know. But I am not talking about specifics. I am talking about principles. One of the things that prevents anyone ever establishing any sensible principles is the rapid descent from the general to the particular. I do not want to know what a particular tournament director would do with a particular case. I want to know what the rules are that cover any and all general cases. David Burn London, England From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sat Feb 22 00:38:07 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:38:07 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <016d01c2da06$78b0b220$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, David Burn wrote: > In the light of this, would you like to reconsider your position that I > am not allowed to know that my opponents are having a bidding > misunderstanding? In a word: no. I can see some justification for your argument about "the system they really are playing is Player A's 2H = hearts and Player B's 2H = spades." This happens to be an illegal system in most of the world... and I can think of at least one US pro who would be just delighted to find "convention disruption" in the law book, and dish out automatic 60/30s to everyone who ever forgot part of the their system. I see two reasons *not* to do this. One is the "if they don't agree, it's not an agreement" argument. It's a bit of a fringe position to say that having no agreement is an illegal agreement. I've heard people argue for this is simple first round auctions (maybe 1NT-P-2H is one) but it quickly becomes unworkable in any kind of complicated sequence. Also ... I think L75D is in the book for a reason. You base your right to know your opponents are having a misunderstanding on their actual system, at that moment, being different for the two players. If so, anything I call a misexplanation, you call incomplete but correct disclosure of system. I am quite happy with the the usual interpretation of the existing law: if there is an actual agreement, you're entitled only to the agreement; if the actual agreement can't be ascertained, treat as misexplanation and not misbid. Neither your way nor my way will work perfectly in practice, as long as just one opponent does the alerting. Conceivably, in online bridge, you could impose a requirement to alert both your own bids and partner's, and either (in your system) forward both of these to the opponents or (in mine) forward these only if they matched - or just forward the relevant portion of the system notes. GRB From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Feb 22 01:41:21 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 01:41:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: Message-ID: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Gordon B wrote: > I can see some justification for your argument about "the system they > really are playing is Player A's 2H = hearts and Player B's 2H = > spades." This happens to be an illegal system in most of the world I do not care. This is to dodge the question, which is simply: what are the opponents' methods? Whatever they are, I am allowed to know them, n'est-ce pas? > I see two reasons *not* to do this. One is the "if they don't agree, it's > not an agreement" argument. It's a bit of a fringe position to say that > having no agreement is an illegal agreement. But an "agreement" is not a "method". They are supposed to tell me what 2H means, unless I can "reasonably be expected to understand". Law 40 says so. Well, I cannot reasonably be expected to understand, can I? You may tell me that if they alert I may reasonably expect one thing, and if they don't I may reasonably expect another, but this is not so. If they do not know, how can I reasonably be expected to know? All I can reasonably expect is that they will tell me what they are doing. What they are doing is playing a method in which 2H shows hearts (for one of them) or spades (for the other). Why am I not allowed to know this? The Law I have quoted says that I am; what Laws would you quote in support of the view that I am not? > I've heard people argue for > this is simple first round auctions (maybe 1NT-P-2H is one) but it quickly > becomes unworkable in any kind of complicated sequence. For pity's sake. If we have laws, then they should apply in any and all situations. Whether they are "workable" or not does not matter in the slightest, except that if they are good laws, they will work in all situations; if they are the usual rubbish laws, then they will work in almost no situation, and Ton Kooijman will have to run around trying to keep everyone happy. > Also ... I think L75D is in the book for a reason. You base your right to > know your opponents are having a misunderstanding on their actual system, > at that moment, being different for the two players. If so, anything I > call a misexplanation, you call incomplete but correct disclosure of > system. Too true, blue. If their actual system is (as it is) that when East bids 2H he will have hearts, but West will think he has spades, then I am allowed to know it. Anything else is a "misexplanation", and I do not call it "incomplete but correct disclosure of system"; I call it a pack of lies. > I am quite happy with the usual interpretation of the existing law And if that makes you happy, kid, You'll be the first it ever did. Dorothy Parker > if there is an actual agreement, you're entitled only to the agreement; Quite so. I would, however, like to see some evidence. > if the actual agreement can't be ascertained, treat as misexplanation and not > misbid. If the "actual agreement can't be ascertained", then the "actual method" is that East was bidding hearts to show hearts while West thought East had spades. Do you see the difference between an "agreement" and a "method" now? And as to the knowledge of what am I entitled: the agreement, or the method? The Laws are silent on this precise question, though everyone tends to assume "the agreement". But back to the words: I have to be able to "understand the meaning". Now, where call X means one thing to A and another thing to B, what is "the meaning"? There is not one meaning, but two. Am I not entitled to both? > Neither your way nor my way will work perfectly in practice, as long as > just one opponent does the alerting. Oh, my way will work fine in practice. You see, I would shoot anyone who misexplains his partner's call. I might shoot a few innocent men, but I guarantee that the death toll would not rise beyond a dozen before just about everyone turned up with proper convention cards and playing only a system that they were pretty much guaranteed never to forget. > Conceivably, in online bridge, you > could impose a requirement to alert both your own bids and partner's, and > either (in your system) forward both of these to the opponents or (in > mine) forward these only if they matched - or just forward the relevant > portion of the system notes. That is indeed the paradigm. We should live so long. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Feb 22 02:52:43 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 02:52:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> <3E56B2CA.60406@t-online.de> <015f01c2da04$a0821840$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <3E56C66C.1040502@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001901c2da1d$78e0cb60$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Matthias wrote: > No, it doesn't, just whether he discards it or not (and South realizes what happens). That, I believe, is what I said. > > and that declarer knows it also. But declarer is paying no attention whatsoever to the hearts. > This may or may not be true. In fact we have no information about this. Well, the man claimed three spades, a club, and a diamond. To my way of thinking, this indicates a lack of focus on the heart suit. But you, like Herman, fall into the huge error of assuming that a declarer who has just ruffed his own trick is thereafter going to play the hand like a man in full possession of every relevant fact about the deal. > Your insight into other peoples' views and abilities from reading about three or four postings is indeed awesome. Well, in the odd moment that I have away from responding to BLML messages, I play the occasional game of bridge. I have read, I think, more than three or four postings. It may even have got into double figures this year. > If there is human being you would trust to give a sensible ruling alive on Earth you have not named her/him in any posting of yours since I read BLML, and that is saying a great deal. No, it isn't. I would not trust myself to give a sensible ruling, since I believe that I am constrained by a pretty ridiculous set of rules. I do my best, as we all do. On this forum, I say what I think; at the table, or in the umpire's chair, I try to abide by the rules as they are and not as I would have them. From time to time I fail, as we all do in whatever we undertake. > Is that so? I could cite Law 70 A, but since you know it perfectly well > I won`t. Quite so. > You are a great bridge-player No. I am a competent player, no more. But I am competent, perhaps, to judge the nature of the mistakes that the great ones might make, and to know what information may or may not be available to them at various stages, so that I am a competent umpire. I try hard not to forget how bad I once was, though, to the extent that I would not consider it "irrational" not to take a finesse. > What has made you so bitter? The noise, my dear. And the people. David Burn London, England From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Feb 22 06:35:31 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 22:35:31 -0800 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001101c2da3c$9a681300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Burn" >Now, where call X means > one thing to A and another thing to B, what is "the meaning"? There is > not one meaning, but two. Am I not entitled to both? No. You are entitled to know the partnership agreement, if any. Absent that, you are entitled to know only what a call means to the caller's partner. If he gets it wrong, that is misinformation. You are not entitled to know what goes on in the caller's mind. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Feb 22 07:31:40 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 08:31:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <001101c2da3c$9a681300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003201c2da44$717c5480$25b54351@noos.fr> Marvin: > Absent that, > you are entitled to know only what a call means to the caller's partner. > You are not entitled to know what > goes on in the caller's mind. That is when playing without screens. The point David raises is quite different playing with screens then without. Because then (under current rules) you are entitled to know what a call means to your screen mate. So you are entitled to know what goes on in the caller's mind 50% of the time Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 7:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What system do you play? > > From: "David Burn" > > >Now, where call X means > > one thing to A and another thing to B, what is "the meaning"? There is > > not one meaning, but two. Am I not entitled to both? > > No. You are entitled to know the partnership agreement, if any. Absent that, > you are entitled to know only what a call means to the caller's partner. If > he gets it wrong, that is misinformation. You are not entitled to know what > goes on in the caller's mind. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Feb 22 07:39:27 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 08:39:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL claim rulings References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <001101c2da3c$9a681300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003601c2da45$87fd05a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Marvin, I send you a question some time ago. Maybe you responded but then I missed it. It is about how the ACBL rules claims with trumps. I claim the rest with S10 and HA (spades trumps) without statement. It can be assumed I am unawere there is still a trump outstanding. I know that if East has S8 DA I will lose 1 trick. What if East has SQ DA. Is the normal ACBL ruling losing 1 or losing 2. I know that for the ACBL in the first case it doesn't matter if the trump is the A. Does it makes a difference for the second case if my trump is the 2 (or any other spot for that matter) ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 7:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What system do you play? > > From: "David Burn" > > >Now, where call X means > > one thing to A and another thing to B, what is "the meaning"? There is > > not one meaning, but two. Am I not entitled to both? > > No. You are entitled to know the partnership agreement, if any. Absent that, > you are entitled to know only what a call means to the caller's partner. If > he gets it wrong, that is misinformation. You are not entitled to know what > goes on in the caller's mind. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Feb 22 08:12:25 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 09:12:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> <005c01c2d9dd$1ca3eca0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E56BE3B.2080004@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000f01c2da4a$24122840$25b54351@noos.fr> Matthias: > Not quite. If the squeeze worked you will need no finesse. Of course the > H7 may be with East (we can`t be sure since we don`t know the earlier > play), in which case you may or may not take the finesse. What do you mean with 'not quite'? The squeeze only takes 5 tricks with the CK onside and so does the finesse. The squeeze risks two down and a early finesse does not. But then this type of show-up squeezes are rather pointless. The only advantage is that you also make against stiff K off-side (if you are sure west has the H7 which is not the case here) if I have to be completely correct. Please consult some text book on squeezes. Matthias: > It would indeed be if West could produce a small club at trick 12, yes. > I would not object to being ruled 2 down if it were possible (not even > probable) that East would keep the king and some other cashing non-club > for the last two tricks. You are not the first to say that. In a previous response I said that I could go along with 3 but that it would be impossible to sell to almost all AC's. Looking at a diagram with the CK off-side they will all say 'why risk two down by cashing all the trumps first'. Which is a reasonable argument. Of course they are wrong, it is not irrational to play like that (it is quite normal because people often do), but such is real life. The law requires abstraction levels and bridge skills almost nobody has. I prefer David's simple approach. The guy named his five winners. There are only 4. To satisfy current laws, there are non irrational lines of play that take only 4 (playing for the drop, we don't assume he has perfect count). Easy isn't it. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" Cc: "blml" Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 1:03 AM Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > > > Jaap van der Neut schrieb: > > Matthias: > > > >>Come again? If West keeps H7 his CK will pop up on trick 12, so what > >>finesse is there? If we allow declarer to realize that H6 is the second > >>highest heart(and the highest if H7 is discarded) in the game this > >>squeeze is automatic. What is "non-consequential" about this? > >>Wether he realizes this (not wether we allow him to realize) depends on > >>things we have no information about, so we can`t "decide" this. > > > > > > 1. With non-consequential I mean that the squeeze is as good as the finesse > > (you only get to know for sure that the finesse works before taking it). > > > > Not quite. If the squeeze worked you will need no finesse. Of course the > H7 may be with East (we can`t be sure since we don`t know the earlier > play), in which case you may or may not take the finesse. > > > 2. The show-up squeeze works (automatic if you want) if south knows the H7 > > is in west (and he is sure there is only one high heart around). > > It works if it is in West, wether declarer knows this or not. If he > knows he can be sure of the position of the king at trick. If he doesn`t > know he can`t be sure until trick 12, but this doesn`t matter (at least > in the actual example. It may well matter in other cases, that`s true). > > > But it > > might be in east (nobody told me there was any evidence to the contrary). So > > if you execute your squeeze and the H7 never appears, the finesse is now 3 > > or 5 rather than 4 or 5 before the squeeze. > > It would indeed be if West could produce a small club at trick 12, yes. > I would not object to being ruled 2 down if it were possible (not even > probable) that East would keep the king and some other cashing non-club > for the last two tricks. > > >This is why it is a silly > > squeeze. By the way I only mentioned this because Herman wanted declarer to > > execute this 'squeeze' and Ton said in another mail that cashing all the > > trumps makes the finesse the only rational line because there will be only > > clubs around by then (which is of course silly because nobody is going to > > stop east from keeping a red card). I think myself it is insane that you > > allow a misclaimer any kind of squeeze. > > I didn`t want to "allow" him anything. IMHO this is just something he > can`t escape doing after being informed that he is in hand after > unexpectedly ruffing his winner (and he will be informed of this!). > > > > > Matthias: > > > >>See above. Basic technique. How would you play the hand if you had never > >>owned the diamond jack in the first place? Wouldn`t you have ruffed > >>East`s diamond play and cash two more trumps, discarding H6 on trick 11 > >>if it hadn`t become a winner? > > > > > > Probably I would play like that. I might try a Dutch squeeze if I was > > sufficiently sure about the CK being off-side. But that is not the point. > > Someone who misclaims doesn't get you or me to play the hand at the best of > > our abilities. > > No, indeed. But did he misclaim? He claimed 5 tricks which would > actually have been his if he hadn`t played a card to this trick. Now he > makes an error (a mechanical one, IMO). Does this show he doesn`t know > what he`s doing? I don`t think so. He pulled a wrong card. He wanted to > discard a club loser, obviating any need for a finesse. Does this mean > he is now bereft of all sense? > > > This whole discussion was only to show Ton that there are > > other 'not irrational' ways to play the hand than to take a finesse. > > > > Back to the basics. I would rule 4 tricks on this deal. Consult Burn for the > > arguments. He words them better then I do. > > > > At the moment I would rule 5 tricks (doesn`t surprise you, does it? :-) > ), but I concede that I have some sympathy for anyone ruling 4 tricks on > account of Law 70 E. This depends somewhat on the class of player involved. > > As for David Burn`s argument: I have read them (more than once, his > perseverance is admirable (this is _not_ a joke,David)), but can it be > the right way to go for bridge (in the long run) to rule the same way > when someone just showed he doesn`t know what he`s doing by making some > abominable claim (with or without some statement) and when someone > showed he knows what`s going on and then makes a mechanical error (yes, > David, this is kind of stupid too, but is it in the same class? Not in > my eyes)? > > > Jaap > > > > Regards > Matthias > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ziffbridge@t-online.de Sat Feb 22 09:22:38 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:22:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> <005c01c2d9dd$1ca3eca0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E56BE3B.2080004@t-online.de> <000f01c2da4a$24122840$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E57415E.30002@t-online.de> Jaap van der Neut schrieb: > Matthias: > >>Not quite. If the squeeze worked you will need no finesse. Of course the >>H7 may be with East (we can`t be sure since we don`t know the earlier >>play), in which case you may or may not take the finesse. > > > What do you mean with 'not quite'? The squeeze only takes 5 tricks with the > CK onside and so does the finesse. The squeeze risks two down and a early > finesse does not. But then this type of show-up squeezes are rather > pointless. The only advantage is that you also make against stiff K off-side > (if you are sure west has the H7 which is not the case here) if I have to be > completely correct. Please consult some text book on squeezes. > What this specific position revolves around are two questions: 1. Is it just inferior not to realize that a card has become a winner, or is it irrational? 2. Is it just inferior to discard a card that constrains opponent`s discards, lest it becomes a winner, or is it irrational? If your answer to one (or both) questions is "inferior", then the case is closed. 4 tricks. Looks like our opinions differ here. I couldn`t find a WBFLC interpretation (which may be my fault). Let me pose another question (which I asked earlier in a mail in response to Roger): If declarer has a proven but incomplete count (or even a complete count, does it make a difference?) showing East to posess at least 2 clubs, what now? (Forget about any squeeze here) This is meant as a truly separate question, not related to the earlier one except through similarity in position and what transpired earlier. It is not designed to make any point for the original case. Regards Matthias From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Feb 22 09:51:11 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:51:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> <005c01c2d9dd$1ca3eca0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E56BE3B.2080004@t-online.de> <000f01c2da4a$24122840$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E57415E.30002@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000f01c2da57$f190be00$25b54351@noos.fr> Matthias, The real problem here is trench fighting about what the laws are and the laws should be. There is also a fight about the meaning of 'irrational'. Compounding to the problems are the different translations in different languages. To me and quite a lot of native English speakers irrational is a rather weak (or strong depending from which side you look at it) test. Cashing a suit bottom-up would be irrational. Or stopping half way cashing a suit to leave the rest marooned without entry. But that is pretty much it. Anything that people conceivably might do in real life (and you will see it all the time at the table) is not irrational. This includes (for me) not counting, forgetting certain cards are still out, being half asleep, etc. But of course near the border everybody has his own view about what is still inside and what is outside. Some people think it is irrational to forget a King has been played but they don't think it is irrational a six is high or not. There is some reason in that. But they never tell you where a big one becomes a small spot. The Q, J, 10, 9, 8 ...... ? So nobody ever agrees on anything. So I agree with David Burn. This way of ruling makes no sense and should be avoided as much as possible. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" Cc: "blml" Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 10:22 AM Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > > > Jaap van der Neut schrieb: > > Matthias: > > > >>Not quite. If the squeeze worked you will need no finesse. Of course the > >>H7 may be with East (we can`t be sure since we don`t know the earlier > >>play), in which case you may or may not take the finesse. > > > > > > What do you mean with 'not quite'? The squeeze only takes 5 tricks with the > > CK onside and so does the finesse. The squeeze risks two down and a early > > finesse does not. But then this type of show-up squeezes are rather > > pointless. The only advantage is that you also make against stiff K off-side > > (if you are sure west has the H7 which is not the case here) if I have to be > > completely correct. Please consult some text book on squeezes. > > > > What this specific position revolves around are two questions: > 1. Is it just inferior not to realize that a card has become a winner, > or is it irrational? > > 2. Is it just inferior to discard a card that constrains opponent`s > discards, lest it becomes a winner, or is it irrational? > > If your answer to one (or both) questions is "inferior", then the case > is closed. 4 tricks. > > Looks like our opinions differ here. I couldn`t find a WBFLC > interpretation (which may be my fault). > > > Let me pose another question (which I asked earlier in a mail in > response to Roger): If declarer has a proven but incomplete count (or > even a complete count, does it make a difference?) showing East to > posess at least 2 clubs, what now? (Forget about any squeeze here) > > This is meant as a truly separate question, not related to the earlier > one except through similarity in position and what transpired earlier. > It is not designed to make any point for the original case. > > Regards > Matthias > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Feb 22 10:34:20 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 11:34:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E56302B.5030508@skynet.be> <012301c2d9ed$ae84a3c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E57522C.7060706@skynet.be> Hello Jaap, I read your e-mail twice and it merits a long response. My reactions are interspersed: Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Dear Herman, > Dear Jaap, > > Herman: > >>Jaap, Jaap, Jaap, please. >> > > Looking for a fight or what ? > Absolutely not. > > Herman: > >>And I don't believe that matters. And neither does Ton. >> > [about no bidding and no early play] > > 1. Please let Ton speak for himself. I can understand that he considered it > irrelevant at the time of the posting (explains also this silly H7-H7). But > I do not think Ton still thinks so at this stage of the discussion. But that > is just an educated 'guess'. I am curious how you happen to 'know' those > things. > OK, please correct: and neither did Ton. After all, he did not post those facts. So he thought they did not matter. But permit me to elaborate on my statement: I do believe the previous play matters, but I also believe that the cards that are shown to us are enough to deduce basically what happened before. If anything out of the ordinary had happened, Ton would have told us. As it stands, most probably the Director never investigated this, because indeed it does not matter. Quite probably, if anything out of the ordinary had happened, the players would have told the director, he would have told Ton, and Ton would have told us. Which is why I am assuming that the previous play went without incident. I also conclude from that, that declarer knew the important facts about the hand, like the fact that alle trumps had gone but the CK hadn't. I realize those are assumptions, and if they are not true, my ruling would differ. But I don't believe we have anything to gain by questioning those assumptions. The case is interesting enough with the assumptions in place. So please let's continue to assume them - or stop the discussion. > 2. You now say for the n-th time that bidding and early play doesn't matter > when discussing lines of play after a claim. At the same time you make > statements about the chance of certain cards being in certain hands and the > chance of certain breaks being such or so. Maybe I should get some bridge > lessons from you because I have never learned how to do that without > analyzing the available evidence which is (mainly) the bidding and the early > play. To put it less friendly, you have no idea what you are talking about. > Again, yes, in general, early play does matter - no, in this case, it does not - or rather - I am assuming nothing out of the ordinary happened. > > Herman: > >>But don't you agree that the claim would be valid if he >>hadn't shown the SQ? >> > > You keep going on about this showing of SQ story. Of course I also think > that the guy made a silly mistake (almost sure he thought he was ruffing a > heart). Bad luck. We have to pay for our silly mistakes. I also make silly > mistakes playing bridge (fortunately not as many as you do). And I pay. > Exactly. And he does pay - maybe he gets 4 tricks in stead of 5. But there is no need to punish him extra by awarding only 3 tricks. Yes he should pay - but not through the nose. > > Herman: > >>I deduce from the facts that Ton told us that claimer knew the H6 was >>not high >> > > Come on, are you still there. In the original posting there where two H7. > Ton thought the H suit was irrelevant at that time. Silly but no big deal. > But now you twist this to 'Ton told us that declarer knew the H6 was not > high'. You just make up stories. Ton told us nothing about that. Want to Please read my first statement again: >>I deduce from the facts that Ton told us that claimer knew the H6 was >>not high let me rephrase slightly: I deduce from the facts, such as Ton told them, that claimer knew the H6 was not high. Maybe I should also change my negatives: that there is no reason to assume that claimer though his H6 was high. OK now ? > take a bet that Ton has no idea about what the guy thought about his Hx. In > his second mail Ton said: 'That was not meant to be the clue in this > problem, let us give north the 6 of hearts if that is still free. > > > Herman: > >>... This declarer had a perfect knowledge of the hand, >> > > What makes you think that. Do you always assume claimers to have a perfect > knowledge of the hand? If not why you do in this case ? This is not what the > laws say. It is just plain crazy. > No, I don't always assume that claimers have a perfect knowledge. Certainly not in contested claims. But after I've discovered what mistake the claimer made, I don't go looking for a second one. Tell me, Jaap, is there anything in this claim that makes you think declarer did not knnow what was going on ? > > Herman: > >>Because this declarer might well be able to tell >>you all 32 cards played thus far, if you were to ask him. Because you >>were not at the table, someone else was, and that TD did not report to >>Ton and us that he believed declarer was in the dark. >> > > Of course it is possible that declarer can tell me every single card in the > deck. But very unlikely and completely irrelevant. Is it EBL-AC policy > nowadays that a claimer has perfect knowledge, and thus can play (almost) > double-dummy, unless the TD provides unsolicited evidence to the contrary ? > Or (to quote David Burn) is this just another 'Herman thinks' or rather > 'Herman dreams'. > I was answering why I believed that declarer had this knowledge. It is up to the TD to investigate. The TD did not believe claimer had that knowledge, or he would have told us. So again, assumption. I would like to put this to the vote : who believes this declarer thought that the H6 was high, or that the CK had gone. I don't. > In the end it doesn't matter whether the guy is in the dark or not. I agree > that the misclaim was probably caused by a silly mistake (the claim proves > he was not paying attention to proceedings, the claim doesn't prove that he > did or didn't have count in certain suits). But who cares. We just have to > apply a bridge law. This is about unstated lines of play. Most people award > 4 tricks because it is 'not irrational' to try to drop the CK so we just > apply 70E as it was intended. David rules 4 with a slightly different > motivation. Some want to rule 5. Ton because he wants to modify the meaning > of 'irrational'. I strongly disagree but at least I can understand his > arguments. But I really don't get what you are doing. You are twisting the > facts and the laws in one big crazy blend. > I am trying to explain the assumptions I have about this case. You try to convince me that those assumptions don't matter. I'm telling you that they do. Indeed we have to decide which lines are normal and which aren't. For that, we need to look into declarer's head. In there, I see that playing for the H6 to be high is not a normal line. Now we have to decide about cashing the CA. That is an interesting discussion, as Gordon and I proved. But it is interesting enough without adding the complication that declarer thought the H6 was high. > > Herman: > >>he made a mechanical, not a bridge error ....... >> > > Avoiding mechanical errors is also part of bridge because a mechanical error > also counts as a bridge error. Consult the laws. They are full of articles > dealing with mechanical errors. Still we call it the bridge laws. > Yes, so? Don't you agree that ruffing this trick, while at the same time claiming a trick with the DJ, is a silly error - probably caused by colour blindness? But not a bridge error, such as thinking that this diamond would get ruffed? Yes, he made an error - a mechanical one. And he shall possibly pay for it. But there is no law that says that he must pay for it. If you ruff - sorry - If I ruff my partner's winner, I shall probably end up a trick short. But not always. There is no need for a law that says that I should now give away some extra trick, because my error did not cost. So if our ruling is 5 tricks, then claimer is simply lucky. Lucky that the cards are as they are, I mean, not lucky that we are such bad directors. > > I think that is enough for now. Herman, please think a little longer before > you write your mails. Try to seperate facts and opinion. Don't invent facts > (you do this quite often), nobody will take you serious anymore if you don't > stop doing that. Mails like this one is just emotional crap. > I don't invent facts, I deduce assumptions from the facts given. If you want to challenge those deductions, fine. But don't challenge the assumptions unless you can deduce other ones from the facts. And don't criticize my making assumptions. Don't forget that we are on blml, not in the real world. In the real world, we can investigate. we can ask claimer how the play went. We can form an opinion about the state of mind of declarer. No need to make assumptions there. But here, on blml, we sometimes have to assume that if a TD does not report something, it did not happen. Is that clear enough ? > > Jaap > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Feb 22 10:55:28 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 11:55:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: <016d01c2da06$78b0b220$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E575720.1080907@skynet.be> Good one David, and difficult. David Burn wrote: > I thought I would start a separate thread, for things have got a bit > confused of late. > > West North East South > 1NT Pass 2H > > West thinks this shows hearts. East thinks it shows spades. > > Now, what system are East-West playing? Do they play that 2H shows > hearts? No, "they" do not, for one of them does not. Do they play that > 2H shows spades? I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave some > moments ago. > > What they are actually playing is that for East, 2H shows spades, > whereas for West, it shows hearts. That is their actual partnership > method, such as it is. Now then, Herman: I am entitled to know what > system my opponents play, am I not? That is to say, I am entitled to > know that East thinks he has shown spades while West thinks East has > shown hearts, am I not? > > In the light of this, would you like to reconsider your position that I > am not allowed to know that my opponents are having a bidding > misunderstanding? > Maybe I should, shouldn't I ? But I won't. Because you are using fuzzy arguments. The system is "2He shows hearts" or "2He shows spades", or maybe even "we have forgotten to discuss this but in our club most people play ...", ut by no stretch of the imagination is the system "for me it shows hearts, for him it shows spades". I am deliberately using the word system here, as you did, because I believe that indeed the "system", something abstract, is what we need to divulge. The real word in the laws is "partnership agreement", and the imagination would stretch even further to assume that the partnership agreement is "for me it shows hearts, for him it shows spades". Now we don't really know what the system is, and I am often inclined to rule either - make a ruling based on the system being one, then the other, and finally setting on the ruling that turns out worst for the unsure bidders. But what I won't do is make a ruling based on complete knowledge of both possible systems AND the fact that opponents are in the dark. So I maintain that you are not entitled to the knowledge of there being a misunderstanding. > 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 blml@dybdal.dk Sat Feb 22 11:16:29 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:16:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <016d01c2da06$78b0b220$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> References: <016d01c2da06$78b0b220$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:08:04 -0000, "David Burn" wrote: >I thought I would start a separate thread, for things have got a bit >confused of late. I got lost somewhere in the previous thread, so I appreciate that. >West North East South >1NT Pass 2H > >West thinks this shows hearts. East thinks it shows spades. ... >What they are actually playing is that for East, 2H shows spades, >whereas for West, it shows hearts. That is their actual partnership >method, such as it is. Now then, Herman: I am entitled to know what >system my opponents play, am I not? You're entitled to know their partnership understandings, including implicit ones. You're not entitled to know what they thought their partnership understandings were. The fact that East actually bid something on a certain hand does not necessarily mean that there is a partnership understanding linking the hand with the bid. But if their attempts to tell you their understandings happen to result in your knowing what system they mistakenly thought they were playing, then you are welcome to take advantage of that. Their partnership understanding about this situation is probably one of the following: (a) 2H shows hearts. (b) 2H shows spades. (c) We try to play 2H natural, but East sometimes forgets that. (d) We try to play 2H as transfer, but West sometimes forgets that. Whether the understanding is (a) or (c) [or (b) or (d)] depends on partnership experience. If they're just met each other for the first time and written something they agreed upon on a CC and have never opened 1NT opposite each other before, then the understanding is what the CC says: almost certainly either (a) or (b). This is the case even when one of them forgets it. On the other hand, if they have partnership experience, then the understanding may well be (c) or (d). And the important thing is of course that it is MI to explain (a) if the understanding is really (c), or to explain (b) if the understanding is really (d). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From ziffbridge@t-online.de Sat Feb 22 11:19:10 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:19:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> <005c01c2d9dd$1ca3eca0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E56BE3B.2080004@t-online.de> <000f01c2da4a$24122840$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E57415E.30002@t-online.de> <000f01c2da57$f190be00$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E575CAE.40605@t-online.de> Hi Jaap, Jaap van der Neut schrieb: > Matthias, > > The real problem here is trench fighting about what the laws are and the > laws should be. > Agreed. > There is also a fight about the meaning of 'irrational'. Compounding to the > problems are the different translations in different languages. > Agreed too. > To me and quite a lot of native English speakers irrational is a rather weak > (or strong depending from which side you look at it) test. Cashing a suit > bottom-up would be irrational. Or stopping half way cashing a suit to leave > the rest marooned without entry. But that is pretty much it. Anything that > people conceivably might do in real life (and you will see it all the time > at the table) is not irrational. This includes (for me) not counting, > forgetting certain cards are still out, being half asleep, etc. > > But of course near the border everybody has his own view about what is still > inside and what is outside. Some people think it is irrational to forget a > King has been played but they don't think it is irrational a six is high or > not. There is some reason in that. But they never tell you where a big one > becomes a small spot. The Q, J, 10, 9, 8 ...... ? So nobody ever agrees on > anything. So I agree with David Burn. This way of ruling makes no sense and > should be avoided as much as possible. > Rules should have three characteristics: 1. They should be easy to use for the TD. 2. They should be easy to understand for the player. 3. The rulings they result in should be easy to accept for the "victim". I fear that some of David Burn`s views fail in the last department. People don`t like to be called morons , either in so many words or between the lines. And some (if not most) of David`s approaches to rulings do just that. I may be wrong. In fact, I would be delighted if I were wrong here, because it would mean we could implement certain rule-changes without losing many frustrated players. If it would work, fine, do it! It would solve a lot of problems. We must just be sure that it doesn`t create other (and maybe bigger) problems. > Jaap > Regards Matthias From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Feb 22 11:26:22 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:26:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <25ne5vog5qalveg0tqshkm2blfb4r1c77r@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 01:41:21 -0000, "David Burn" wrote: >But an "agreement" is not a "method". They are supposed to tell me what >2H means, unless I can "reasonably be expected to understand". Law 40 >says so. No. The beginning of that sentence in L40B is: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, ...". If the call is not "based on a special partnership understanding", then they're not supposed to tell you what it "means" - it doesn't actually mean anything at all in the partnership, it just happens to have been made with a certain hand. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Feb 22 17:13:43 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:13:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 Message-ID: <200302221713.MAA06281@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) > 1. Is it just inferior not to realize that a card has become a winner, > or is it irrational? I'll take a shot at this one. Based on an earlier case, if "a card" is the king, and the ace has just been discarded and is face up on the table, it is irrational not to realize the king is a winner. I suppose we could construct a similar position with "a card" being the queen: king led by an opponent and ruffed, ace falls from other opponent, low from fourth hand that also holds the queen. I think most people will then realize the queen is a winner. :-) Of course it is irrational not to realize an ace is a winner. In other cases -- when higher cards have been played but are no longer visible -- it is "normal" not to realize a card is a winner. I suppose there's an exception for established long suits: with xxxx opposite AKQJ2, it is irrational not to realize the 2 is an eventual winner. I think the key point usually is what is visible on the table at the instant a critical decision must be made. However, I'd make an exception for something like xxx AKQxxx. If declarer plays one round, sees all follow, and then claims, I expect we would all allow cashing the rest of the suit even without a statement. I'm not at all sure, though, that this is inevitable if the single round of the suit had been played earlier in the hand. > 2. Is it just inferior to discard a card that constrains opponent`s > discards, lest it becomes a winner, or is it irrational? I'm not sure I understand the question, but it seems "normal" to discard any card that is not known to be a winner. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Feb 22 17:21:14 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 17:21:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <001101c2da3c$9a681300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <009701c2da96$cd52cb20$ac4327d9@pbncomputer> Marvin wrote: > No. You are entitled to know the partnership agreement, if any. Absent that, > you are entitled to know only what a call means to the caller's partner. If > he gets it wrong, that is misinformation. You are not entitled to know what > goes on in the caller's mind. But this is a regulation, not a rule, and is in any case false when screens are involved (or when the director sends a player away from the table so that the other player may explain his own call). The question remains, and has not been answered: if West thinks a call shows X, while East thinks it shows Y, what is the meaning of the call? David Burn London, England From toddz@att.net Sat Feb 22 17:39:03 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:39:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <009701c2da96$cd52cb20$ac4327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > > The question remains, and has not been answered: if > West thinks a call > shows X, while East thinks it shows Y, what is the > meaning of the call? Shouldn't it mean whatever their convention card or system notes happen to say it means, even if those references say it means Z or nothing at all? -Todd From svenpran@online.no Sat Feb 22 17:57:19 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:57:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <001101c2da3c$9a681300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <009701c2da96$cd52cb20$ac4327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <002d01c2da9b$d8339380$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "David Burn" > Marvin wrote: > > > No. You are entitled to know the partnership agreement, if any. Absent > that, > > you are entitled to know only what a call means to the caller's > partner. If > > he gets it wrong, that is misinformation. You are not entitled to know > what > > goes on in the caller's mind. > > But this is a regulation, not a rule, No, this is Law 75! > and is in any case false when > screens are involved (or when the director sends a player away from the > table so that the other player may explain his own call). > > The question remains, and has not been answered: if West thinks a call > shows X, while East thinks it shows Y, what is the meaning of the call? Law 75 has been officially interpreted as requiring the Director to rule Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaklen Bid "in the absence of evidence to the contrary" (EBL Commentgary on the Laws - 1987) So your last question can best be answered by stating that the Director shall deem the understanding by the player making the call as correct and the actual explanation given as incorrect if he cannot establish the true agreement. This question has already been answered, at least once by me. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Feb 22 18:21:54 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:21:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <016d01c2da06$78b0b220$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On 2/22/03, David Burn wrote: >Now then, Herman: I am entitled to know what system my opponents play, >am I not? That is to say, I am entitled to know that East thinks he >has shown spades while West thinks East has shown hearts, am I not? I don't presume to speak for Herman; this is my own opinion. You are entitled to know the partnership *agreement*. This partnership either (a) doesn't have an agreement about the meaning of this bid or (b) has one, but one of them has forgotten it. In the former case, explanation by *either* player that the bid means what he thinks it means is misinformation. In the latter case, the explanation of the one who has forgotten is misinformation, which presumably will be corrected by his partner at the appropriate time. >In the light of this, would you like to reconsider your position that >I am not allowed to know that my opponents are having a bidding >misunderstanding? You are allowed to figure out that they're having a misunderstanding. You are not *entitled* (by the laws) to know it. IOW, if one of *them* figures it out, he's not required to tell you (except of course if he knows that his partner's explanation is wrong, he must correct it at the appropriate time). From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Feb 22 18:56:13 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:56:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <002d01c2da9b$d8339380$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <001101c2da3c$9a681300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <009701c2da96$cd52cb20$ac4327d9@pbncomputer> <002d01c2da9b$d8339380$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:57:19 +0100, "Sven Pran" wrote: >Law 75 has been officially interpreted as requiring the Director to rule >Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaklen Bid "in the absence of >evidence to the contrary" (EBL Commentgary on the Laws - 1987) You don't even need the Commentary for that: those words are in the footnote to L75. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From nancy@dressing.org Sat Feb 22 19:05:53 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 14:05:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: Message-ID: <001701c2daa5$6c2a84a0$6501a8c0@hare> After reading much of this thread, how do we have two matching convention cards on the table. Each player must be playing the same system as his partner. Therefore, East's bids must mean the same as what West's bid would mean. Anything else is unacceptable as would a partnership understanding about the differences. Looks like some procedural penalties would apply for not knowing your system. (the your meaning the partnership) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What system do you play? > On 2/22/03, David Burn wrote: > > >Now then, Herman: I am entitled to know what system my opponents play, > >am I not? That is to say, I am entitled to know that East thinks he > >has shown spades while West thinks East has shown hearts, am I not? > > I don't presume to speak for Herman; this is my own opinion. You are > entitled to know the partnership *agreement*. This partnership either > (a) doesn't have an agreement about the meaning of this bid or (b) has > one, but one of them has forgotten it. In the former case, explanation > by *either* player that the bid means what he thinks it means is > misinformation. In the latter case, the explanation of the one who has > forgotten is misinformation, which presumably will be corrected by his > partner at the appropriate time. > > >In the light of this, would you like to reconsider your position that > >I am not allowed to know that my opponents are having a bidding > >misunderstanding? > > You are allowed to figure out that they're having a misunderstanding. > You are not *entitled* (by the laws) to know it. IOW, if one of *them* > figures it out, he's not required to tell you (except of course if he > knows that his partner's explanation is wrong, he must correct it at the > appropriate time). > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Sat Feb 22 19:11:21 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:11:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <001101c2da3c$9a681300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <009701c2da96$cd52cb20$ac4327d9@pbncomputer> <002d01c2da9b$d8339380$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003701c2daa6$2fbe1d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Jesper Dybdal" >Law 75 has been officially interpreted as requiring the Director to rule >Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaklen Bid "in the absence of >evidence to the contrary" (EBL Commentgary on the Laws - 1987) You don't even need the Commentary for that: those words are in the footnote to L75. They are indeed. I looked for them and couldn't find them in my copy of the laws. Now I discover that the footnote continues on the next page with those very words. Thanks! Sven From k.wignall@netaccess.co.nz Sun Feb 23 04:48:46 2003 From: k.wignall@netaccess.co.nz (Keith Wignall) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:48:46 +1300 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 Message-ID: <3E5852AE.3080602@netaccess.co.nz> Herman De Wael wrote: We must see that the action of claiming here is very strange, so we need to examine why it is he claimed at this point. Until we know that, there is no way we can tell what is normal and not normal for this claimer at this stage of the game. Perhaps LHO opened 1H, and has so far shown up with only 8 points outside hearts. Declarer (and everyone else at the table) "knows" that LHO has the HK. It is so obvious to finesse that declarer does not bother to state that this will be his line. Keith From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Feb 23 05:28:07 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 21:28:07 -0800 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <001101c2da3c$9a681300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <003201c2da44$717c5480$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001301c2dafc$5ce63640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Jaap van der Neut" >> Marvin: > > Absent that, > > you are entitled to know only what a call means to the caller's partner. > > You are not entitled to know what > > goes on in the caller's mind. > > That is when playing without screens. The point David raises is quite > different playing with screens then without. Because then (under current > rules) you are entitled to know what a call means to your screen mate. So > you are entitled to know what goes on in the caller's mind 50% of the time > Which only proves that the current screen geometry is dumb, as the disclosure problems are unsolvable. As David Stevenson once suggested, there should be four spaces instead of two, enabling a player to see both opponents but not partner, and to receive information from one opponent (explaining his partner's actions) without the other's knowing about it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From toddz@att.net Sun Feb 23 06:29:52 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 01:29:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <001301c2dafc$5ce63640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin French > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 12:28 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] What system do you play? > > Which only proves that the current screen geometry is > dumb, as the > disclosure problems are unsolvable. As David Stevenson > once suggested, there > should be four spaces instead of two, enabling a player > to see both opponents but not partner, I don't have to see partner to know what he's doing. > and to receive information from one opponent > (explaining his partner's actions) without the other's > knowing about it. If I can see my opponents, I know when they are conversing with my partner. I know exactly how long it takes each person to bid, who's making alerts of which bids, who's asking who else about what bids.... where's the advantage in this, again? -Todd From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Feb 23 11:06:58 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 12:06:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <001101c2da3c$9a681300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <003201c2da44$717c5480$25b54351@noos.fr> <001301c2dafc$5ce63640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3E58AB52.5040508@skynet.be> That would not solve the problem. Marvin French wrote: > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > >>>Marvin: >>>Absent that, >>>you are entitled to know only what a call means to the caller's partner. >>>You are not entitled to know what >>>goes on in the caller's mind. >>> >>That is when playing without screens. The point David raises is quite >>different playing with screens then without. Because then (under current >>rules) you are entitled to know what a call means to your screen mate. So >>you are entitled to know what goes on in the caller's mind 50% of the time >> >> > Which only proves that the current screen geometry is dumb, as the > disclosure problems are unsolvable. As David Stevenson once suggested, there > should be four spaces instead of two, enabling a player to see both > opponents but not partner, and to receive information from one opponent > (explaining his partner's actions) without the other's knowing about it. > With that set-up, a player might hear such explanations as: -asking for aces followed by -preference for diamonds That would give opponents information they are not entitled to. It's far better to have one opponent hear -asking for aces -4 or 1 and the other -asking for minors -diamond preference One of these is MI, and we solve that problem. > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sun Feb 23 17:47:52 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:47:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <001101c2da3c$9a681300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <003201c2da44$717c5480$25b54351@noos.fr> <001301c2dafc$5ce63640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <3E58AB52.5040508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c2db63$b0cf0e00$1ba227d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > > Which only proves that the current screen geometry is dumb, as the > > disclosure problems are unsolvable. As David Stevenson once suggested, there > > should be four spaces instead of two, enabling a player to see both > > opponents but not partner, and to receive information from one opponent > > (explaining his partner's actions) without the other's knowing about it. > With that set-up, a player might hear such explanations as: > -asking for aces > followed by > -preference for diamonds > > That would give opponents information they are not entitled to. This is pure circular reasoning. *Why* are they not entitled to it? Law 40 says that I am entitled, and not merely allowed, to know "the meaning" of an enemy call. Well, "the meaning" of 5D to East is "one ace", and "the meaning" of 5D to West is "diamond preference". To which of these am I not entitled, and why not? Sven and others have attempted to answer this question by reference to Law 75, where "the meaning" defaults to that intended by the maker of the call. But this is an artificial imposition, and not an answer to the question "what does the call mean?" It has also been suggested that "the meaning" is "what is on the convention card"; this is reasonable enough, for what is on the convention card has been "disclosed in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation". But in the majority of cases, a call that has two "meanings" occurs in an auction not covered by the convention card, or even the system file. > One of these is MI, and we solve that problem. Yes, but if we did things as suggested above, there would be no problem to solve. Of course, you cannot play bridge everywhere with four-way screens. But you do not have to - all you would have to assume in giving a ruling without screens is that, in cases where a call meant X to West and Y to East, North-South knew this and would act accordingly. David Burn London, England From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Feb 23 18:05:10 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 10:05:10 -0800 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: Message-ID: <000301c2db66$1cd407c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > From: Marvin French > > > Which only proves that the current screen geometry is > > dumb, as the > > disclosure problems are unsolvable. As David Stevenson > > once suggested, there > > should be four spaces instead of two, enabling a player > > to see both opponents but not partner, > > I don't have to see partner to know what he's doing. Not true, if the design is right. > > > and to receive information from one opponent > > (explaining his partner's actions) without the other's > > knowing about it. > > If I can see my opponents, I know when they are conversing with > my partner. There is no conversing, just written communication. > I know exactly how long it takes each person to bid, > who's making alerts of which bids, who's asking who else about > what bids.... where's the advantage in this, again? > The access to each opponent, visual or otherwise, would be limited, sufficient only for exchanging written information and passing calls. I think a little ingenuity could make the concept work. The key element is that a player be able to explain partner's calls to both opponents. There ought to be a way to make this possible. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Sun Feb 23 20:03:25 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:03:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <001101c2da3c$9a681300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <003201c2da44$717c5480$25b54351@noos.fr> <001301c2dafc$5ce63640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <3E58AB52.5040508@skynet.be> <000601c2db63$b0cf0e00$1ba227d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000d01c2db76$a08e9d40$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "David Burn" ......... > Sven and others have attempted to answer this question by reference to > Law 75, where "the meaning" defaults to that intended by the maker of > the call. Objection! That is not what I have said! Opponents are entitled to the agreements between the players. And this agreement shall in each case "normally" be explained by the partner of the player making the call. Law 75 footnote states that if the Director cannot establish the true agreement he shall rule mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call. The result of this is that if the true agreement cannot be established by the Director he shall rule mistaken explanation (by the partner) and thus that the player making the call has the correct understanding. The reason for this seems obviously to be that any doubt shall always be resolved in favour of the non-offending side. Bu this is not equivalent to the understanding of the call by the player making a call being the "default" agreement. Sven From toddz@att.net Sun Feb 23 20:07:33 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:07:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <000301c2db66$1cd407c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin French > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [blml] What system do you play? > > [four-way screens] > > I think a little ingenuity could make the concept work. > The key element is > that a player be able to explain partner's calls to > both opponents. There ought to be a way to make this possible. I think it's fundamentally flawed and in this day and age, with access to computers, it's possible to put players in vacuums. Is that actually desireable? -Todd From toddz@att.net Sun Feb 23 20:12:34 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:12:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <000601c2db63$b0cf0e00$1ba227d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 12:48 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] What system do you play? > > But in the majority of cases, a call that has two > "meanings" occurs in an auction > not covered by the convention card, or even the system file. But you are only entitled to know the partnership-agreed meanings of calls. I'm failing to understand your crusade to define the meaning of a bid beyond the arbitrary agreement or understanding your opponents have amongst themselves. If they have no agreement, there is no meaning and you have no entitlement. -Todd From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Feb 23 21:34:38 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:34:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> <3E56B2CA.60406@t-online.de> <015f01c2da04$a0821840$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <3E56C66C.1040502@t-online.de> Message-ID: <008d01c2db86$ae5dd200$c5c0f1c3@LNV> David: > > What matters is: does declarer have the tricks he has > > claimed? (in this case, he does not, for he has just ruffed one of > > them); can declarer fluke the number of tricks he has claimed because he > > cannot be denied them? (in this case he cannot, for the queen of clubs > > is a loser, and Law 70 is firm upon the point that declarer cannot make > > a trick with it, whatever Ton thinks). Normally your analyses are more impressive. Law 70 is not firm upon the point that in this situation declarer can not make a trick with the queen of clubs. If it was we hadn't such a huge dispute about these cases. I agree with Matthias that your opinion sometimes is written too sternly or bitter (his words), as if wisdom is yours and yours alone. I am willing too agree that wisdom is yours but other qualities you have once in a while intervene. Jaap vd Neut is joining you and his opinion about for example mine makes him say that I even don't dare to discuss these issues, just stick to my opinion. Rhetorical nonsense that is, but it shows how upset we can get discussing laws. May I try to summarize opinions once again. In your opinion a player has to suffer severely when he makes a bad claim, he looses all tricks you can let him loose. I never read why, other than that a player who doesn't claim well isn't worth the tricks he asks for. Clear approach, I have to admit. My approach is different, and I think to be in line with those who wrote the claim laws. I consider a claim as a normal part of the game. When discussing another issue Kaplan guessed that no board is played till the last trick, but claimed (conceded) before. That of course is exaggerated but it makes clear that a claim is normal, not a specialty for which a player has to straighten his back, to clear his throat, to ask attention for and to declaim a statement. '' The rest is mine'', that should do it. And now we suffer a problem, because once in a while (and in blml 99 out of 100 times, which gives this problem an inaccurate image) such a statement is disputable, opponents finding a way to win at least one trick more than claimer announced to loose. The lawmakers, not wanting to discourage claims, considering claims as part of normal bridge, decided that such a trick will go to the opponents if the evidence detected from the play up till then combined with the statement made makes it possible above a to be neglected level that such trick would be lost. Dangerous what I say now, using a new descripition, so I hasten to follow the laws again: such trick will be lost when within the sample of normal ways to play the hand out, at least one results in loosing such extra trick. 'Normal' judged with the same evidence available, the play up till the claim and the statement made (if made at all). And then dear David a declarer with 10 trumps in the combined hands, missing the K, when finessing seeing small onces appearing from both sides claiming the contract without any word spend on it, the claim including the K being caught, should get his contract. It is very difficult to take you seriously on claims when you do not agree with such decision. I agree with you that case n +1 is not that obvious. But the only reasonable approach, when I understand the laws as they are meant, is to answer the question whether it is possible that declarer would have lost a trick had play be continued in a normal way. The statement he made is useless and even could be evidence for crazy play had he continued. But we are not supposed to include such possibilities, just normal play we are asked to include. Would David Burn for example have made these tricks? Don't start saying that you never would have ruffed this diamond, I believe you, but that information is irrelevant. Judging this case we have to ignore hawks, and probably doves as well (in a previous message I used doughs for doves, while I knew the word pigeon well enough, stupid me, food for hawks again), starlings we need. Now I am tired and will try to avoid bringing up case n + 2 myself, the opinions being fixated too much. ton From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sun Feb 23 22:25:15 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:25:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> <3E56B2CA.60406@t-online.de> <015f01c2da04$a0821840$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <3E56C66C.1040502@t-online.de> <008d01c2db86$ae5dd200$c5c0f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <005901c2db8a$704d9e60$1ba227d9@pbncomputer> Ton wrote: > May I try to summarize opinions once again. > In your opinion a player has to suffer severely when he makes a bad claim, > he looses all tricks you can let him loose. I never read why, other than > that a player who doesn't claim well isn't worth the tricks he asks for. > Clear approach, I have to admit. I think that making a bad claim is analogous to pulling a wrong card (and not attempting to correct it at once, so that it becomes played). A player has to suffer when he does that. Why should he not have to suffer in the other case also? And the clarity of the approach is, in my view, a very strong argument in its favour. [snip of other points, not because I don't think they are valid, but because I want to focus on only a couple of issues here - I will return to the omitted material later] > And then dear David a declarer with 10 trumps in the combined hands, missing > the K, when finessing seeing small onces appearing from both sides claiming > the contract without any word spend on it, the claim including the K being > caught, should get his contract. It is very difficult to take you seriously > on claims when you do not agree with such decision. Oh, I don't mind it all that much. But what harm would it do for the rules to require the man to say "ace of trumps and the rest are mine"? It's not as if we were imposing a huge effort on players. > Would David Burn for example have made these tricks? Don't start saying that > you never would have ruffed this diamond, I believe you, but that > information is irrelevant. In an English trial I played in a slam, and reached this end position with hearts trumps: None 7 AJ3 None None 6 K102 None East was on lead, since I had just given him the defence's only trick. Neither defender had a heart. East led a club, and I ruffed in hand. I then showed my cards, and uttered the one word "ruff" (because I foolishly thought that I had discarded a diamond from my hand). Everyone at the table knew that I had asked dummy to ruff (as indeed I had). We all wrote down minus 100 to North-South, for I could no longer guess diamonds to make the contract. We called the director, of course, but he confirmed what we already knew. Should we not have done so? David Burn has been known to ruff his own winners, to lead from the wrong hand, to revoke, to pull the wrong card from the bidding box, to forget the system, to misexplain the bidding to the opponents, and on one horrible occasion to spill his beer. If David Burn were making the rules, then David Burn would have been shot a very long time ago. But he is still here, and he still thinks that if you make mistakes, you pay for them. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sun Feb 23 22:37:32 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:37:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: Message-ID: <006101c2db8c$280adc60$1ba227d9@pbncomputer> Todd wrote: > But you are only entitled to know the partnership-agreed meanings > of calls. I'm failing to understand your crusade to define the > meaning of a bid beyond the arbitrary agreement or understanding > your opponents have amongst themselves. I am sorry that I have not been sufficiently comprehensible. But questions of "meaning" have occupied the great philosophers for many centuries, even the ones that did not play bridge. Whether or not something "means" only what two people have arbitrarily agreed that it shall mean is unclear to me. Suppose East, my screen mate, bids 2H. "What does that mean?" I ask him. "It means I have spades", he tells me. Does his call in truth have "no meaning" simply because West does not think that East has spades? > If they have no > agreement, there is no meaning and you have no entitlement. The words "based on" cause me some difficulty. Suppose that a pair play that 1NT (Pass) 2H shows spades. Suppose further that the auction starts 1NT (Double). If East now bids 2H when he has spades, and not hearts, is he "basing his call on a special partnership understanding"? I know that, as Ton has just pointed out, I am not the most patient of people, and far too authoritarian for my own or anybody else's good. I am sorry, and will try to do better. But - unlike in the claims case - I am not crusading here. I do not know what to think about the many issues involved; what I do know is that current thinking does not seem to me consistent with the rules as they are written. So I am seeking opinions. At the same time, I am asking people to ignore custom and practice, and simply to tell me what the words I ask about mean to them irrespective of anything else they may have learned. I am grateful for all the help I have received so far, and hope that it will continue, for at the moment I am sorely puzzled. David Burn London, England From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Feb 22 12:52:49 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:52:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <000901c2db93$bfe4e600$9217e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:50 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Horrible? > > > > > > > Not that I know of. It is better to restrict our > .> >principles to those described in the laws > > >explicitly. And one of those makes clear that > > > opponents are entitled to know that a > > >misexplanation, creating a misunderstanding, > > >has occurred. > +=+ Opponents are entitled to be informed if a player believes his partner has given an incorrect or inadequate explanation. The time at which the misexplanation may be corrected is clearly specified. Only in the case of a player realizing his own explanation is incorrect is the due time to correct it whilst the auction is in progress. Even then it is not proper to speak as to the meanings of his own calls which must be explained (by his partner) in accordance with their agreed meanings. G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 24 00:35:57 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:35:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <016d01c2da06$78b0b220$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030223192215.00a71b00@pop.starpower.net> At 07:08 PM 2/21/03, David wrote: >I thought I would start a separate thread, for things have got a bit >confused of late. > >West North East South >1NT Pass 2H > >West thinks this shows hearts. East thinks it shows spades. > >Now, what system are East-West playing? Do they play that 2H shows >hearts? No, "they" do not, for one of them does not. Do they play that >2H shows spades? I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave some >moments ago. > >What they are actually playing is that for East, 2H shows spades, >whereas for West, it shows hearts. That is their actual partnership >method, such as it is. Now then, Herman: I am entitled to know what >system my opponents play, am I not? That is to say, I am entitled to >know that East thinks he has shown spades while West thinks East has >shown hearts, am I not? Surely not. You are entitled to know E-W's agreements, which, as David's example makes clear, is something very different from "what they are actually playing". For what they are actually playing to consitute an agreement, West would have to be aware that for East 2H shows spades, and East would have to be aware the for West it shows hearts. But this isn't the case, so, what they are actually playing notwithstanding, they have no agreement as to the meaning of 2H -- and that is the extent of what you are entitled to know. >In the light of this, would you like to reconsider your position that I >am not allowed to know that my opponents are having a bidding >misunderstanding? Given the knowledge that they have no agreement, you know (by virtue of the disclosure to which you are entitled) only that they are at potential risk for a bidding misunderstanding, and are free to judge for yourself whether or not they are having one, at your own risk, with no recourse to TFLB if you judge wrongly. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Feb 24 03:01:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:01:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ivory Tower Message-ID: <4A256CD7.000EB32F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Jaap wrote: [big snip] >Two solutions. One is different rules for low- >level and high-level. This is heresy of course. >On the other hand it is long reality. Certain >rules differ from one country to another and >application of certain rules is very different >depending on level. I also redeal playing a >christmas drive or whatever when they want to. In high-level competition the boards are usually computer-dealt. While at the grass-roots local club the boards are usually hand-dealt. Therefore, perhaps Law 22A could be rewritten in the 2005 Laws: "After the auction period has ended, if no player has bid, the hands are returned to the board without play. If the board was computer-dealt there shall not be a redeal. If the board was dealt by hand, and this was the first time it was played, then, if all four players agree, it may be redealt." >The other solution needs simple well written >rules. If you can hand out to newbies half a A4 >or so with the 'how to play' essentials they >know what to do. An Executive Summary at the beginning of the 2005 Laws? [big snip] Best wishes Richard From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Feb 24 08:02:33 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:02:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [ blml] claims forever, case n + 1 Message-ID: 2. You (Herman) now say for the n-th time that bidding and early play > doesn't matter > when discussing lines of play after a claim. If Herman does say so, I certainly differ in opinion. Of course the play up till then (and normally less important the auction) is relevant and Herman knows that, being able to become aware of numerous examples in which those facts did influence the decision. ton Is it possible to use the scissors once in a while? That makes reading these messages somewhat easier. From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Feb 24 07:59:35 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:59:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ivory Tower References: <4A256CD7.000EB32F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001201c2dbda$ad59eb60$25b54351@noos.fr> Richard, > If the board was > dealt by hand, and this was the first time it was > played, then, if all four players agree, it may be > redealt." The idea is ok if at really low level (they want to play like that so why stop them). But there are still serious competitions with hand dealt boards (like swiss teams). A pass-out is a result. Recently I played some tournament with a weak player. After three passes he started thinking. Then he asked the table if we would redeal after a pass out. The answer was no. He opened 1D. Opps called TD (probably to protect themselves from me using info the opening was borderline). Actually he had 21 HP and didn't know what to open on his 4441. Anyway, of course in anything resembling tournament bridge a pass-out is a pass-out. But as I said, when playing for fun I would not stop the others from redealing. If only because when I play that kind of level it is just to do someone a favor. In that context they can do anything they want. I will correct their revokes myself. I will not claim penalty cards etc. But well it has nothing to do with (tournament) bridge. It is just socializing. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ivory Tower > > > Jaap wrote: > > [big snip] > > >Two solutions. One is different rules for low- > >level and high-level. This is heresy of course. > >On the other hand it is long reality. Certain > >rules differ from one country to another and > >application of certain rules is very different > >depending on level. I also redeal playing a > >christmas drive or whatever when they want to. > > In high-level competition the boards are usually > computer-dealt. While at the grass-roots local > club the boards are usually hand-dealt. > > Therefore, perhaps Law 22A could be rewritten > in the 2005 Laws: > > "After the auction period has ended, if no player > has bid, the hands are returned to the board > without play. If the board was computer-dealt > there shall not be a redeal. If the board was > dealt by hand, and this was the first time it was > played, then, if all four players agree, it may be > redealt." > > >The other solution needs simple well written > >rules. If you can hand out to newbies half a A4 > >or so with the 'how to play' essentials they > >know what to do. > > An Executive Summary at the beginning of the 2005 > Laws? > > [big snip] > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Feb 24 08:27:23 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:27:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: Eric: > > I don't think this goes quite far enough. To have a "right to know" > that the opponents are having a misunderstanding, it must be the case > that you would have known so had you been given *only* the correct > explanation. You are not "entitled" to both the correct explanation > *and* the incorrect one assumed by the explainer (i.e. > actually given). What are we talking about? The word 'entitled' plays a too big role in this thread. Suppose I get wrong information about a call. After play the TD is called and I claim damage from this wrong information. The TD now has to consider what should (could) have happened had I known the real agreement made. And doing so he should include that I could have been aware of a misunderstanding, receiving wrong information and having the right information available as well. For example making it attractive to pass instead of making an obvious call had I only known the agreement made. This is the case I would like to have your opinion about. 1. Do you agree that the present laws lead to this approach? 2. Do you want this to be the case in future laws? ton From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Feb 24 09:16:45 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:16:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <3E59E2FD.9030005@skynet.be> Well, Ton, we don't seem to agree at all. Kooijman, A. wrote: > Eric: > > > > > What are we talking about? The word 'entitled' plays a too big role in this > thread. > I think it is the key word here. I believe it is the correct English word (I coined the usage on blml - I think - but native English speakers can tell me whether or not it is correct usage). It indicates that part of knowledge which has to be told the opponents. The minimum they will be getting redress towards. > Suppose I get wrong information about a call. > After play the TD is called and I claim damage from this wrong information. > The TD now has to consider what should (could) have happened had I known the > real agreement made. That much is true. > And doing so he should include that I could have been > aware of a misunderstanding, receiving wrong information and having the > right information available as well. For example making it attractive to > pass instead of making an obvious call had I only known the agreement made. > And that much isn't. Well, not in my opinion. Which is not my opinion as to how the laws should be, but as to how I believe the laws actually are. Which makes it doubly strange that the chairman of the WBFLC has a different view. Really Ton, I think you should consult with your co-members on the WBFLC before committing yourself here. I know you often state that something is your personal opinion only, but here I fear your personal opinion goes against the way I know many interpret the laws. > > This is the case I would like to have your opinion about. > > 1. Do you agree that the present laws lead to this approach? no > 2. Do you want this to be the case in future laws? > unchanged. Misbidders are being punished by their misbids. They should not be punished further by having their misunderstandings in plain view of opponents. Opponents have the right to know the meaning of the calls, but nothing more. > > ton > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Mon Feb 24 09:19:52 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:19:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: "Kooijman, A." Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 24/02/03 09:27 =20 Pour : "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussio= n List=20 cc :=20 Objet : RE: [blml] Horrible? Eric: >=20 > I don't think this goes quite far enough. To have a "right to know"=20 > that the opponents are having a misunderstanding, it must be the case=20 > that you would have known so had you been given *only* the correct=20 > explanation. You are not "entitled" to both the correct explanation=20 > *and* the incorrect one assumed by the explainer (i.e.=20 > actually given). What are we talking about? The word 'entitled' plays a too big role in=20 this thread. Suppose I get wrong information about a call.=20 After play the TD is called and I claim damage from this wrong=20 information. The TD now has to consider what should (could) have happened had I known=20 the real agreement made. And doing so he should include that I could have been aware of a misunderstanding, receiving wrong information and having the right information available as well. For example making it attractive to pass instead of making an obvious call had I only known the agreement=20 made.=20 This is the case I would like to have your opinion about. 1. Do you agree that the present laws lead to this approach? *** no *** 2. Do you want this to be the case in future laws?=20 *** no jpr *** ton =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Feb 24 09:21:08 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:21:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 Message-ID: ton: > > And then dear David a declarer with 10 trumps in the combined hands, > missing > > the K, when finessing seeing small onces appearing from both sides > claiming > > the contract without any word spend on it, the claim including the K > being > > caught, should get his contract. It is very difficult to take you > seriously > > on claims when you do not agree with such decision. David: > Oh, I don't mind it all that much. But what harm would it do for the > rules to require the man to say "ace of trumps and the rest are mine"? > It's not as if we were imposing a huge effort on players. So we make a distinction between the present laws and those you like to be implemented? No emanding this we don't impose a huge effort, I agree. But the real question is what to do when a player infringes those laws. And then we disagree, I don't think bridge is served by ridiculous results due to poor claim statements, even knowing that not all TD's are capable of handling such cases well. > In an English trial I played in a slam, and reached this end position > with hearts trumps: > > None > 7 > AJ3 > None > > None > 6 > K102 > None > > East was on lead, since I had just given him the defence's only trick. > Neither defender had a heart. East led a club, and I ruffed in hand. I > then showed my cards, and uttered the one word "ruff" (because I > foolishly thought that I had discarded a diamond from my > hand). Everyone > at the table knew that I had asked dummy to ruff (as indeed I had). We > all wrote down minus 100 to North-South, for I could no longer guess > diamonds to make the contract. We called the director, of > course, but he > confirmed what we already knew. Should we not have done so? Yes, you should. And if I had been the TD I would have ruled the same way under the present laws. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Feb 24 09:26:05 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:26:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Three bidding mistakes lead to 7NT made. Message-ID: <3E59E52D.4020103@skynet.be> Saturday I was called on the following auction: Kxx ATx AKTx 9x AKxx xx Ax KQJxxx 2Cl expl: weak diamonds or strong, including 23-24 NT actually systemically including the 20-21 NT. 2Di relay 2NT the strong NT 3Cl puppet 3Di 4-card major 4Cl minor suit asking 4Di intended to show 4Di, but systemically showing 4Cl (no explanation asked nor given at the table) 4NT Blackwood 5Di 3 or 0 of 5. Bidder counted the DK as a keycard, but then mistook their replies 7Cl 7NT 7NT made because QJ of hearts were well-placed. Anyone for redress ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Feb 24 09:54:05 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:54:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: ton: > > Suppose I get wrong information about a call. > > After play the TD is called and I claim damage from this > > wrong information. > > The TD now has to consider what should (could) have > > happened had I known the > > real agreement made. Herman: > > That much is true. > > And doing so he should include that I could have been > > aware of a misunderstanding, receiving wrong information > > and having the > > right information available as well. For example making it > > attractive to > > pass instead of making an obvious call had I only known the > > agreement made. > > > > > And that much isn't. > Well, not in my opinion. > Which is not my opinion as to how the laws should be, but as to how I > believe the laws actually are. > Which makes it doubly strange that the chairman of the WBFLC has a > different view. I would have used 'remarkable' instead of 'doubly strange', giving less emphasis to the suggestion that the mistake is mine, though I have to admit that this issue never has been addressed explicitly in the LC nor the drafting committee. Why are you so sure about your view being the generally accepted one? I still don't see what is wrong with my approach. Assume a wrong explanation to my partner where I know the right one. I am allowed to base my decisions on both, am I not? And a couple of days ago I gave the example that supposed declarer has to tell that partner gave a misexplanation during the auction after which the last defender passing is allowed to change his call. Once again based on both: knowing the misunderstanding and the consequences in the bidding and the existing agreement. Then you said you don't like that option in the laws, which is obvious, because it doesn't support your view but mine. > I think you should consult with your co-members on the > WBFLC before committing yourself here. > I know you often state that something is your personal opinion only, > but here I fear your personal opinion goes against the way I > know many > interpret the laws. It might be a good idea to give some names. I consider it more practical to ask them myself. > > This is the case I would like to have your opinion about. > > > > 1. Do you agree that the present laws lead to this approach? > > > 2. Do you want this to be the case in future laws? > Misbidders are being punished by their misbids. They should not be > punished further by having their misunderstandings in plain view of > opponents. Where do you find this in the laws? > Opponents have the right to know the meaning of the calls, > but nothing more. This statement sounds right but this is not the issue. Opponents have ears and receive the wrong explanation. They don't have the right to receive a wrong explanation, they receive a wrong explanation. And they are allowed to use that information. ton From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 24 10:36:58 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:36:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Three bidding mistakes lead to 7NT made. Message-ID: <5182640.1046083018394.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > Kxx > ATx > AKTx > 9x > AKxx > xx > Ax > KQJxxx > 7NT made because QJ of hearts were well-placed. > Anyone for redress ? Yes. It is not fair to expect East-West to have to defend 7NT on a deal where their opponents have two aces of diamonds and two kings of spades, and where nobody has the ace of clubs. David Burn London, England From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Mon Feb 24 08:38:28 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:38:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ivory Tower References: <4A256CD7.000EB32F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000001c2dbf3$eb5139a0$b70c893e@pc> > "After the auction period has ended, if no player > has bid, the hands are returned to the board > without play. If the board was computer-dealt > there shall not be a redeal. If the board was > dealt by hand, and this was the first time it was > played, then, if all four players agree, it may be > redealt." I can not agree with this. There is a bridge decision to be made in the pass out position, which could mean the difference between a top and a bottom. Further, the bad/good decision may have already been made by one of the first three seats, which is now going to be nullified by re-dealing. Someone may have mis-counted their hand, and a future player may psyche etc. For a club event with no master points, extra time per board and the like, then whatever they want is fine. lnb From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Feb 24 11:17:59 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:17:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <3E59FF67.8000600@skynet.be> Hello Ton, Kooijman, A. wrote: > ton: > > >>>Suppose I get wrong information about a call. >>>After play the TD is called and I claim damage from this >>>wrong information. >>>The TD now has to consider what should (could) have >>>happened had I known the >>>real agreement made. >>> > > Herman: > >>That much is true. >> > > > >>>And doing so he should include that I could have been >>>aware of a misunderstanding, receiving wrong information >>>and having the >>>right information available as well. For example making it >>>attractive to >>>pass instead of making an obvious call had I only known the >>>agreement made. >>> >>> >> >>And that much isn't. >>Well, not in my opinion. >>Which is not my opinion as to how the laws should be, but as to how I >>believe the laws actually are. >>Which makes it doubly strange that the chairman of the WBFLC has a >>different view. >> > > I would have used 'remarkable' instead of 'doubly strange', giving less > emphasis to the suggestion that the mistake is mine, though I have to admit > that this issue never has been addressed explicitly in the LC nor the > drafting committee. > I found it strange that you disagreed with me on something I thought was obvious - and doubly strange since you are in effect the chairman. I did not want to emphasise who is in error and I don't presuppose that it is you. > Why are you so sure about your view being the generally accepted one? > Because in the 15 years I've been a director I've never seen this view challenged before. I have ruled quite often this way, and no player has ever thought it strange. I have talked to fellow directors here and am not aware that they think differently. Of course a view can be generally accepted in Belgium without being necessarily true ;-), but I have met directors from other countries, and I've done a few appeals, and this issue has never come up. Maybe all this means nothing, but it is a valid explanation as to why I am reasonably confident that my view could be the correct one. > I still don't see what is wrong with my approach. Assume a wrong explanation > to my partner where I know the right one. I am allowed to base my decisions > on both, am I not? Yes you are. I've always maintained that the info is AI, but that does not equate to it being EI. I've even tried to influence regulations such that this AI becomes less likely to occur, since it is after all (IMO) non-EI. > And a couple of days ago I gave the example that supposed > declarer has to tell that partner gave a misexplanation during the auction > after which the last defender passing is allowed to change his call. Once > again based on both: knowing the misunderstanding and the consequences in > the bidding and the existing agreement. Then you said you don't like that > option in the laws, which is obvious, because it doesn't support your view > but mine. > Again, it is AI, but not EI. By having the mistake explained before the end of the bidding period, we introduce something that is not necessary for the game to proceed correctly. We did scrap the opportunity to change the lead after dummy was faced in the last update, did we not? Why not scrap this change of call too? After all, the reason why this call can be changed and not any other one is simply because of the definitions stating that the bidding period is over after the lead is faced. Why is that? Why not simply state that the bidding period is over after three passes (in turn...). > > >>I think you should consult with your co-members on the >>WBFLC before committing yourself here. >>I know you often state that something is your personal opinion only, >>but here I fear your personal opinion goes against the way I >>know many >>interpret the laws. >> > > > It might be a good idea to give some names. I consider it more practical to > ask them myself. > > I would think you knew the members of your committee. > >>Misbidders are being punished by their misbids. They should not be >>punished further by having their misunderstandings in plain view of >>opponents. >> > > > Where do you find this in the laws? > I don't. It's how I think the laws ought to be. > >>Opponents have the right to know the meaning of the calls, >>but nothing more. >> > > This statement sounds right but this is not the issue. Opponents have ears > and receive the wrong explanation. They don't have the right to receive a > wrong explanation, they receive a wrong explanation. And they are allowed to > use that information. > True, but when we want to redress that situation, we should redress to them getting the right information. Not to the right information + the knowledge of a misunderstanding. The aim of the laws is redress, not punishment. > 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 jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Mon Feb 24 11:17:22 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:17:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Three bidding mistakes lead to 7NT made. Message-ID: dalburn@btopenworld.com Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 24/02/03 11:36 =20 Pour : blml@rtflb.org cc :=20 Objet : Re: [blml] Three bidding mistakes lead to 7NT made. Herman wrote: > Kxx=20 > ATx > AKTx=20 > 9x > AKxx=20 > xx > Ax=20 > KQJxxx > 7NT made because QJ of hearts were well-placed. =20 > Anyone for redress ? Yes. It is not fair to expect East-West to have to defend 7NT on a deal=20 where their opponents have two aces of diamonds and two kings of spades,=20 and where nobody has the ace of clubs. *** i think to have resolved the first part of the puzzle by working out both=20 hands: Kxx AKTx AKxx Ax ATx 9x xx KQJxxx but i fail in the second part, to find where is hidden the infraction=20 which could lead to an adjustment of the final contract. something must be = wrong with my understanding for, with the UI of the mistaken explanations=20 of the bid, i could only adjust to a higher contract than the one which=20 was reached.=20 jpr *** David Burn London, England =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From Martin@SPASE.NL Mon Feb 24 11:36:45 2003 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:36:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Three bidding mistakes lead to 7NT made. Message-ID: <90A058367F88D611986700500454691504011B@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> > -----Original Message----- > From: dalburn@btopenworld.com [mailto:dalburn@btopenworld.com] > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 11:37 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Three bidding mistakes lead to 7NT made. > > > Herman wrote: > > > Kxx > > ATx > > AKTx > > 9x > > > AKxx > > xx > > Ax > > KQJxxx > > > 7NT made because QJ of hearts were well-placed. > > > Anyone for redress ? > > Yes. It is not fair to expect East-West to have to defend 7NT > on a deal where their opponents have two aces of diamonds and > two kings of spades, and where nobody has the ace of clubs. > > David Burn > London, England And where North must have slipped a card to South in the process as well :) -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Feb 24 11:52:49 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:52:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: ton: > > Why are you so sure about your view being the generally > accepted one? Herman: > > Because in the 15 years I've been a director I've never seen > this view > challenged before. Had I known, you would have heard before. I want to elaborate on the case presented already. case 1: wrong explanation during the bidding, restored by other opponent before play starts. possibility to change my call, which I do based on the information that there is a misunderstanding. Completely legal, resulting in a very good score. case 2: wrong explanation during the bidding not restored by other opponent before play starts, which is an infraction. (yes I am defender in both cases). I call the TD telling I am damaged by this wrong information. You are telling me now that the decision from the TD (or AC) will not include the possibility that I would have used both sources? In fact you give me a less good score than I received in case 1 in which my opponent did what he had to do? Please don't tell me that you don't like the laws as applied in case 1, because that is not the issue. Those laws we have and those laws we need to apply. And don't tell me that I am not entitled to wrong information, I now that and it is completely irrelevant. And yes I know my members in the LC, but you didn't say that my members agree with you, you said that 'many' agree with you. To be honest I am getting more doubtful about your information with every following message you send on this subject. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Feb 24 12:08:38 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:08:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Three bidding mistakes lead to 7NT made. References: Message-ID: <3E5A0B46.40405@skynet.be> jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr wrote: > > *** > i think to have resolved the first part of the puzzle by working out both > hands: > Kxx > AKTx > AKxx > Ax > > ATx > 9x > xx > KQJxxx > well done. > but i fail in the second part, to find where is hidden the infraction > which could lead to an adjustment of the final contract. something must be > wrong with my understanding for, with the UI of the mistaken explanations > of the bid, i could only adjust to a higher contract than the one which > was reached. > Why do you suppose there ought to be some infraction? The 23-24 is the only UI that I could see. > jpr > *** > > David Burn > London, England > > > __________________________________________________ > Jean-Pierre Rocafort > METEO-FRANCE > DSI/SC/D > 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis > 31057 Toulouse CEDEX > Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) > Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) > e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > > Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr > ___________________________________________________ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 24 12:13:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:13:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <008c01c2dbfe$2f4592a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> I think this comment by ton is very much to the point, describing the rights for NOS after mistaken explanation. Except for one little detail in his case 1: ton changes his last call based upon the inference that there must have been a misunderstanding between opponents. This is his privilege, and he is entitled to the information (mistaken explanation corrected) that leads to this inference. However, when he uses this inference as basis for changing his last call THAT is entirely at his own risk and he has no cause for redress if that change of call turns out to be disastrous for his side! regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A ............. > I want to elaborate on the case presented already. > > case 1: > > wrong explanation during the bidding, restored by other opponent before play > starts. possibility to change my call, which I do based on the information > that there is a misunderstanding. Completely legal, resulting in a very good > score. > > case 2: > wrong explanation during the bidding not restored by other opponent before > play starts, which is an infraction. (yes I am defender in both cases). > I call the TD telling I am damaged by this wrong information. You are > telling me now that the decision from the TD (or AC) will not include the > possibility that I would have used both sources? In fact you give me a less > good score than I received in case 1 in which my opponent did what he had to > do? > > Please don't tell me that you don't like the laws as applied in case 1, > because that is not the issue. Those laws we have and those laws we need to > apply. > > And don't tell me that I am not entitled to wrong information, I now that > and it is completely irrelevant. > > > And yes I know my members in the LC, but you didn't say that my members > agree with you, you said that 'many' agree with you. > > To be honest I am getting more doubtful about your information with every > following message you send on this subject. > > ton From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Feb 24 12:25:43 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:25:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <3E5A0F47.6070607@skynet.be> No need to be aggravated, Ton. Kooijman, A. wrote: > ton: > >>>Why are you so sure about your view being the generally >>> >>accepted one? >> > > > Herman: > >>Because in the 15 years I've been a director I've never seen >>this view >>challenged before. >> > > Had I known, you would have heard before. > I don't doubt it in the least. You asked me why I was certain and I replied. > > > > I want to elaborate on the case presented already. > > case 1: > > wrong explanation during the bidding, restored by other opponent before play > starts. possibility to change my call, which I do based on the information > that there is a misunderstanding. Completely legal, resulting in a very good > score. > Indeed, but this is a special case. Only one defender may change his call, and only one call may be changed. You use this case in order to align all the other ones. I am argueing the WBFLC change this case to align it with (my view of) all other cases. > case 2: > wrong explanation during the bidding not restored by other opponent before > play starts, which is an infraction. (yes I am defender in both cases). > I call the TD telling I am damaged by this wrong information. You are > telling me now that the decision from the TD (or AC) will not include the > possibility that I would have used both sources? In fact you give me a less > good score than I received in case 1 in which my opponent did what he had to > do? > > Please don't tell me that you don't like the laws as applied in case 1, > because that is not the issue. Those laws we have and those laws we need to > apply. > But don't try either to use that example as a reason why the other case should be dealt with in the same manner. > And don't tell me that I am not entitled to wrong information, I now that > and it is completely irrelevant. > Why is that irrelevant ? North bids 2He - he has spades and the TD will later conclude that transfer is in fact the agreement. But South does not alert (supposing that means it's natural). East bids 3Cl and plays there. East then calls the director and says "if I had known about the misunderstanding, I would not have called but would have let them play in their heart misfit". East has a similar heart and spade holding, so his argument could not be "if I had known it was spades, I would not have overcalled 3Cl". East is entitled to know that North has spades, not hearts, since such is their agreement. East is (IMO and according to your sentence above) not entitled to know that South thinks it's hearts. So to base a ruling on East knowing about the misunderstanding seems to me wrong. See what happens behind screens : East gets the right information, from North, and he has no recourse from the fact that South will misexplain to West. Or do you suggest that the ruling should be as you suggest behind screens as well : East "if I had known that South would misexplain to West, I would not have overcalled 3Cl"? Surely not. I don't believe there can be any difference in this ruling with or without screens. > > And yes I know my members in the LC, but you didn't say that my members > agree with you, you said that 'many' agree with you. > No, I said that none have disagreed with me in the past 15 years, which includes the past 5 years on blml (and I cannot recall any examples but I am certain there must have been - it's not an uncommon occurence). Your reaction in the past few days is the first one disagreeing with something I have believed for a long time. I really urge you to consult before continuing to express personal opinions that might be wrong. > To be honest I am getting more doubtful about your information with every > following message you send on this subject. > That's only too bad. > ton > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Feb 24 12:25:09 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:25:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: > > I think this comment by ton is very much to the point, > describing the rights for NOS after mistaken explanation. > > Except for one little detail in his case 1: > > ton changes his last call based upon the inference that > there must have been a misunderstanding between > opponents. This is his privilege, and he is entitled to > the information (mistaken explanation corrected) that > leads to this inference. > > However, when he uses this inference as basis for > changing his last call THAT is entirely at his own > risk and he has no cause for redress if that change > of call turns out to be disastrous for his side! > > regards Sven I agree, never wanted to suggest anything else. But this remark distracts attention from the real issue at stake here: which is nailing Herman in his inconsistency tree; he should not get all kinds of reasons not to answer the real question. ton From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 24 12:37:54 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:37:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <1640573.1046090274047.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Sven wrote: > I think this comment by ton is very much to the point, > describing the rights for NOS after mistaken explanation. > Except for one little detail in his case 1: > ton changes his last call based upon the inference that > there must have been a misunderstanding between > opponents. This is his privilege Well, if he is allowed to change his last call, why isn't he allowed to change (or to have changed) any of his other calls? What is so special about the last call in an auction? This is the kind of utterly pointless inconsistency that makes Herman's approach feel so completely wrong. A player is, in effect, allowed to make a call of "Pass", be told that his opponents have had a mix-up, and say "Well, in that case I won't pass, I will...". And yet, according to Herman, he is not allowed to say "Earlier in the auction, if I had known that my opponents were having a mix-up, I would have...". In other words, the entitlement to knowledge of an enemy misunderstanding appears to be a function of how close to the end of the auction that misunderstanding occurs. Now, even Herman must be able to see that this is complete nonsense. Mustn't he? David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 24 12:57:18 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:57:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Three bidding mistakes lead to 7NT made. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030224135302.024b9040@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:17 24/02/2003 +0100, jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr wrote: >dalburn@btopenworld.com >Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org >24/02/03 11:36 > > > Pour : blml@rtflb.org > cc : > Objet : Re: [blml] Three bidding mistakes lead to 7NT made. > > >Herman wrote: > > > Kxx > > ATx > > AKTx > > 9x > > > AKxx > > xx > > Ax > > KQJxxx > > > 7NT made because QJ of hearts were well-placed. > > > Anyone for redress ? > >Yes. It is not fair to expect East-West to have to defend 7NT on a deal >where their opponents have two aces of diamonds and two kings of spades, >and where nobody has the ace of clubs. > >*** >i think to have resolved the first part of the puzzle by working out both >hands: >Kxx >AKTx >AKxx >Ax > >ATx >9x >xx >KQJxxx > >but i fail in the second part, to find where is hidden the infraction >which could lead to an adjustment of the final contract. something must be >wrong with my understanding for, with the UI of the mistaken explanations >of the bid, i could only adjust to a higher contract than the one which >was reached. AG : you don't know Herman well enough. I'm ready to bet that he ruled "no= =20 damage" to the great furor of NS, and that he is expecting us to back his=20 view - which we will of course do. And the last part of your sentence is=20 spot on. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 24 12:59:32 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:59:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Three bidding mistakes lead to 7NT made. In-Reply-To: <3E5A0B46.40405@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030224135807.024bb9e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:08 24/02/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr wrote: > >>*** >>i think to have resolved the first part of the puzzle by working out both >>hands: >>Kxx >>AKTx >>AKxx >>Ax >>ATx >>9x >>xx >>KQJxxx > > >well done. > > >>but i fail in the second part, to find where is hidden the infraction >>which could lead to an adjustment of the final contract. something must >>be wrong with my understanding for, with the UI of the mistaken >>explanations of the bid, i could only adjust to a higher contract than >>the one which was reached. > > >Why do you suppose there ought to be some infraction? >The 23-24 is the only UI that I could see. AG : he means that, on hearing the explanation '23-24', West should have bent backwards and bid one more. But he can't. From svenpran@online.no Mon Feb 24 13:02:32 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:02:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <009601c2dc04$fe5a5cf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Kooijman, A Sven: > > I think this comment by ton is very much to the point, > > describing the rights for NOS after mistaken explanation. > > > > Except for one little detail in his case 1: > > > > ton changes his last call based upon the inference that > > there must have been a misunderstanding between > > opponents. This is his privilege, and he is entitled to > > the information (mistaken explanation corrected) that > > leads to this inference. > > > > However, when he uses this inference as basis for > > changing his last call THAT is entirely at his own > > risk and he has no cause for redress if that change > > of call turns out to be disastrous for his side! > > > > regards Sven > > > > I agree, never wanted to suggest anything else. But this remark distracts > attention from the real issue at stake here: which is nailing Herman in his > inconsistency tree; he should not get all kinds of reasons not to answer the > real question. > > ton sorry if I created any misunderstanding, I do not think my remark gives anybody any loophole to avoid the central question. My point is that a mistanken explanation is a mistaken explanation and opens a case for redress to opponents if they can show damage. Damage exists if they can show any legal alternative call they could have made subsequent to the mistaken explanation if such call could have given NOS a better final result. And it is intentional when I use the word "legal" rather than "logical" or "probable". IMO the Director has no business trying to evaluate the soundness of that alternative call by NOS, he shall accept their claim on what call they would have made having the correct information initially. A different situation exists when NOS is given the chance to change a call. Now they of course no longer have any case claiming that they would have made a different call because that is exactly what they are given the opportunity to do. And again, the Director has no business "approving" the replacing call the applicable defender wants to make. Now if a defender chose an unlucky replacing call in this situation they are in exactly the same posisiton as whenever they make unlucky calls in a regular auction. They may have made use of whatever legal information they have, they have made their call(s) and that is it. In your case 2 it is sufficient for the player to claim that given the correct information he would have chosen the alternative call he corrected to in case 1. regards Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Feb 24 13:03:48 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:03:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: dalburn@btopenworld.com [mailto:dalburn@btopenworld.com] > Verzonden: maandag 24 februari 2003 13:38 > Aan: blml@rtflb.org > Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Horrible? > > > Sven wrote: > > > I think this comment by ton is very much to the point, > > describing the rights for NOS after mistaken explanation. > > > Except for one little detail in his case 1: > > > ton changes his last call based upon the inference that > > there must have been a misunderstanding between > > opponents. This is his privilege David: > Well, if he is allowed to change his last call, why isn't he > allowed to change (or to have changed) any of his other > calls? At last an easy question, waiting for weeks now. Because the laws say so. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Feb 24 13:10:47 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:10:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 7 - was "Horrible" Message-ID: <3E5A19D7.6080209@skynet.be> I've been trying to find some examples to illustrate my points in the=20 discussion. Looking through appeals from Europeans is not easy,=20 however, since most cases are with screens. But perhaps this on=20 illustrates some point: quote: Appeal No. 7 Croatia v Luxembourg Appeals Committee: Steen M=F8ller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium),=20 Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Jean-Paul Meyer (France) Open Teams Round 9 Board 4. Dealer West. All Vulnerable. [ 7 6 ] A Q 10 8 5 { A Q 7 2 } K 2 [ A Q J 8 [ 4 2 ] J 4 3 =20 ] K { J 10 5 {=20 9 4 3 } 9 8 4 =20 } Q J 10 7 6 5 3 [ K 10 9 5 3 ] 9 7 6 2 { K 8 6 } A West North East South Renno Lamza Helling Tomic Pass 1He 3Cl 4He 4Sp Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass 5Cl 5He All Pass Comments: Three Clubs was explained by West to South as showing Spades=20 and Diamonds Contract: Five Hearts, played by North Result: 10 tricks, NS -100 The Facts: North initially put a bid of 1NT on the tray, but changed this to his=20 intended 1He. East, who was thinking of bidding 3Cl over 1NT, did the=20 same over 1He, but forgot that this was now showing Spades and=20 Diamonds. South called the Director after the bid of 5Cl, but then=20 bid 5He before the investigations were over. Subsequently it turned=20 out that East only realized his mistake when the Director asked him=20 what 3Cl meant. The Director: Investigated the Convention Card and complementary sheets and=20 discovered that 3Cl indeed showed Spades and Diamonds. This meant that=20 South had received a correct explanation. North did not get a correct=20 information about the system, but the Director ruled that North was=20 not damaged by this wrong explanation. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 40A North/South appealed. Present: All players except South, and both Captains The Players: North/South found that both players were deprived of their normal=20 bids. North has a clear Double over 4Sp, showing points, and=20 preventing South from bidding at the 5 level. East explained his mistake. He had thought some time of bidding 3Cl=20 over 1NT and when North changed his call to 1He, the decision had=20 become easier and so he did make the call. East/West had been playing=20 together for 4 years, and had been using two-suiter calls but have=20 only recently changed them to specified 2-suiters. The Committee: Agreed with the Director that North had not been damaged, and found=20 that the appeal lacked merit. The Committee's decision: Director's ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited end quote. My point is that, while North was indeed misinformed, and should have=20 received the information that 3Cl showed spades and diamonds, he was=20 not entitled to the knowledge that East had made a bidding error as well. If he had been sitting together with West, he would have interpreted=20 4Sp as a spade fit and would have had no reason to double - as the TD=20 and AC agreed. The only reason North has for doubling 4Sp is the combined knowledge=20 of the system AND East's forgetting that system. He is not entitled to=20 both these informations and when deciding upon a correction, the TD=20 and AC simply decide about the logical course of action for a North=20 with correct information =3D he would not have doubled either. --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Feb 24 13:08:40 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:08:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <1640573.1046090274047.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <009e01c2dc05$d9def510$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: To: Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > Sven wrote: > > > I think this comment by ton is very much to the point, > > describing the rights for NOS after mistaken explanation. > > > Except for one little detail in his case 1: > > > ton changes his last call based upon the inference that > > there must have been a misunderstanding between > > opponents. This is his privilege > > Well, if he is allowed to change his last call, why isn't he allowed to change (or to have changed) any of his other calls? What is so special about the last call in an auction? This is the kind of utterly pointless inconsistency that makes Herman's approach feel so completely wrong. A player is, in effect, allowed to make a call of "Pass", be told that his opponents have had a mix-up, and say "Well, in that case I won't pass, I will...". And yet, according to Herman, he is not allowed to say "Earlier in the auction, if I had known that my opponents were having a mix-up, I would have...". In other words, the entitlement to knowledge of an enemy misunderstanding appears to be a function of how close to the end of the auction that misunderstanding occurs. Now, even Herman must be able to see that this is complete nonsense. Mustn't he? > > David Burn > London, England Don't surprise me by admitting that you have overlooked Law 21B1??????? The right to change a call after mistaken information from opponents expires when your partner has made a call, and in any case at the end of the auction period. Only one player on NOS, the last one to make a call may replace his last call (only) after MI. And I see absolutely no inconsistency in the laws here. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 24 13:12:38 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:12:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224080017.009fd0e0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:41 PM 2/21/03, David wrote: >Gordon B wrote: > > > I can see some justification for your argument about "the system they > > really are playing is Player A's 2H = hearts and Player B's 2H = > > spades." This happens to be an illegal system in most of the world > >I do not care. This is to dodge the question, which is simply: what are >the opponents' methods? Whatever they are, I am allowed to know them, >n'est-ce pas? > > > I see two reasons *not* to do this. One is the "if they don't agree, >it's > > not an agreement" argument. It's a bit of a fringe position to say >that > > having no agreement is an illegal agreement. > >But an "agreement" is not a "method". They are supposed to tell me what >2H means, unless I can "reasonably be expected to understand". Law 40 >says so. Well, I cannot reasonably be expected to understand, can I? You >may tell me that if they alert I may reasonably expect one thing, and if >they don't I may reasonably expect another, but this is not so. If they >do not know, how can I reasonably be expected to know? All I can >reasonably expect is that they will tell me what they are doing. What >they are doing is playing a method in which 2H shows hearts (for one of >them) or spades (for the other). Why am I not allowed to know this? The >Law I have quoted says that I am; what Laws would you quote in support >of the view that I am not? L40B, on which David bases his argument, refers only to "a call or play based on a special partnership understanding". The majority view in this forum (with which I agree) seems to be to interpret "special partnership understanding" quite broadly; we will have little or no sympathy with a player who intentionally fails to disclose a "partnership understanding" on the grounds that it is not "special". But only David seems believe that a call or play may be based on a "special partnership understanding" when the facts show that there is no "partnership understanding" at all. The bottom line is that L40, which is titled "Partnership Understandings", is in fact about partnership understandings, not about "methods". There is no law entitling a player to full knowledge of his opponents' methods (in the sense in which David uses the term). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 24 13:18:29 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:18:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <2912177.1046092709566.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Ton wrote: > > Well, if he is allowed to change his last call, why isn't he > > allowed to change (or to have changed) any of his other > > calls? > At last an easy question, waiting for weeks now. Because the laws say so. Sorry. Ambiguous language above. What I mean by "have changed" is "have an adjudication made as if his call had been different, as it would have been had he received an explanation from both opponents". It's all right, Sven. I do know Law 21. David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 24 13:39:01 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:39:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <001701c2daa5$6c2a84a0$6501a8c0@hare> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224083321.00a7ea20@pop.starpower.net> At 02:05 PM 2/22/03, Nancy wrote: >After reading much of this thread, how do we have two matching convention >cards on the table. Each player must be playing the same system as his >partner. Therefore, East's bids must mean the same as what West's bid >would >mean. Anything else is unacceptable as would a partnership understanding >about the differences. Looks like some procedural penalties would >apply for >not knowing your system. (the your meaning the partnership) That would be applying the principle of "convention disruption", which we have discussed previously, and concluded does not exist. There is nothing in TFLB which authorizes "procedural penalties... for not knowing your system". (There are, of course, several of us -- myself not among them -- who have argued that there should be, but that's off the point.) 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 Feb 24 13:59:31 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:59:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ivory Tower In-Reply-To: <4A256CD7.000EB32F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224085419.00a71ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:01 PM 2/23/03, richard.hills wrote: >Therefore, perhaps Law 22A could be rewritten >in the 2005 Laws: > >"After the auction period has ended, if no player >has bid, the hands are returned to the board >without play. If the board was computer-dealt >there shall not be a redeal. If the board was >dealt by hand, and this was the first time it was >played, then, if all four players agree, it may be >redealt." Could be, but absolutely should not be, for two reasons: (1) There is no justification for allowing the pairs at one table, who have each received a score of 0 for a passed-out board, to be given a second chance to improve their score by substituting another deal, at the expense of pairs at other tables who might be able, by virtue of their superior skill, judgment or methods, to obtain a plus score on the original deal, just because they happened to have played the original board at the table at which it was dealt. (2) There is no reason to (and good reason not to) introduce into the laws a precedent by which any valid score, legally arrived at, with no irregularity or violation of law involved, should not stand as obtained. 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 Feb 24 14:00:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:00:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 7 - was "Horrible" References: <3E5A19D7.6080209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00c801c2dc0d$0b757d90$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" I've been trying to find some examples to illustrate my points in the discussion. Looking through appeals from Europeans is not easy, however, since most cases are with screens. But perhaps this on illustrates some point: Sven: I have an enormous problem seeing the relevance even without attempting to decipher the hands. "Everybody" seem convinced that East has made a misbid and that West has given opponent(s) the correct explanation? If screens were in use then North has received explanation from East, this information must have been wrong, but can hardly have damaged North as the explanation at least matched East's hand. With screens I believe there are special regulations that more or less override many of the laws (at least that is how we have in Norway), so I doubt if any AC decision from cases with screens can be applicable to the question we discuss here. Sven Herman's example: quote: Appeal No. 7 Croatia v Luxembourg Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Jean-Paul Meyer (France) Open Teams Round 9 Board 4. Dealer West. All Vulnerable. [ 7 6 ] A Q 10 8 5 { A Q 7 2 } K 2 [ A Q J 8 [ 4 2 ] J 4 3 ] K { J 10 5 { 9 4 3 } 9 8 4 } Q J 10 7 6 5 3 [ K 10 9 5 3 ] 9 7 6 2 { K 8 6 } A West North East South Renno Lamza Helling Tomic Pass 1He 3Cl 4He 4Sp Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass 5Cl 5He All Pass Comments: Three Clubs was explained by West to South as showing Spades and Diamonds Contract: Five Hearts, played by North Result: 10 tricks, NS -100 The Facts: North initially put a bid of 1NT on the tray, but changed this to his intended 1He. East, who was thinking of bidding 3Cl over 1NT, did the same over 1He, but forgot that this was now showing Spades and Diamonds. South called the Director after the bid of 5Cl, but then bid 5He before the investigations were over. Subsequently it turned out that East only realized his mistake when the Director asked him what 3Cl meant. The Director: Investigated the Convention Card and complementary sheets and discovered that 3Cl indeed showed Spades and Diamonds. This meant that South had received a correct explanation. North did not get a correct information about the system, but the Director ruled that North was not damaged by this wrong explanation. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 40A North/South appealed. Present: All players except South, and both Captains The Players: North/South found that both players were deprived of their normal bids. North has a clear Double over 4Sp, showing points, and preventing South from bidding at the 5 level. East explained his mistake. He had thought some time of bidding 3Cl over 1NT and when North changed his call to 1He, the decision had become easier and so he did make the call. East/West had been playing together for 4 years, and had been using two-suiter calls but have only recently changed them to specified 2-suiters. The Committee: Agreed with the Director that North had not been damaged, and found that the appeal lacked merit. The Committee's decision: Director's ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited end quote. My point is that, while North was indeed misinformed, and should have received the information that 3Cl showed spades and diamonds, he was not entitled to the knowledge that East had made a bidding error as well. If he had been sitting together with West, he would have interpreted 4Sp as a spade fit and would have had no reason to double - as the TD and AC agreed. The only reason North has for doubling 4Sp is the combined knowledge of the system AND East's forgetting that system. He is not entitled to both these informations and when deciding upon a correction, the TD and AC simply decide about the logical course of action for a North with correct information = he would not have doubled either. -- 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 Feb 24 14:13:25 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:13:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Alertable or not In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030211122752.00a7cd80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On a recent post about trial bids it was stated that a "natural" rebid in a suit of 3 or more cards is not alertable. Personally I thought ANY bid which conveys extra information to pd which the opponents are entitled to know is alertable. The following sequence is now fairly common in expert circles 1D/1H 1M 2C The 2C's can be 3 card up to 17 and is forcing for 1 round. Is this alertable ?? K. From jrhind@therock.bm Mon Feb 24 14:09:12 2003 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:09:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] MI in IMP? In-Reply-To: <002d01c2d274$fbce8450$9522e150@endicott> Message-ID: Here is from a Pairs event with IMP scoring. Bd: 23 Dlr: S Vul: All Pairs with IMP scoring using screens 9432 J975 T KQ86 JT865 - T86 Q3 Q42 AKJ75 T9 J75432 AKQ7 AK42 9863 A =20 N E S W 1C* P 1C =3D Precision 16+HCP 1D* 1NT Dbl P 1D =3D 0-7 HCP P 2C 3C P 3NT All Pass =20 East explained 1NT to North as being for the minors. West explained 1NT to South as being natural. South doubled 1NT for penalties and South was happy to accept. Over 2C, South bid 3C assuming that this would show the majors o= r at least elicit a major from North. West assumed the 2C was stayman and was intending to bid 2S. North assumed that 3C was inviting to play 3NT with clubs stopped. The DA was led and declarer went down one. At this point the differing bids was discovered and the director was summoned to make a ruling. The Director ruled that N/S keep their score since they had every opportunity to make a contract that would have awarded them the same IMPs as 4H/4S and adjusted the E/W to =AD620. Do you agree with this ruling? If not, why? Please suggest a better ruling. Regards, =20 Jack From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 24 14:12:23 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:12:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224090249.00a73b60@pop.starpower.net> At 03:27 AM 2/24/03, Kooijman wrote: >Eric: > > > I don't think this goes quite far enough. To have a "right to know" > > that the opponents are having a misunderstanding, it must be the case > > that you would have known so had you been given *only* the correct > > explanation. You are not "entitled" to both the correct explanation > > *and* the incorrect one assumed by the explainer (i.e. > > actually given). > >What are we talking about? The word 'entitled' plays a too big role in >this >thread. > >Suppose I get wrong information about a call. >After play the TD is called and I claim damage from this wrong >information. >The TD now has to consider what should (could) have happened had I >known the >real agreement made. And doing so he should include that I could have been >aware of a misunderstanding, receiving wrong information and having the >right information available as well. For example making it attractive to >pass instead of making an obvious call had I only known the agreement >made. He should not "include that [you] could have been aware of a misunderstanding, receiving wrong information and having the right information available as well". He should consider only what would have happened had you been correctly informed, i.e. not receiving wrong information but having the right information available *instead*, not "as well". >This is the case I would like to have your opinion about. > >1. Do you agree that the present laws lead to this approach? No. The laws require that you be given correct information about partnership agreements; they do not require that you be informed that a player has forgotten (or for some other reason violated) one of those agreements. When there is a problem, the TD must determine what might have happened had you been given (only!) what the laws require. >2. Do you want this to be the case in future laws? At the moment I tend to be content with the laws on the subject as I interpret them, but I will be reading the remainder of this thread with an open mind, and could be convinced otherwise. 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 Feb 24 14:49:04 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:49:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224093425.009fbe50@pop.starpower.net> At 04:54 AM 2/24/03, Kooijman wrote: >I still don't see what is wrong with my approach. Assume a wrong >explanation >to my partner where I know the right one. I am allowed to base my >decisions >on both, am I not? It is meaningless to ask us to "assume a wrong explanation to [your] partner where [you] know the right one". Only you can assume that; anyone else can only "assume what you believe to be a wrong explanation to your partner where you believe you know the right one". You are of course allowed to base your decisions on what you believe, so there is no problem if it is correct (Ton's "assumption"). But you neither deserve nor are entitled to redress if what you believe is wrong. IOW, you are allowed to base your decisions on both the assumption of a wrong explanation to your partner and the assumption that you know the right one, but you do so at your own risk; the Law will (should) not protect you if you are wrong. 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 Feb 24 15:05:58 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:05:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224083321.00a7ea20@pop.starpower.net> References: <001701c2daa5$6c2a84a0$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030224160339.00a94010@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:39 24/02/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:05 PM 2/22/03, Nancy wrote: > >>After reading much of this thread, how do we have two matching convention >>cards on the table. Each player must be playing the same system as his >>partner. Therefore, East's bids must mean the same as what West's bid would >>mean. Anything else is unacceptable as would a partnership understanding >>about the differences. Looks like some procedural penalties would apply for >>not knowing your system. (the your meaning the partnership) > >That would be applying the principle of "convention disruption", which we >have discussed previously, and concluded does not exist. There is nothing >in TFLB which authorizes "procedural penalties... for not knowing your >system". (There are, of course, several of us -- myself not among them -- >who have argued that there should be, but that's off the point.) AG : what about L74A2 and L74B1 ? Convention disruption is not an infraction per se, but it spoils the game. The penalty could of course be disallowance to play any convention in which there have been two disruptions in a short period. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 24 15:10:41 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:10:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ivory Tower In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224085419.00a71ec0@pop.starpower.net> References: <4A256CD7.000EB32F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030224160631.00aa1340@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:59 24/02/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 10:01 PM 2/23/03, richard.hills wrote: > >>Therefore, perhaps Law 22A could be rewritten >>in the 2005 Laws: >> >>"After the auction period has ended, if no player >>has bid, the hands are returned to the board >>without play. If the board was computer-dealt >>there shall not be a redeal. If the board was >>dealt by hand, and this was the first time it was >>played, then, if all four players agree, it may be >>redealt." > >Could be, but absolutely should not be, for two reasons: > >(1) There is no justification for allowing the pairs at one table, who >have each received a score of 0 for a passed-out board, to be given a >second chance to improve their score by substituting another deal, at the >expense of pairs at other tables who might be able, by virtue of their >superior skill, judgment or methods, to obtain a plus score on the >original deal, just because they happened to have played the original >board at the table at which it was dealt. > >(2) There is no reason to (and good reason not to) introduce into the laws >a precedent by which any valid score, legally arrived at, with no >irregularity or violation of law involved, should not stand as obtained. AG : please allow me to add (3) There is no justification for disallowing a player to win points, of whichever sort, by cleverly passing where lesser peones will open and gather a minus score. In one Belgian competition, a redeal is prescribed when both tables have passed out. Which at least eliminates (1) and (3). But the ritual of asking "did you play them all" before the match is completed passes UI from table to table. It shouldn't happen. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Feb 24 15:21:27 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:21:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <1640573.1046090274047.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E5A3877.9000909@skynet.be> This is getting very close to "if it comes from Herman, it must be wrong". dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > Well, if he is allowed to change his last call, why isn't he allowed to change (or to have changed) any of his other calls? What is so special about the last call in an auction? This is the kind of utterly pointless inconsistency that makes Herman's approach feel so completely wrong. A player is, in effect, allowed to make a call of "Pass", be told that his opponents have had a mix-up, and say "Well, in that case I won't pass, I will...". And yet, according to Herman, he is not allowed to say "Earlier in the auction, if I had known that my opponents were having a mix-up, I would have...". In other words, the entitlement to knowledge of an enemy misunderstanding appears to be a function of how close to the end of the auction that misunderstanding occurs. Now, even Herman must be able to see that this is complete nonsense. Mustn't he? > Why are David's comments always turned into a 800 characters long sentence in my mailer? Well, must be my fault, as usual. I'll copy instead: D: Well, if he is allowed to change his last call, why isn't he allowed to change (or to have changed) any of his other calls? H: Let me turn that upside down: If he is not allowed to shange his other calls, why should he be allowed to change the last one? D: What is so special about the last call in an auction? This is the kind of utterly pointless inconsistency that makes Herman's approach feel so completely wrong. H:This is the kind of utterly pointless incosistence that make the laws feel so completely wrong. D:A player is, in effect, allowed to make a call of "Pass", be told that his opponents have had a mix-up, and say "Well, in that case I won't pass, I will...". And yet, according to Herman, he is not allowed to say "Earlier in the auction, if I had known that my opponents were having a mix-up, I would have...". In other words, the entitlement to knowledge of an enemy misunderstanding appears to be a function of how close to the end of the auction that misunderstanding occurs. Now, even Herman must be able to see that this is complete nonsense. Mustn't he? H:Yes he must. The laws are nonsense. Where have I heard that one before? Sorry David, but when I read this, I am getting again very close to quitting. Which you might think is a good thing, but you won't get very far by shouting to an empty audience. > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Feb 24 15:27:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:27 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] MI in IMP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Here is from a Pairs event with IMP scoring. > > Bd: 23 Dlr: S Vul: All > Pairs with IMP scoring using screens > > 9432 > J975 > T > KQ86 > > JT865 - > T86 Q3 > Q42 AKJ75 > T9 J75432 > > AKQ7 > AK42 > 9863 > A > > > > N E S W > 1C* P 1C = Precision 16+HCP > 1D* 1NT Dbl P 1D = 0-7 HCP > P 2C 3C P > 3NT All Pass > > East explained 1NT to North as being for the minors. West explained 1NT > to South as being natural. South doubled 1NT for penalties and South was > happy to accept. Over 2C, South bid 3C assuming that this would show the > majors or at least elicit a major from North. West assumed the 2C was > stayman and was intending to bid 2S. North assumed that 3C was inviting > to play 3NT with clubs stopped. It looks to me that North got a correct explanation (not sure, but if I had agreed UNT then that is how I would take it). It also looks as though South had guessed what was going on when he bid 3C. Since the MI appears not to have affected the auction "result stands" seems OK. Tim From ethemu@ixir.com Thu Feb 20 22:27:25 2003 From: ethemu@ixir.com (Ethem Urkac) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:27:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <028a01c2d92f$41ae0890$add2fdd4@ethemhome> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0287_01C2D940.01BD9050 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable again i cant receive mails can you please reactivate my membership. Thanking in advance ------=_NextPart_000_0287_01C2D940.01BD9050 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
again i cant receive mails can you = please=20 reactivate my membership.
 
Thanking in advance
 
------=_NextPart_000_0287_01C2D940.01BD9050-- From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Feb 21 16:39:05 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:39:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 Message-ID: <8253191.1045845545954.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> ------=_Part_51093_4725602.1045845545949 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Herman wrote: >David, apparently we have a totally different view of this case, Perhaps. >H:This is where we disagree. You call this person a deluded individual. I call him a malfortunate who happens to show his SQ while issuing a perfectly valid claim statement. Well, well. There appears to be some doubt about the reality of the whole thing. But I understood that declarer had ruffed a diamond with the queen of spades. Certainly, it appeared that he had played the queen of spades before he started claiming any tricks, and everyone at the table believed with good reason that the queen of spades was the card he was playing to the current trick. In that case, he does not make the jack of diamonds *even though it was part of his claim statement*. If it were the case that declarer had in fact been claiming the queen of spades, not ruffing with it, then (perhaps) he would be entitled to five tricks. But I found no such suggestion in Ton's original post. The question was not whether five tricks went to declarer in any case, but whether declarer would be allowed five tricks by means of the club finesse. For that to be an issue, he must be considered to have ruffed the diamond (otherwise, of course, his claim is perfectly valid and there is nothing whatever to discuss). So we proceed on the basis that he has ruffed that diamond. Does he now get the queen of clubs? > No David, your impression of players is wrong - not our claim laws. My impression of players? Herman, I have myself played an entire hand on the basis that I (and not dummy) still had a card that I had parted with at trick one. I have seen players ask for cards that are not in the dummy, not because of a slip of the tongue but because they genuinely believed that dummy still had the card several tricks (not "one second") after it was played. I have seen a man follow to dummy's eight of hearts with... the eight of hearts (from the other board), and *none* of the players at the table realised that anything was amiss. Herman, I play bridge in the real world, where players make mistakes. They are not "irrational" mistakes - they are the kind of clumsiness to which people are prone fom time to time. But you (and Matthias) do not play bridge in the real world at all. For you, a man who has made a mistake suddenly becomes a man incapable of making further mistakes, or of persisting in his original error. For you, a man who has just discarded a winner will notice at once that he has just discarded a winner, and will now by some magical process be transformed into the Reasonable Man of legal fiction, so that he will not discard any more winners, or make any more false assumptions, technical errors, or careless mistakes in the play of the hand. It is not so, Herman. Someone who claims does not suddenly become a perfect human being. And someone who misclaims, and is therefore known to be an imperfect human being with a faulty perception of reality, does not suddenly become someone incapable of further error. I know what bridge players are. And the kind you imagine when you make your claim rulings and state your "principles" does not exist. David Burn London, England ------=_Part_51093_4725602.1045845545949-- From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 24 15:08:01 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:08:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <7608442.1046099281576.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> ------=_Part_4415_2716131.1046099281573 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric wrote: > No. The laws require that you be given correct information about partnership agreements So you keep saying. But it is not true. The word "agreements" appears nowhere in Law 40; it appears in Law 75, but Law 75 does not supersede Law 40 and is irrelevant for present purposes. Law 40 requires that I be given correct information about the meaning of any call based on a [special] partnership understanding. Now, there is a difference between an "understanding" and an "agreement". If I use a word such as "chair", I am pretty sure that you and I will have a mutual understanding as to its meaning, but we have never agreed that this is what it means. You see, we speak the same language, to the extent that if I were to send you a message containing the single word "chair", you would be mystified as to why I was doing this, but you would at least understand that I referred to an item of furniture, whereas Alain might wonder why I appeared to be obsessed with flesh. What is a "partnership understanding"? Of course, the term includes explicit agreements such as "we will play transfers after we open 1NT". But it includes a number of other things as well - partnership experience, style, philosophy, and so forth, about which no explicit agreement exists. All of these things, however, form what I have described as "partnership method" - the way in which a partnership goes about playing the game. Within our partnership language, I may invent a new sentence. Because we both know that the sentence "1NT (Pass) 2H" means "one of us has 15-17; one of our opponents does not want to bid; the partner of the hand with 15-17 has five or more spades", I may hope that you will realise that the sentence "1NT (Double) 2H" means "one of us has 15-17; one of our opponents does not think we will make 1NT; the partner of the hand with 15-17 has five or more spades". I base this hope on our understanding about another sequence. Now, "the meaning" of 2H according to me is that I have spades. If you reason as I hope, then you will also think I have spades, and we may say that 2H in this sequence (or sentence) "means" that the caller has spades. Suppose, however, that we both play 1NT (2D) 2H as hearts, and we both know it. Now, you may construe my new sentence as follows: "one of us has 15-17; one of our opponents has made a non-pass; in situations where the opponents do not pass over 1NT our calls are natural; so that one of us has five or more hearts." You base this interpretation on our understanding about another sequence. Now, the "meaning" of 2H according to you is that I have hearts. Unfortunately... The laws say nothing about agreements. The laws talk only of understandings. And the law does not say "a player may not make a call that is the subject of an understanding..." they say "...based on an understanding...". Of course, in respect of this call of 2H, we do not understand one another, for we are basing our reasoning on different premises. But to each of us, the call has a meaning, and it is a meaning based on an understanding (albeit a different understanding in each case). If your call is based on an understanding, I am allowed to know what it means. And if one of you extracts a meaning based on one understanding, while the other extracts a different meaning based on a different understanding, then I am allowed to know that as well. That is what the words say. Of course, it may not be what they mean... David Burn London, England ------=_Part_4415_2716131.1046099281573-- From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 24 15:43:07 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:43:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <7614579.1046101387589.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > This is getting very close to "if it comes from Herman, it must be wrong". Tricky one, this. If I agree with it, I will be accused of victimising Herman. If I don't agree with it, I will be asserting that Herman is once again wrong. Better not to comment, perhaps. > H: Let me turn that upside down: > If he is not allowed to change his other calls, why should he be allowed to change the last one? Either viewpoint is tenable, of course. But the current position is, as we both seem to agree, bonkers; you should be allowed to "change" all or none of your calls. Which makes more sense? To say that you are allowed to change all of your calls means that you are allowed (the effects of) complete information as to what your opponents are doing in the auction; this is clearly a major advantage wrt the current position. To say that you are allowed to change none of them means that you are not allowed (the effects of) complete information as to what your opponents are doing in the auction; this is a major disadvantage wrt the current position. When will this matter, anyway? Only when your opponents are doing something wrong, by not telling you what their method is. It seems more equitable to me that you should be advantaged, and not disadvantaged, when your opponents do something wrong. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 24 16:02:10 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:02:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224090249.00a73b60@pop.starpower.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030224165909.00aa4a00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:12 24/02/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >He should not "include that [you] could have been aware of a >misunderstanding, receiving wrong information and having the right >information available as well". He should consider only what would have >happened had you been correctly informed, i.e. not receiving wrong >information but having the right information available *instead*, not "as >well". > >>This is the case I would like to have your opinion about. >> >>1. Do you agree that the present laws lead to this approach? > >No. The laws require that you be given correct information about >partnership agreements; they do not require that you be informed that a >player has forgotten (or for some other reason violated) one of those >agreements. When there is a problem, the TD must determine what might >have happened had you been given (only!) what the laws require. AG : suppose there were screens. East opens 2H and doesn't alert. Later he realizes the bid means something else and must volunteer the information. Now South knows about both the meaning and the misunderstanding. I don't see why he wouldn't be allowed to use this information. From henk@ripe.net Mon Feb 24 15:51:33 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:51:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <028a01c2d92f$41ae0890$add2fdd4@ethemhome> Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Ethem Urkac wrote: > again i cant receive mails can you please reactivate my membership. Done, may I suggest that you ask your ISP to increase your disk quota for incoming mail? What happens is that you receive so much mail that any new mails are rejected, and if the list cannot send mail successfully for 5 days, it will set your account to "don't send mail". Henk > > Thanking in advance > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Mon Feb 24 15:53:56 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:53:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Three bidding mistakes lead to 7NT made. Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner 24/02/03 13:57 =20 Pour : jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr cc : blml@rtflb.org Objet : Re: [blml] Three bidding mistakes lead to 7NT made. At 12:17 24/02/2003 +0100, jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr wrote: >dalburn@btopenworld.com >Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org >24/02/03 11:36 > > > Pour : blml@rtflb.org > cc : > Objet : Re: [blml] Three bidding mistakes lead to 7NT made. > > >Herman wrote: >*** >i think to have resolved the first part of the puzzle by working out both >hands: >Kxx >AKTx >AKxx >Ax > >ATx >9x >xx >KQJxxx > >but i fail in the second part, to find where is hidden the infraction >which could lead to an adjustment of the final contract. something must=20 be >wrong with my understanding for, with the UI of the mistaken explanations >of the bid, i could only adjust to a higher contract than the one which >was reached. AG : you don't know Herman well enough. I'm ready to bet that he ruled "no = damage" to the great furor of NS, and that he is expecting us to back his=20 view - which we will of course do. And the last part of your sentence is=20 spot on. *** i had the same feelings as you, and as herman is having a bad way in some=20 other polemic threads with rude opponents, without even trying to=20 proselytise in his famous school, i felt the need to oblige.=20 jpr *** =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 24 16:35:15 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:35:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 In-Reply-To: <8253191.1045845545954.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030224172509.00a9b390@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:39 21/02/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >My impression of players? Herman, I have myself played an entire hand on >the basis that I (and not dummy) still had a card that I had parted with >at trick one. I have seen players ask for cards that are not in the dummy, >not because of a slip of the tongue but because they genuinely believed >that dummy still had the card several tricks (not "one second") after it >was played. I have seen a man follow to dummy's eight of hearts with... >the eight of hearts (from the other board), and *none* of the players at >the table realised that anything was amiss. AG : I will surprise you both : you are both right (will it be unbearable for either ?). Base your decision on your impression of the players and theiri ntents ? Sure. Decide that declarer in this deal is of the type that gazes at flying cows ? Certainly not absurd on hearing his claim, and if it is your perception of him, then David is absolutely right. There is, however, a substantial probability that this judgment is unfaithful. Even excluding the case where the SQ was claimed rather than played, there is also the case where declarer pulled the wrong card. In this case, he would probably have realized it before it's too late (for making the club finesse), if only because somebody would have told him he was in his hand. If (and only if) you have solid ground to believe in the slip of the finger (declerer's facial expression on seeing the Queen, perhaps), then a whole new discussion begins, and I'm not sure how I would rule. Best regards, Alain. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Feb 24 16:27:26 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:27:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 7 - was "Horrible" Message-ID: <200302241627.LAA12297@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > If screens were in use then North has received explanation from > East, this information must have been wrong, but can hardly have > damaged North as the explanation at least matched East's hand. Without at the moment commenting on the rest of the thread, let me just say that the last bit is wrong. There are several appeals decisions on point, although it would take me some time to dig out the exact references. One example I remember was a cashout situation against a slam. One defender had received a correct explanation of the declaring side's agreement, but the other had received a different explanation that matched declarer's hand. If both defenders had received the same explanation -- either one! -- the slam would have been defeated routinely. As it was, the defense went wrong while doing nothing "irrational, wild, or gambling." Of course they got redress for the MI. This was in an international event several years ago. The other case I remember was the controversial one in (I think) the 2001 Reisinger. The actual defense was rather silly and could possibly have been judged IWoG (although the AC considered that and decided not), but there is little doubt that with correct information, the contract would have been defeated. (The player who made the silly play would never have done so if he had been told the true partnership agreement. Unfortunately, he was told declarer's hand, and his partner did not have the same information.) The case provoked a great outcry but only because people unfamiliar with the laws fixated on the poor defense instead of considering what would have happened absent MI. The underlying point, of course, is that a wrong explanation that happens to match the actual hand is still MI. The TD's duty is to examine what would have happened if correct information had been given and give redress if that result is more favorable to the NOS. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Feb 24 16:30:02 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:30:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <200302241630.LAA12303@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Damage exists if they can show any legal alternative call they could > have made subsequent to the mistaken explanation if such call could > have given NOS a better final result. And it is intentional when I use > the word "legal" rather than "logical" or "probable". Sorry, it seems to be my day for disagreeing with Sven. I don't understand this. If the TD assigns an adjusted score, he has to look decide on "likely" and "at all probable" results (L12C2). I don't see why such a score should include legal but wildly unlikely possibilities. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 24 16:50:08 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:50:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 7 - was "Horrible" In-Reply-To: <200302241627.LAA12297@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030224174724.00aa2a10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:27 24/02/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Sven Pran" > > If screens were in use then North has received explanation from > > East, this information must have been wrong, but can hardly have > > damaged North as the explanation at least matched East's hand. > >Without at the moment commenting on the rest of the thread, let me just >say that the last bit is wrong. There are several appeals decisions on >point, although it would take me some time to dig out the exact >references. > >One example I remember was a cashout situation against a slam. One >defender had received a correct explanation of the declaring side's >agreement, but the other had received a different explanation that >matched declarer's hand. If both defenders had received the same >explanation -- either one! -- the slam would have been defeated >routinely. As it was, the defense went wrong while doing nothing >"irrational, wild, or gambling." Of course they got redress for the >MI. AG : there is a very plausible case where this could occur. Suppose you play different kinds of signals according to the type of hand declarer has (this is allowed). Then you could mix up your signals and give the contract, while either explanation would have solved your problem. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 24 16:48:14 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:48:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <7608442.1046099281576.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224114121.00a85ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:08 AM 2/24/03, dalburn wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > No. The laws require that you be given correct information about > partnership agreements > >So you keep saying. But it is not true. The word "agreements" appears >nowhere in Law 40; it appears in Law 75, but Law 75 does not supersede >Law 40 and is irrelevant for present purposes. > >Law 40 requires that I be given correct information about the meaning >of any call based on a [special] partnership understanding. > >Now, there is a difference between an "understanding" and an >"agreement". If I use a word such as "chair", I am pretty sure that >you and I will have a mutual understanding as to its meaning, but we >have never agreed that this is what it means. You see, we speak the >same language, to the extent that if I were to send you a message >containing the single word "chair", you would be mystified as to why I >was doing this, but you would at least understand that I referred to >an item of furniture, whereas Alain might wonder why I appeared to be >obsessed with flesh. > >What is a "partnership understanding"? Of course, the term includes >explicit agreements such as "we will play transfers after we open >1NT". But it includes a number of other things as well - partnership >experience, style, philosophy, and so forth, about which no explicit >agreement exists. All of these things, however, form what I have >described as "partnership method" - the way in which a partnership >goes about playing the game. > >Within our partnership language, I may invent a new sentence. Because >we both know that the sentence "1NT (Pass) 2H" means "one of us has >15-17; one of our opponents does not want to bid; the partner of the >hand with 15-17 has five or more spades", I may hope that you will >realise that the sentence "1NT (Double) 2H" means "one of us has >15-17; one of our opponents does not think we will make 1NT; the >partner of the hand with 15-17 has five or more spades". I base this >hope on our understanding about another sequence. Now, "the meaning" >of 2H according to me is that I have spades. If you reason as I hope, >then you will also think I have spades, and we may say that 2H in this >sequence (or sentence) "means" that the caller has spades. > >Suppose, however, that we both play 1NT (2D) 2H as hearts, and we both >know it. Now, you may construe my new sentence as follows: "one of us >has 15-17; one of our opponents has made a non-pass; in situations >where the opponents do not pass over 1NT our calls are natural; so >that one of us has five or more hearts." You base this interpretation >on our understanding about another sequence. Now, the "meaning" of 2H >according to you is that I have hearts. Unfortunately... > >The laws say nothing about agreements. The laws talk only of >understandings. And the law does not say "a player may not make a call >that is the subject of an understanding..." they say "...based on an >understanding...". Of course, in respect of this call of 2H, we do not >understand one another, for we are basing our reasoning on different >premises. But to each of us, the call has a meaning, and it is a >meaning based on an understanding (albeit a different understanding in >each case). If your call is based on an understanding, I am allowed to >know what it means. And if one of you extracts a meaning based on one >understanding, while the other extracts a different meaning based on a >different understanding, then I am allowed to know that as well. > >That is what the words say. Of course, it may not be what they mean... But the laws to not talk of "understandings" in a vacuum; in fact they talk only of "partnership understandings". To me, "partnership understanding" means "that which is understood by the partnership". In the language I speak, an understanding on the part of one member of a partnership, not shared by the other, is not a "partnership understanding". If my understanding is that 2H shows hearts, and David's is that 2H shows spades, we do not have a mutual (or "partnership", if we happen to be one) understanding. We have two separate and different understandings, which is not the same thing at all. 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 Feb 24 17:01:25 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:01:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <7614579.1046101387589.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224115045.00a7d0a0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:43 AM 2/24/03, dalburn wrote: >Herman wrote: > > > This is getting very close to "if it comes from Herman, it must be > wrong". > >Tricky one, this. If I agree with it, I will be accused of victimising >Herman. If I don't agree with it, I will be asserting that Herman is >once again wrong. Better not to comment, perhaps. > > > H: Let me turn that upside down: > > If he is not allowed to change his other calls, why should he be > allowed to change the last one? > >Either viewpoint is tenable, of course. But the current position is, >as we both seem to agree, bonkers; you should be allowed to "change" >all or none of your calls. Which makes more sense? I disagree with David's characterization of the current position as "bonkers", which, I note, compels him, in order to make his argument, to put the word "change" in quotes. There is a vast difference between allowing a player to make an *actual* change in his call, at his own risk, getting whatever result is achieved as the result of the changed call, and "allowing" (assuming) him to make a *presumptive* (retrospective) "change" in his call to whatever call would have led to "the most favorable result that was likely". I do not wish to argue that the current state of the law in this context is ideal, but one can make the case for allowing a player to "change" his call when he can do so in the former (literal) sense but not in the latter (figurative) one. Doing so may not be such a good idea (I tend towards Herman's view, that we'd be better off not allowing either), but it is hardly insane. 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 Feb 24 17:14:37 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:14:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <7608442.1046099281576.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <001d01c2dc28$35c12c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: > Eric wrote: > > > No. The laws require that you be given correct information about partnership agreements > > So you keep saying. But it is not true. The word "agreements" appears nowhere in Law 40; it appears in Law 75, but Law 75 does not supersede Law 40 and is irrelevant for present purposes. > > Law 40 requires that I be given correct information about the meaning of any call based on a [special] partnership understanding. No David, this must be a complete derailment. Law 40 does not say anything on what information you shall have if you feel you need any call explained during the auction. Law 40 says that any and all partnership understandings shall be announced prior to using them (which must be before the auction begins!) whenever they in any way deviate from commonly accepted understandings. When we turn our interest to explanations during the auction that matter is handled in Law 75, not in Law 40. Law 40 and Law 75 complete each other, there is no question of one of them superseding the other and they are both necessary. And according to Law 75 it is the partnership agreement that is to be explained when information is requested. Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 24 17:17:31 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:17:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <1843654.1046107051974.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Eric wrote: > But the laws do not talk of "understandings" in a vacuum; in fact they talk only of "partnership understandings". To me, "partnership understanding" means "that which is understood by the partnership". In the language I speak, an understanding on the part of one member of a partnership, not shared by the other, is not a "partnership understanding". > If my understanding is that 2H shows hearts, and David's is that 2H shows spades, we do not have a mutual (or "partnership", if we happen to be one) understanding. We have two separate and different understandings, which is not the same thing at all. Oh, I entirely agree with all of this. If the law said that: the opponents are entitled to "the meaning" of calls when there exists a shared partnership understanding about those calls, so that there is only one meaning; and to nothing when there does not exist a shared partnership understanding about those calls, so that there is no meaning; then there would be no problem. But the law does not say that. The law says that I am entitled to "the meaning" of a call if it is *"based on"* and not ("the subject of") a partnership understanding (in Eric's sense of the term). Player A bids 2H to show spades after 1NT is doubled. He bases this on the shared partnership understanding (in Eric's term) that 1NT (Pass) 2H shows spades. Am I entitled to know that this is what he is doing? Player B thinks that A has hearts. He bases this on the shared partnership understanding (in Eric's term) that 1NT (2D) 2H shows hearts. Am I entitled to know that this is what he is doing? The answer to both these questions singly is obviously "yes", but in different circumstances. If I am A's screen mate, then I will now (as I am entitled to know) that A "means" 2H to show spades. If I am B's screen mate, or there are no screens and B does not alert, then I will know (as I am entitled to know) that to B, the "meaning" of 2H is that it shows hearts. Now, it seems to me the most extraordinary piece of doublethink to say: you are allowed to know x, and you are allowed to know y, but you are not allowed to know both x and y. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 24 17:32:53 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:32:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <3014524.1046107973736.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Sven wrote: > No David, this must be a complete derailment. I entirely agree with you. I do not feel, however, that it is I who has become derailed. > Law 40 does not say anything on what information you shall have > if you feel you need any call explained during the auction. Of course it does. What do these words mean? A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning Now, I can "reasonably be expected to understand its meaning" if: it is natural; or you have told me what it means before we start; or *you tell me what it means during the auction*. I really cannot make any picture in my mind of why you imagine that Law 40 is not concerned, at least in part, with the current auction. > When we turn our interest to explanations during the auction that matter is handled in Law 75, not in Law 40. > Law 40 and Law 75 complete each other, there is no question of one of them superseding the other and they are both necessary. This simply cannot be correct. Recall that Law 75 was not a Law until recently, but Law 40 has been one for a long time. Was Law 40 "incomplete" until they gave Law 75 and the rest of the Proprieties the force of Law? Of course it wasn't. Law 40 and Law 20 cover what information I am entitled to, and when and how I obtain it, and they are complete in every respect. Law 75 is, like all the rest of the Proprieties, a piece of philosophical posturing which should have been left to rot in peace and not dragged into the centre of the stage, where it does not belong. David Burn London, England From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Feb 24 17:55:51 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:55:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 References: <00b801c2d989$09b37ce0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E560A96.60402@skynet.be> <005001c2d9a4$d98f3420$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E563C67.8000602@t-online.de> <3E56B2CA.60406@t-online.de> <015f01c2da04$a0821840$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <3E56C66C.1040502@t-online.de> <008d01c2db86$ae5dd200$c5c0f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000901c2dc2d$fb90b900$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Ton, This is the kind of mails I like. And I mean it seriously. Ton: > Jaap vd Neut is joining you and his opinion about for example mine makes him > say that I even don't dare to discuss these issues, just stick to my > opinion. Rhetorical nonsense that is, but it shows how upset we can get > discussing laws. 1. I don't agree with David as much as you suggest here. I tend to agree with him on how claim resolve should be done once it has been established the claim is incorrect (should be mechanical as much as possible). I don't (completely) agree with David the way claims should be stated although he has sound ideas about this problem (he might be right in theory but I don't think we can and want to change the reality to that theory). 2. I should be nicer to you. And I have while being upset said things I shouldn't have said or should have said at least in a different way. Sorry about that. But then you could have been a little bit nicer to me too. Ton > If it was we hadn't such a huge dispute about these cases. I agree with > Matthias that your opinion sometimes is written too sternly or bitter (his > words), as if wisdom is yours and yours alone. I am willing too agree that > wisdom is yours but other qualities you have once in a while intervene. David has some very valid points but fighting the battle alone against the bunch of you for a long time I can understand that certain aspects have evolved in a certain way. Ton: > My approach is different, and I think to be in line with those who wrote the > claim laws. I consider a claim as a normal part of the game. When discussing > another issue Kaplan guessed that no board is played till the last trick, > but claimed (conceded) before. That of course is exaggerated but it makes > clear that a claim is normal, 1. I agree with you that claiming is a normal part of the game at least at the top level where the 13th trick is played in maybe 1 board out of a 100. So at the top level Kaplan did not exaggerate at all. 2. At low-level people don't claim. They don't like to do it and they hate when they get claimed against. At low-level declarer might claim if his hand is good without dummy but even then he tends to play his winners one by one quickly. 3. Unfortunately there is also a middle level, which creates almost all problems. Ton: > The lawmakers, not wanting to discourage claims, considering claims as part > of normal bridge, decided that such a trick will go to the opponents if the > evidence detected from the play up till then combined with the statement > made makes it possible above a to be neglected level that such trick would > be lost. Dangerous what I say now, using a new description, so I hasten to > follow the laws again: such trick will be lost when within the sample of > normal ways to play the hand out, at least one results in loosing such extra > trick. 'Normal' judged with the same evidence available, the play up till > the claim and the statement made (if made at all). 1. Apart from minor language twisting I agree with this. 2. The problem is the judgement of 'normal' or all its derivates like 'careless' or 'irrational'. We simply need a set of more or less binding interpretation rules, which are sometimes called mechanical rules. If you don't like that word I will find something else. I simply oppose what I call the AC lottery. If you let an AC decide on what is 'normal' it will amount to random decisions. We cannot even agree on the much easier concept of 'irrational'. And random AC decisions means (among other problems) a) that claiming becomes a jungle (because the rules are unclear) and b) it provokes a lot of appeals (of course at a championship everything that has a change of winning some points gets appealed). Ton: > And then dear David a declarer with 10 trumps in the combined hands, missing > the K, when finessing seeing small ones appearing from both sides claiming > the contract without any word spend on it, the claim including the K being > caught, should get his contract. It is very difficult to take you seriously > on claims when you do not agree with such decision. 1. I award all tricks without much a do in such a case (it is clearly covered by the laws). This is the way we claim at high level all the time and high-level players might well object if you don't claim like that. But at low level the opponent with the K might easily get upset (I sometimes get paid to play with a mrs. G. against two others so I have learned a lot about palooka reality). In which case even this obvious a claim cost a lot of time (TD call) and emotions. The claim problem is not that simple. 2. Anyway I do take David seriously. He simply strives for uniform rules. Which in a specific case (like this one) might seem a little bit too much. But that is a normal problem with all rules. David has a point that there is nothing wrong with a rule requiring a clear statement about outstanding trumps. At low level this would be a very good rule. At high level we might not like it but I guess we get used to it very soon (ACBL has experience with this one). But this one is too easy. I don't think in general that you can make rules (about the way you should claim) that fit both low level needs and high level needs. Ton: > In your opinion a player has to suffer severely when he makes a bad claim, > he looses all tricks you can let him loose. I never read why, other than > that a player who doesn't claim well isn't worth the tricks he asks for. > Clear approach, I have to admit. 1. You refer to Burn's opinion not to mine. I don't think that David thinks that 'a player has to suffer severely ...'. I do think that David thinks that 'a player has to suffer the consequences of his mistake ....'. At least that is what I think and the two are nowhere near the same. So this is maybe why you have never read why (for the first statement), there is no why. The why for the second statement seems rather obvious to me. You play a competitive game with a certain set of rules and when you violate the rules you have to face the consequences. 2. About 'the player that doesn't claim well isn't worth..'. Well this is the same kind of statement like 'I do (not) care if the revoke trick let's make a grand of an ace'. It is kind of emotion or feeling about a certain ruling but it has no real meaning other than that. It is like A: 'but this ruling is too severe' and B: 'bad luck, those happen to be the rules'. At this stage (and I know too well from AC experience) we are not discussing the ruling or the rules; we are just discussing our emotions. 3. I understand what you say and why you say this. But now I would like to reverse the argument. Our friend Herman wanted so badly to give back the trick declarer lost by ruffing the diamond that he started to invent fact after fact, bending arguments every which way, and he accused me and David of intentionally looking for errors. Herman is the ultimate 'save the rabbit' priest (probably because he comes close to the ultimate 'rabbit' himself). When my poor little rabbit ruffs his winner we should try to find an argument to give him back his trick. As long as the EBL tolerates this kind of crazy thoughts on their AC's there is a serious problem. By the way, 'rabbit' and 'save the rabbit' are concepts introduced by David. 4. The real reason I favour simple rules like 'you never get more tricks than your claim' etc. is that: - it is fair because it is clear, easy to understand, and the same for all - it is easy for TD and opps to handle whenever there is a problem - it stops all appeals against one's own claims I agree this sometimes leads to a silly result. But all infractions sometimes do. I really don't care; bridge is a silly game where even the best of players make silly mistakes all the time. And don't forget that ruling by TD/AC also can lead to some very silly results. And believe me, it is much easier to accept a silly result from a mechanical rule (like a revoke giving an impossible slam) than to accept a silly result from a AC that today made a silly decision (and tomorrow might well decide differently). And we all know that even top level AC's are known to have made very stupid and very crazy decisions from time to time. Ton: > I agree with you that case n +1 is not that obvious. But the only reasonable > approach, when I understand the laws as they are meant, is to answer the > question whether it is possible that declarer would have lost a trick had > play be continued in a normal way. The statement he made is useless and even > could be evidence for crazy play had he continued. But we are not supposed > to include such possibilities, just normal play we are asked to include. Reading 70 I don't agree with you. The law is very badly written but to me it is very clear that we have to consider the least favorable of the normal lines available (70D). The law doesn't use the concept of 'when play be continued in a normal way'. And it is also clear that the dominant meaning of normal in this context is that we don't consider 'crazy' lines of play. It says explicitly that normal equals 'careless or inferior for the class of player involved but not irrational'. Which I have to admit is not a normal way to define normal, it is just messing up the language. It would be much better to replace 'normal' with 'careless ... but not irrational' rather than to use a footnote to redefine a word in a way nobody uses it in real life. But that is the way lawyers earn their living. The case is an uncommon case, I haven't seen a lot of misclaims like this. Given your statement of facts I assume declarer thought he was ruffing a heart (in which case the claim was perfect and it also explains declarer didn't drop the SQ from his hand or so). What to do. David has a point that declarer claimed a non existing trick. Does he still get to play for another trick? I try to be practical and forget about the diamond theatre and I assume that declarer just claimed the rest with only four top tricks. This happens all the time. But that assumption makes it a rather simple case. For me this is 70D and 70E, this is about unstated line of play. If you leave out the H6 for the moment this is a classical 70E case. Declarer needs two tricks from CAQ. 70E is very clear on that, you cannot guess the suit right. Unless it is irrational. But there is nothing irrational about playing for the drop if you stick to the meaning of irrational as defined in an English dictionary. As far as I know there is consensus that this 'no right guesses' rule 70E apllies to AQ situations as well. I still don't understand why Ton wants to allow the finesse. Maybe because Ton thinks that 'normal' in 70 means 'normal' as defined in the dictionary. Which it doesn't. And then there is this H6. I know Ton didn't mean it that way but with only the H7 outstanding it cannot be safely assumed that declarer knows or doesn't know if it is good or not. So trying to cash it is is absolutly not irrational. It might even be normal. Well I concede for a palooka it is normal to finesse (even if there is sure evidence it is wrong, palookas don't know, just as they will never know or think the H6 is high regardless of reality). But now suppose I or David Burn happen to ruff this diamond (it happens to me too that I I take a heart for a diamond) without claiming. Because dummy has to remove the DQ from dummy I realize what has happened. After recovering I will make an attempt to place the CK and to recount the hearts (specially if the CK appears to be off-side) I always count (this is why I am a good player I guess, or is it the other way round) so I can do a recount but with enough winners at a certain stage my counting would have been very sloppy at best from that moment on. Now there are three possible results of my 'recount'. 1. I don't really know about CK and H6 or I think CK is onside. I will finesse. 2. I am quite sure the CK is off-side and I am quite sure the H6 is good. In this case I will try to cash the H6. 3. I am quite sure the CK is off-side and I am quite sure the H6 is not high. I will reel of the trumps and then play for the drop (practical chance is better than the theoretical chance). Of course I might not be that sure about one card or the other. It is quite possible that I am sure of the CK being wrong (it doesn't happen very often that you cannot place an A or a K at this stage) but I might have no idea about H6 (I might have stopped counting some tricks ago). In that case it will depend on my mood if I chose line 2 or line 3. Even weak players are capable of placing Kings from time to time (RHO has opend the bidding or so). If for whatever reason they think CK was wrong they might well try to cash the H6. That is not only non-irrational, it is even normal (in the normal sense of the word). And there is another problem. I might be so upset after ruffing my diamond (imagine the end of an important match) that I mess up my recount which might induce me to make an 'irrational' choice among my lines of play. Which in a way is not an irrational thing to do. All this is not to show how clever I am. It is not looking for errors. It is just to show that claim resolving this way is too difficult. TD/AC should not be doing this kind of analysis. Why not scrap the exceptions out of 70E. This 'if not irrational' is unnecessary because it is already mentioned in 70A and covered by other meta-rules as well. The second exception (marked finesse) is worse. It is a) too difficult b) too infrequent c) it contradicts 'careless but not irrational'). Anyway, without that text an AC can still award a marked finesse if the case merits such a decision. But although 70E can be considered a mechanical rule it is still too complicated IMHO. Claims with logical errors should be resolved by a set of mechanical rules. The main ones should be: - no more tricks than you claim (no more appeals against oneself) - no more tricks than you have in toptricks (which makes 70E redundant) - (when opponents have an 'unexpected' trump/winner/stop) claimer will cash his tricks in the least favourable 'normal' order (= the missing card will do maximum damage) This doesn't interfere with claims being a normal part of the game at all. It simply means that you should be careful about your claims being logically correct (the discussion about wording claims is another one). Just like you you should be careful not to revoke or drop your cards when playing. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Matthias Berghaus" Cc: "blml" Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n + 1 > > > David: > > > > What matters is: does declarer have the tricks he has > > > claimed? (in this case, he does not, for he has just ruffed one of > > > them); can declarer fluke the number of tricks he has claimed because he > > > cannot be denied them? (in this case he cannot, for the queen of clubs > > > is a loser, and Law 70 is firm upon the point that declarer cannot make > > > a trick with it, whatever Ton thinks). > > Normally your analyses are more impressive. Law 70 is not firm upon the > point that in this situation declarer can not make a trick with the queen of > clubs. > If it was we hadn't such a huge dispute about these cases. I agree with > Matthias that your opinion sometimes is written too sternly or bitter (his > words), as if wisdom is yours and yours alone. I am willing too agree that > wisdom is yours but other qualities you have once in a while intervene. > > Jaap vd Neut is joining you and his opinion about for example mine makes him > say that I even don't dare to discuss these issues, just stick to my > opinion. Rhetorical nonsense that is, but it shows how upset we can get > discussing laws. > > May I try to summarize opinions once again. > In your opinion a player has to suffer severely when he makes a bad claim, > he looses all tricks you can let him loose. I never read why, other than > that a player who doesn't claim well isn't worth the tricks he asks for. > Clear approach, I have to admit. > > My approach is different, and I think to be in line with those who wrote the > claim laws. I consider a claim as a normal part of the game. When discussing > another issue Kaplan guessed that no board is played till the last trick, > but claimed (conceded) before. That of course is exaggerated but it makes > clear that a claim is normal, not a specialty for which a player has to > straighten his back, to clear his throat, to ask attention for and to > declaim a statement. '' The rest is mine'', that should do it. And now we > suffer a problem, because once in a while (and in blml 99 out of 100 times, > which gives this problem an inaccurate image) such a statement is > disputable, opponents finding a way to win at least one trick more than > claimer announced to loose. > The lawmakers, not wanting to discourage claims, considering claims as part > of normal bridge, decided that such a trick will go to the opponents if the > evidence detected from the play up till then combined with the statement > made makes it possible above a to be neglected level that such trick would > be lost. Dangerous what I say now, using a new descripition, so I hasten to > follow the laws again: such trick will be lost when within the sample of > normal ways to play the hand out, at least one results in loosing such extra > trick. 'Normal' judged with the same evidence available, the play up till > the claim and the statement made (if made at all). > > And then dear David a declarer with 10 trumps in the combined hands, missing > the K, when finessing seeing small onces appearing from both sides claiming > the contract without any word spend on it, the claim including the K being > caught, should get his contract. It is very difficult to take you seriously > on claims when you do not agree with such decision. > I agree with you that case n +1 is not that obvious. But the only reasonable > approach, when I understand the laws as they are meant, is to answer the > question whether it is possible that declarer would have lost a trick had > play be continued in a normal way. The statement he made is useless and even > could be evidence for crazy play had he continued. But we are not supposed > to include such possibilities, just normal play we are asked to include. > Would David Burn for example have made these tricks? Don't start saying that > you never would have ruffed this diamond, I believe you, but that > information is irrelevant. > > Judging this case we have to ignore hawks, and probably doves as well (in a > previous message I used doughs for doves, while I knew the word pigeon well > enough, stupid me, food for hawks again), starlings we need. > > Now I am tired and will try to avoid bringing up case n + 2 myself, the > opinions being fixated too much. > > > ton > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Mon Feb 24 18:02:33 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:02:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: dalburn@btopenworld.com Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 24/02/03 18:17 =20 Pour : blml@rtflb.org cc :=20 Objet : RE: [blml] Horrible? Eric wrote: > But the laws do not talk of "understandings" in a vacuum; in fact they=20 talk only of "partnership understandings". To me, "partnership=20 understanding" means "that which is understood by the partnership". In=20 the language I speak, an understanding on the part of one member of a=20 partnership, not shared by the other, is not a "partnership=20 understanding". =20 > If my understanding is that 2H shows hearts, and David's is that 2H=20 shows spades, we do not have a mutual (or "partnership", if we happen to=20 be one) understanding. We have two separate and different understandings, = which is not the same thing at all. Oh, I entirely agree with all of this. If the law said that: the opponents are entitled to "the meaning" of calls when there exists a=20 shared partnership understanding about those calls, so that there is only=20 one meaning; and to nothing when there does not exist a shared partnership=20 understanding about those calls, so that there is no meaning; then there would be no problem. But the law does not say that. The law=20 says that I am entitled to "the meaning" of a call if it is *"based on"*=20 and not ("the subject of") a partnership understanding (in Eric's sense of = the term). Player A bids 2H to show spades after 1NT is doubled. He bases this on the = shared partnership understanding (in Eric's term) that 1NT (Pass) 2H shows = spades. Am I entitled to know that this is what he is doing? Player B thinks that A has hearts. He bases this on the shared partnership = understanding (in Eric's term) that 1NT (2D) 2H shows hearts. Am I=20 entitled to know that this is what he is doing? *** ok: you give the opponents all the pieces of partnership understanding=20 which may be relevant to the present situation: the agreed meaning of 1NT=20 P 2H, of 1NT (2D) 2H, the past similar occurences of similar situations=20 and so on, and for the present case 1NT D 2H, it's anybody guess; the same = explanation may be given from both sides of the screen and there may be a=20 misunderstanding anyway. where is the problem? what a nice disclosure=20 rule! ***=20 The answer to both these questions singly is obviously "yes", but in=20 different circumstances. If I am A's screen mate, then I will know (as I=20 am entitled to know) that A "means" 2H to show spades. If I am B's screen=20 mate, or there are no screens and B does not alert, then I will know (as I = am entitled to know) that to B, the "meaning" of 2H is that it shows=20 hearts. *** no, you are not entitled to know their guess about the meaning of a call,=20 only to share the whole of their partnership understanding, experience...=20 relevant about the understanding of the call. ***=20 Now, it seems to me the most extraordinary piece of doublethink to say:=20 you are allowed to know x, and you are allowed to know y, but you are not=20 allowed to know both x and y. ***=20 if they tell you more than they have to, you will know more than you are=20 entitled. happy man jpr *** David Burn London, England =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From svenpran@online.no Mon Feb 24 18:04:32 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:04:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <3014524.1046107973736.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <004901c2dc2f$2f21e7c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: To: Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > Sven wrote: > > > No David, this must be a complete derailment. > > I entirely agree with you. I do not feel, however, that it is I who has become derailed. > > > Law 40 does not say anything on what information you shall have > > if you feel you need any call explained during the auction. > > Of course it does. What do these words mean? > > A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning > > Now, I can "reasonably be expected to understand its meaning" if: it is natural; or you have told me what it means before we start; or *you tell me what it means during the auction*. I really cannot make any picture in my mind of why you imagine that Law 40 is not concerned, at least in part, with the current auction. Simple: You can be constructed to say that it is legal for me at the table in the middle of the auction to say something like: "By the way, I know we haven't noted that on our CC or told you yet so in order to use our agreement I inform you now that my next call is the Splinter convention. . . . . 4H." or (after partner has opened in 2NT): "You should know that we use Baron and Flint over 2NT opening bids . . . . . 3Di" Which I believe with no further ado we both agree would be ridiculous? > > > When we turn our interest to explanations during the auction that matter is handled in Law 75, not in Law 40. > > > Law 40 and Law 75 complete each other, there is no question of > one of them superseding the other and they are both necessary. > > This simply cannot be correct. Recall that Law 75 was not a Law until recently, but Law 40 has been one for a long time. Was Law 40 "incomplete" until they gave Law 75 and the rest of the Proprieties the force of Law? Of course it wasn't. I checked, yes it was (to the same extent that it is today). But as Law 20 had approximately the same contents as today's Law 75, and still has as far as I can see, there shall never have been any problem here. A curious note to Law 20 in the Danish translation of the laws from 1975 says that "The rule that explanations must be given by the partner of the player whose call is questioned was previously found in Law 40 and has been dropped from that law due to an error at EBL. This rule is however still active". I suspect that this rule was intentionally dropped from Law 40 simply because Law 40 just did not concern questions and explanations during the auction or play. > > Law 40 and Law 20 cover what information I am entitled to, and when and how I obtain it, and they are complete in every respect. Law 75 is, like all the rest of the Proprieties, a piece of philosophical posturing which should have been left to rot in peace and not dragged into the centre of the stage, where it does not belong. And the bottom line is that whichever way you look at it you are entitled to know the agreements, explicit or implit, between the partners. Sven From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Feb 24 18:40:41 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:40:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Alertable or not In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030224170235.00aa4770@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: +++ further down >On a recent post about trial bids it was stated that a "natural" rebid in a >suit of 3 or more cards is not alertable. Personally I thought ANY bid >which conveys extra information to pd which the opponents are entitled to >know is alertable. The following sequence is now fairly common in expert >circles > >1D/1H 1M >2C > >The 2C's can be 3 card up to 17 and is forcing for 1 round. > >Is this alertable ?? AG : no. First, it is standard, and expected, so there is no need to alert. Second, the bid is used only as a makeshift. It doesn't convey more information. Say you hold AKxxx - A - K10xx - xxx. If your system dictates, after 1S-2S, a trial bid of 3D, in your second best suit, my feeling is that it isn't alertable. and even if it is on AKxxx - Ax - AQx - xxx. If your system dictates, in the same circumstances, a trial bid in a 3+ card suit, but with the inference that you need to be covered in the suit (here 3C), I think it should be alerted, because of that very inference. And of course, short-suit trial bids (here 3H) are alertable. The same is true after a Jacoby-type 2NT : if your system asks for a bid in a second suit "where you live", with the possibility of a 3-card suit, it shouldn't be alerted. +++ ok reasonable. Maybe Ferghal can help here for the Irish point of view ?? my experience in Ireland is that on the above sequence (ie) 1D/1H 1M 2C The 2C bid would be regarded as ironclad 4+ suit, NF, UNLESS otherwise alerted. Also the range for this 2C bid would be from 11 - a bad 15 never 17 - most would bid 3C's (rightly or wrongly is another days discussion) with this point range. I infact wouldn't be surprised if a TD was called with no alert and that a possible score adjustment would be made. The point basically is that if you and pd know that the suit could be 3 card and not 4 card and that the range could be alot higher than the generally accepted range ... then ... an alert is in order as the opps are surely entitled to this information, regardless of how "natural" the bid is. Its abit like a strong club system. Any bid NOT opened 1C is restricted to <16. Alot of "general" players who dont play a club system will not (and why should they) be aware of this inference ... so all Non 1C bids should be alerted. Infact there are lots and lots of "natural" sounding sequences on which regular partnerships have lots of extra system inferences which are not alerted and which the opps are entitled to know about. K. From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Feb 24 18:32:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:32 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <7608442.1046099281576.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: David wrote: > Suppose, however, that we both play 1NT (2D) 2H as hearts, and we both > know it. Now, you may construe my new sentence as follows: "one of us > has 15-17; one of our opponents has made a non-pass; in situations > where the opponents do not pass over 1NT our calls are natural; so that > one of us has five or more hearts." You base this interpretation on our > understanding about another sequence. Now, the "meaning" of 2H > according to you is that I have hearts. Unfortunately... Ok so 1N-(P)-2H shows 5S, 1N-(2D)-2H shows 5H. Neither agreement provides a basis for assigning a meaning to 1N-(X)-2H (if either did this would not be an issue). The player can bid 2H with either 5H or 5S and the correct explanation of the meaning is that he has either 5H or 5S depending on whether he thinks that systems are on/off after 1N is doubled. Since both players are (one assumes) aware that the situation is undiscussed an ambiguous meaning is inevitable. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 24 18:42:17 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:42:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030224165909.00aa4a00@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224090249.00a73b60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224133316.00a800d0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:02 AM 2/24/03, Alain wrote: >At 09:12 24/02/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >>He should not "include that [you] could have been aware of a >>misunderstanding, receiving wrong information and having the right >>information available as well". He should consider only what would >>have happened had you been correctly informed, i.e. not receiving >>wrong information but having the right information available >>*instead*, not "as well". >> >>>This is the case I would like to have your opinion about. >>> >>>1. Do you agree that the present laws lead to this approach? >> >>No. The laws require that you be given correct information about >>partnership agreements; they do not require that you be informed that >>a player has forgotten (or for some other reason violated) one of >>those agreements. When there is a problem, the TD must determine >>what might have happened had you been given (only!) what the laws require. > >AG : suppose there were screens. East opens 2H and doesn't alert. >Later he realizes the bid means something else and must volunteer the >information. Now South knows about both the meaning and the >misunderstanding. I don't see why he wouldn't be allowed to use this >information. South now knows the actual meaning of the bid, and also the meaning assumed by East at the time he made his call. From this information he can reasonably, and usually correctly, presume that there has been a (partnership) misunderstanding, and he is allowed to use this combination of the actual information he was given and what he deduced from it -- at his own risk. But it is possible that there may not have been a misunderstanding -- perhaps West assumed the same meaning for 2H that East did when he made the bid, and misinformed North similarly. If that turns out to be the case, West will get redress for any damage caused by his having assumed that the original explanation was correct (up to the point of the correction), but will not (and should not) get redress for any damage caused solely by his assumption that, because he got two different explanations from West, East must have misunderstood West's original call. 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 Feb 24 19:02:07 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:02:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030224172509.00a9b390@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <8253191.1045845545954.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224134540.00a7eec0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:35 AM 2/24/03, Alain wrote: >At 16:39 21/02/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > >>My impression of players? Herman, I have myself played an entire hand >>on the basis that I (and not dummy) still had a card that I had >>parted with at trick one. I have seen players ask for cards that are >>not in the dummy, not because of a slip of the tongue but because >>they genuinely believed that dummy still had the card several tricks >>(not "one second") after it was played. I have seen a man follow to >>dummy's eight of hearts with... the eight of hearts (from the other >>board), and *none* of the players at the table realised that anything >>was amiss. > >AG : I will surprise you both : you are both right (will it be >unbearable for either ?). >Base your decision on your impression of the players and theiri ntents >? Sure. >Decide that declarer in this deal is of the type that gazes at flying >cows ? Certainly not absurd on hearing his claim, and if it is your >perception of him, then David is absolutely right. >There is, however, a substantial probability that this judgment is >unfaithful. Even excluding the case where the SQ was claimed rather >than played, there is also the case where declarer pulled the wrong >card. In this case, he would probably have realized it before it's too >late (for making the club finesse), if only because somebody would >have told him he was in his hand. If (and only if) you have solid >ground to believe in the slip of the finger (declerer's facial >expression on seeing the Queen, perhaps), then a whole new discussion >begins, and I'm not sure how I would rule. I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that declarer made a mechanical error, i.e. played the SQ because he "pulled the wrong card". The obvious interpretation of the original scenario is that declarer had a "slip of the brain" and ruffed RHO's diamond because he thought it was a heart. Herman argues that this kind of common error gives no weight to any legal presumption that declarer was in any way deluded about the outstanding cards, and he should therefore be given the benefit of assuming that the accuracy and completeness of his knowledge of the deal was up to the level we would have presumed had he claimed before he mis-saw RHO's card and ruffed it. David argues that if a player cannot tell a diamond from a heart, the accuracy and completeness of his knowledge of the deal should be assumed to be subject to similar mind-losses when we evaluate his subsequent presumptive actions for the purpose of adjudicating his claim. Truth may lie with either, or somewhere in between, but the thread is not over, and, AFAIAC, the jury is still out. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Feb 24 19:20:28 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:20:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 References: <8253191.1045845545954.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224134540.00a7eec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001201c2dc39$d73645a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Eric, Whatever of this Herman-David truth (I have said a couple of things myself), I don't think it really matters. 70E seems clear to me. Declarer is not allowed to guess a suit. In this whole discussion I haven't seen any good argument why declarer would be allowed to take a finesse. It is a violation of 70E. Unless you consider it irrational not to do so. But to support a position that extreme you need to know the bidding, the early play, and the class of player involved. And it might be a violation of 70D as well. Because as long as trying to cash the H6 is not irrational this line of play should also be considered. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 > At 11:35 AM 2/24/03, Alain wrote: > > >At 16:39 21/02/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > > >>My impression of players? Herman, I have myself played an entire hand > >>on the basis that I (and not dummy) still had a card that I had > >>parted with at trick one. I have seen players ask for cards that are > >>not in the dummy, not because of a slip of the tongue but because > >>they genuinely believed that dummy still had the card several tricks > >>(not "one second") after it was played. I have seen a man follow to > >>dummy's eight of hearts with... the eight of hearts (from the other > >>board), and *none* of the players at the table realised that anything > >>was amiss. > > > >AG : I will surprise you both : you are both right (will it be > >unbearable for either ?). > >Base your decision on your impression of the players and theiri ntents > >? Sure. > >Decide that declarer in this deal is of the type that gazes at flying > >cows ? Certainly not absurd on hearing his claim, and if it is your > >perception of him, then David is absolutely right. > >There is, however, a substantial probability that this judgment is > >unfaithful. Even excluding the case where the SQ was claimed rather > >than played, there is also the case where declarer pulled the wrong > >card. In this case, he would probably have realized it before it's too > >late (for making the club finesse), if only because somebody would > >have told him he was in his hand. If (and only if) you have solid > >ground to believe in the slip of the finger (declerer's facial > >expression on seeing the Queen, perhaps), then a whole new discussion > >begins, and I'm not sure how I would rule. > > I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that declarer made a > mechanical error, i.e. played the SQ because he "pulled the wrong > card". The obvious interpretation of the original scenario is that > declarer had a "slip of the brain" and ruffed RHO's diamond because he > thought it was a heart. > > Herman argues that this kind of common error gives no weight to any > legal presumption that declarer was in any way deluded about the > outstanding cards, and he should therefore be given the benefit of > assuming that the accuracy and completeness of his knowledge of the > deal was up to the level we would have presumed had he claimed before > he mis-saw RHO's card and ruffed it. David argues that if a player > cannot tell a diamond from a heart, the accuracy and completeness of > his knowledge of the deal should be assumed to be subject to similar > mind-losses when we evaluate his subsequent presumptive actions for the > purpose of adjudicating his claim. > > Truth may lie with either, or somewhere in between, but the thread is > not over, and, AFAIAC, the jury is still out. > > > 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 ehaa@starpower.net Fri Feb 21 13:44:57 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:44:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 In-Reply-To: <3E55E861.1050902@skynet.be> References: <3E554395.9030505@netaccess.co.nz> <008501c2d926$77bee8e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030221083404.00a632b0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:50 AM 2/21/03, Herman wrote: >I'm with Sven AND Keith on this one. >In the simple case, Sven is right. A claimer who sees these cards and >claims nevertheless should not get the benefit of the doubt. >But that case will never happen, because it is irrational to claim at >this point, except with saying to finesse. > >So in reality, this can only occur as part of some other problem. >Before we arrive at this simple ending, something else must have >happened, with of course some mistake from claimer, which has been >solved and ruled in his disfavour. > >I'm not good at constructing cases, but you can imagine cases where >these hearts are claimed for just the one trick, with the queen being >jettisoned on a high diamond. However, claimer has forgotten about a >last trump and so he cannot throw the HQ but needs to overruff. Now we >cannot blame him for irrationally claiming two tricks with these >hearts without mentioning how to play them, and so we should be >allowed to be a bit more lenient. In my book, a suit which has not >been played, and which lies xx opp AQ is played with a finesse. >Nothing else is normal. >So I'd tend to agree with Keith, but only as a general principle if >claimer cannot be blamed for irrationally claiming. I think this is getting us somewhere. Perhaps the only sensible way to interpret "unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational" in L70E is as Herman does, i.e. that for it to be applicable "something else must have happened" (in the determination of the presumptive play after the claim). Imagine that South, declarer in NT, on lead, tables his cards with the statement "I have the rest" in this position: AQ AK - - Kx xx - - AK xx - - xx xx - - Obviously, the only "rational" way to try to make the rest of the tricks is to attempt the club finesse. But if we allow that to mean that we award him four tricks instead of three under L70E, must we not also award him one trick instead of three when the East and West hands are reversed? I am a lot more comfortable telling this declarer, "too bad; your SQ isn't cashing" Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Feb 24 19:59:18 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:59:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224090249.00a73b60@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224133316.00a800d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003801c2dc3f$6bc7c5e0$db3ef0c3@LNV> > >> > >>>This is the case I would like to have your opinion about. > >>> > >>>1. Do you agree that the present laws lead to this approach? > >> > >>No. The laws require that you be given correct information about > >>partnership agreements; they do not require that you be informed that > >>a player has forgotten (or for some other reason violated) one of > >>those agreements. When there is a problem, the TD must determine > >>what might have happened had you been given (only!) what the laws require. > > > >AG : suppose there were screens. East opens 2H and doesn't alert. > >Later he realizes the bid means something else and must volunteer the > >information. Now South knows about both the meaning and the > >misunderstanding. I don't see why he wouldn't be allowed to use this > >information. > > South now knows the actual meaning of the bid, and also the meaning > assumed by East at the time he made his call. From this information he > can reasonably, and usually correctly, presume that there has been a > (partnership) misunderstanding, and he is allowed to use this > combination of the actual information he was given and what he deduced > from it -- at his own risk. Tell me Eric why then you started saying 'no' on question 1, to me this answer you give here seems to say 'yes'. I never said that the laws do require that a player shouild be informed that a player has forgotten an agreement. But that is an obvious conclusion when later partner tells that the agreement made is not what was explained. Ann now the question is should the adjustment be based on the fact that a player may draw such conclusion and act upon it. I don't see a good reason for 'no' as answer. If a defender is informed in time he might use both within the regular auction. Can somebody explain why he is deprived of such good score if opponents inform him too late? Herman showed an example to demonstrate his point of view. What I agreed most with was his statement that it was not a very good example. Nobody would come to a different decision. Let me give you an example which came to the appeal committee of the NBB. Bidding W N E S 1D 2D 2S p 3C p 5D p p p played with screens: east explained his 2S-bid as invite with diamonds (towards north); west explained south it was an invite with clubs. the AC found out that east gave wrong information and that 2S showed an invite with clubs. Next step was to decide that north was entitled to know that agreement, then had known about the misunderstanding with west showing off and east thinking to get an encouraging call. In that case north could have and certainly had doubled. So the decision was to adjust the score to 5D doubled minus 3 (it went for 3 off). This decision was not solely based on the misexplanation given by east but mainly on the knowledge of a misunderstanding north could have been aware of. This is how we rule in the Netherlands and before starting with objections try to find some good arguments as support. ton From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Feb 24 20:29:07 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:29:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <200302242029.PAA12510@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > case 1: > > wrong explanation during the bidding, restored by other opponent before play > starts. > case 2: > wrong explanation during the bidding not restored by other opponent before > play starts, which is an infraction. Just another quick comment... As Ton says, in case 2 there are two separate infractions: the original MI and the failure to correct it at the proper time. It is quite proper to ask what would have happened if each infraction had not occurred (the second under L12A1). David B. gets part of his way in case 2: he will (more or less) find out that there has been a mixup, but only at the time specified in L75D2 for him to do so. Certainly we don't want to give any advantage to a side that doesn't follow L75D2, and I see no reason we have to. Notice, though, that players are still entitled only to explanations of agreements, not (directly) to knowledge that someone has forgotten. Ton's later case, wrong explanation behind screens, is completely different. Why should the TD/AC determine anything other than than what would have happened if correct explanations had been given at all times? The problem comes down to making a careful distinction between "entitled" information and "authorized" information. Herman's terminology is useful, even if you don't agree with his conclusions. From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Feb 24 20:43:20 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:43:20 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Alertable or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Standard disclaimers apply that the answer will vary between jurisdictions (and we live in different ones.) On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Karel wrote: > On a recent post about trial bids it was stated that a "natural" rebid in a > suit of 3 or more cards is not alertable. Personally I thought ANY bid > which conveys extra information to pd which the opponents are entitled to > know is alertable. In the ACBL we now have "highly unusual or unexpected," which is one of the least helpful rules I have ever seen. > The following sequence is now fairly common in expert > circles > > 1D/1H 1M > 2C > > The 2C's can be 3 card up to 17 and is forcing for 1 round. Let's see... three different pieces to this: a) can be 3 cards: a 3-card minor is accepted as natural in ACBL, so that alone doesn't make it alertable here. This may not be the case in other countries where 5-card majors are less common and 3-card minor openings aren't accepted. b) up to 17. Only 17? Since 1D-1M-3C is forcing to game, 2C can easily include 18s and 19s, if they have no fit for responder, in SA. Seems like 1M=6+ and 3C=GF still applies in Acol too, so I am having trouble seeing why this would be different (except in strong club systems.) c) forcing 1 round. As a general principle, anything which you play as forcing and most others don't, or that you play as nonforcing and most others do, is an alert. In the US I would certainly expect an alert for this. > Is this alertable ?? Unless you can honestly claim "everyone" knows this bid might be forcing when they hear the sequence -- a possibility that would never have occurred to me before this thread -- yes. GRB From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 24 20:55:40 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:55:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 In-Reply-To: <001201c2dc39$d73645a0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <8253191.1045845545954.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224134540.00a7eec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224153648.00a7cc00@pop.starpower.net> At 02:20 PM 2/24/03, Jaap wrote: >Whatever of this Herman-David truth (I have said a couple of things >myself), >I don't think it really matters. 70E seems clear to me. Declarer is not >allowed to guess a suit. In this whole discussion I haven't seen any good >argument why declarer would be allowed to take a finesse. It is a >violation >of 70E. Unless you consider it irrational not to do so. But to support a >position that extreme you need to know the bidding, the early play, >and the >class of player involved. And it might be a violation of 70D as well. >Because as long as trying to cash the H6 is not irrational this line >of play >should also be considered. The post Jaap cited was an attempt to clarify the distinction between Herman's and David's philosophical views (FWIW, I am leaning towards Herman's position, but continue to try to absorb the arguments being made on both sides). I posted it because I believe that if we are to achieve a consensus on the general philosophy of how we (should) adjudicate claims under the (current) laws, we must resolve this difference. The debate between Herman and David, however, has to do with how we interpret the distinction between "'normal'" and "irrational" when adjudicating a claim. This only matters when our adjudication is subject to the dreaded footnote, which is only the case when L69-71 do not give us explicit instructions as to how to adjudicate without benefit of the footnote. I believe that what Jaap is saying here when he writes, "70E seems clear to me," is that the original case that started the thread is not one of those, but rather one for which L70E does provide sufficiently explicit guidance, so that the Herman-vs-David philosophical debate doesn't matter -- and I agree. My first post to this thread stated, "I believe L70E prevents us from ruling that S would have taken a trick with the CQ." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From k.wignall@netaccess.co.nz Mon Feb 24 21:08:45 2003 From: k.wignall@netaccess.co.nz (Keith Wignall) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:08:45 +1300 Subject: [blml] The played position Message-ID: <28DC93BE-483C-11D7-AD46-000393AFE02E@netaccess.co.nz> When dummy leaves the table (perhaps to perform his most important function: ordering drinks), some declarers will place dummy's played cards between their own played cards and dummy's unplayed cards, to avoid reaching across the table. Some defenders complain that this practice is confusing - that it is hard to tell which card is from which hand and whose turn it is to play next - and may lead to cards being mixed up between declarer and dummy. Law 41D specifies where and how dummy is to place his unplayed cards. Law 45A specifies where players other than dummy are to place their played cards. Law 45B states that cards designated by declarer to be played from dummy are to be faced on the table (strange, as they are already faced on the table), but does not say where. Law 45D refers to cards being placed "in the played position" by dummy, but give no clue as to where the played position is. Have I missed something? Keith From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 24 21:32:37 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:32:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <003801c2dc3f$6bc7c5e0$db3ef0c3@LNV> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224090249.00a73b60@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224133316.00a800d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224160033.00a87aa0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:59 PM 2/24/03, Ton wrote: > > >AG : suppose there were screens. East opens 2H and doesn't alert. > > >Later he realizes the bid means something else and must volunteer the > > >information. Now South knows about both the meaning and the > > >misunderstanding. I don't see why he wouldn't be allowed to use this > > >information. > > > > South now knows the actual meaning of the bid, and also the meaning > > assumed by East at the time he made his call. From this information he > > can reasonably, and usually correctly, presume that there has been a > > (partnership) misunderstanding, and he is allowed to use this > > combination of the actual information he was given and what he deduced > > from it -- at his own risk. > >Tell me Eric why then you started saying 'no' on question 1, to me this >answer you give here seems to say 'yes'. I never said that the laws do >require that a player shouild be informed that a player has forgotten an >agreement. But that is an obvious conclusion when later partner tells that >the agreement made is not what was explained. If the laws do not require that a player should be informed that an opponent has forgotten an agreement, then the laws do not offer redress when he is not so informed. That doesn't change if the reason he was not so informed was incidental to the commission of an infraction by his opponents. Here the infraction -- misinformation -- consisted of his not being given the correct information in the first place, and the redress he gets for that infraction is the best result it is at all likely he would have obtained had there been no infraction, i.e. had he been given the correct information in the first place. Because that is what the laws require of his opponents. His opponent is not required to tell him, "I thought it meant X when I bid it, but it really means Y" -- neither in an original single statement nor in the form of an incorrect original statement followed by a subsequent correction. He is entitled only to what the opponents are obligated to give him, namely correct information throughout, thus he gets redress only if their failure to give him correct information throughout resulted in damage. Perhaps what it comes down to is that I am viewing giving an incorrect explanation without offering a subsequent correction as an MI offense, to be dealt with by determining what might have happened had it not occurred, whereas Ton is viewing it as two separate infractions, the first being MI, the second being a separate infraction of "failing to correct MI", and is willing to offer redress for the second infraction only, on the grounds that the first (after adjudication of the second) actually worked to the player's advantage, while the second resulted in redressable damage. I don't believe, however, that it is logical to treat a situation as though there were two separate and independent infractions when the second could not have occurred absent the first. 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 Feb 24 21:51:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:51:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224090249.00a73b60@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224133316.00a800d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224160033.00a87aa0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00a201c2dc4e$edfa7850$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Eric Landau" > Perhaps what it comes down to is that I am viewing giving an incorrect > explanation without offering a subsequent correction as an MI offense, > to be dealt with by determining what might have happened had it not > occurred, whereas Ton is viewing it as two separate infractions, the > first being MI, the second being a separate infraction of "failing to > correct MI", and is willing to offer redress for the second infraction > only, on the grounds that the first (after adjudication of the second) > actually worked to the player's advantage, while the second resulted in > redressable damage. > > I don't believe, however, that it is logical to treat a situation as > though there were two separate and independent infractions when the > second could not have occurred absent the first. > > > Eric Landau Of course these are two infractions of law, but not so that each of them can result in (individual) reason for redress. (And they are not independent). Correcting a mistaken information has the purpose of reducing (or limiting) the damage caused by the mistaken information as much as possible and may even result in completely avoiding any damage from the mistaken information (in which case there will be no reason for redress at all). Thus, failure to correct a mistaken information in due time can never increase the damage already caused by the mistaken information itself and shall therefore never give cause for redress on its own. Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Feb 24 22:34:02 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:34:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <200302242234.RAA12613@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > Perhaps what it comes down to is that I am viewing giving an incorrect > explanation without offering a subsequent correction as an MI offense, > to be dealt with by determining what might have happened had it not > occurred, I don't think anyone says the player who gave the original MI commits a second offense by failing to offer a correction. > whereas Ton is viewing it as two separate infractions, the > first being MI, the second being a separate infraction of "failing to > correct MI", The original misinformer's partner, on the other hand, may well commit a separate offense by failing to correct the MI at the time specified in L75D2. (This cannot normally happen with screens.) Perhaps I have misunderstood what Ton is saying. > From: "Sven Pran" > Correcting a mistaken information has the purpose of reducing (or limiting) > the damage caused by the mistaken information as much as possible and > may even result in completely avoiding any damage from the mistaken > information (in which case there will be no reason for redress at all). Yes, but as (I think) David B. pointed out, it may also reveal that there has been a misunderstanding. Opponents may be able to take advantage of that information, even though they are not entitled to it. (The information is "authorized" but not "entitled") > Thus, failure to correct a mistaken information in due time can never > increase the damage already caused by the mistaken information itself > and shall therefore never give cause for redress on its own. See David's example. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Feb 24 22:38:56 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:38:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <00a201c2dc4e$edfa7850$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224090249.00a73b60@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224133316.00a800d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224160033.00a87aa0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224173442.00a711e0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:51 PM 2/24/03, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > Perhaps what it comes down to is that I am viewing giving an incorrect > > explanation without offering a subsequent correction as an MI offense, > > to be dealt with by determining what might have happened had it not > > occurred, whereas Ton is viewing it as two separate infractions, the > > first being MI, the second being a separate infraction of "failing to > > correct MI", and is willing to offer redress for the second infraction > > only, on the grounds that the first (after adjudication of the second) > > actually worked to the player's advantage, while the second resulted in > > redressable damage. > > > > I don't believe, however, that it is logical to treat a situation as > > though there were two separate and independent infractions when the > > second could not have occurred absent the first. > >Of course these are two infractions of law, but not so that each of them >can result in (individual) reason for redress. (And they are not >independent). > >Correcting a mistaken information has the purpose of reducing (or >limiting) >the damage caused by the mistaken information as much as possible and >may even result in completely avoiding any damage from the mistaken >information (in which case there will be no reason for redress at all). > >Thus, failure to correct a mistaken information in due time can never >increase the damage already caused by the mistaken information itself >and shall therefore never give cause for redress on its own. That is how I read L75D2 also. There is no explicit penalty for violating it, only an "anti-penalty". If you do not offer a timely correction, you lose the opportunity to mitigate the potential damage done by the original infraction, but if the original infraction caused no damage (so there was nothing to mitigate), you are not penalized (via redress to the opponents) for your violation of L75D2 per se. 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 Feb 24 22:57:29 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:57:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <200302242234.RAA12613@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00bb01c2dc58$1bd34aa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Steve Willner" ......... > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Correcting a mistaken information has the purpose of reducing (or limiting) > > the damage caused by the mistaken information as much as possible and > > may even result in completely avoiding any damage from the mistaken > > information (in which case there will be no reason for redress at all). > > Yes, but as (I think) David B. pointed out, it may also reveal that > there has been a misunderstanding. Opponents may be able to take > advantage of that information, even though they are not entitled to > it. (The information is "authorized" but not "entitled") > > > Thus, failure to correct a mistaken information in due time can never > > increase the damage already caused by the mistaken information itself > > and shall therefore never give cause for redress on its own. > > See David's example. Opponents are free to use the inference that there has been some misunderstanding but only at their own risk. And they are IMHO not entitled to any kind of redress on the ground that they have not received the opportunity to make such inference no more than they are entitled to redress for making the wrong inference in a given situation or selecting an unlucky alternative based upon even some correct inference. I finally realized that this (I believe) was probably what Herman tried to express as his opinion, and if so I do agree with him. I think the point becomes clearer if we maintain a clear distinction between information given or received and inference made. Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Feb 24 23:49:39 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:49:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <200302242349.SAA12663@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Opponents are free to use the inference that there has been some > misunderstanding but only at their own risk. Yes. > And they are IMHO > not entitled to any kind of redress on the ground that they have > not received the opportunity to make such inference Let's see... The Laws require a side to do something. They fail to do it. If they had done what is required, the opponents would have gotten a better score (judged on the "likely/at all probable" basis). And you claim there is no redress? > I finally realized that this (I believe) was probably what Herman tried > to express as his opinion, and if so I do agree with him. I also agree with Herman that there is no _general_ entitlement to know the opponents have had a misunderstanding. However, there is in L75D2 a specific entitlement to specific information at a specific time. Get some sleep, Sven. I think you may see this differently when you are awake. From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Feb 25 08:05:08 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel De Raeymaeker) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:05:08 -0800 Subject: [blml] Holmes Wils Message-ID: Some Holmes wilson Fun 1st and formost this hand defended in true Blm fashion You S Jxxx H QJ9xx D Kx C Ax Dummy S AKx H Axx D JT9xxx C x Bidding was Pd Opp U Opp P 1D 1H Dbl 2C 2d P 2H P 2S P 2NT P 3NT All pass Pd leads club to ace, club back to J, CK you discard a heart and pd continues a low club. Where is the 4/5th trick comming from ?? -------------------------------------- S K87x H KT D Qxx C 97xx Bidding 1S P 2H P 3D P 3S P 4S all pass Your lead ... K. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Feb 24 23:56:21 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:56:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <3014524.1046107973736.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <004901c2dc2f$2f21e7c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004401c2dc60$551c89e0$314927d9@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: > Simple: You can be constructed to say that it is legal for me at the table > in the middle of the auction to say something like: > "By the way, I know we haven't noted that on our CC or told you yet so in > order to use our agreement I inform you now that my next call is the Splinter convention. > . . . . 4H." > or (after partner has opened in 2NT): > "You should know that we use Baron and Flint over 2NT opening bids . . . . . > 3Di" > Which I believe with no further ado we both agree would be ridiculous? Ridiculous? No, I believe it to be completely normal. I would expect no less from a screen mate. Of course, it cannot happen without screens, because the player must not communicate with his partner. But the paradigm for which we aim is that I have complete access to your disclosure of your methods, whereas of course your partner has no access at all. And by "your methods" I mean, as I have said elsewhere, not only your written system material but your partnership style, philosophy - and history of accidents and psyches. David Burn London, England From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 25 00:40:44 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:40:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? Message-ID: On 2/24/03, Eric Landau wrote: >we will have little or no sympathy with a player who intentionally >fails to disclose a "partnership understanding" on the grounds that it >is not "special". Which is, IMO, a copout, since no one seems to know what "special" means in this case. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 25 00:40:21 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:40:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ivory Tower Message-ID: On 2/24/03, LarryBennett wrote: >For a club event with no master points, In the ACBL, at least in the clubs around here, there is no such event. In the three years I played in the EBU, albeit admittedly at only one club, there was no such event. The law is clear. Why do people wish not to follow it? From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue Feb 25 02:03:10 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:03:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ivory Tower In-Reply-To: <001201c2dbda$ad59eb60$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <4A256CD7.000EB32F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030224205045.00bb09d0@mail.comcast.net> At 02:59 AM 2/24/2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Richard, > > > If the board was > > dealt by hand, and this was the first time it was > > played, then, if all four players agree, it may be > > redealt." > >The idea is ok if at really low level (they want to play like that so why >stop them). But there are still serious competitions with hand dealt boards >(like swiss teams). A pass-out is a result. Recently I played some >tournament with a weak player. After three passes he started thinking. Then >he asked the table if we would redeal after a pass out. The answer was no. >He opened 1D. Opps called TD (probably to protect themselves from me using >info the opening was borderline). Actually he had 21 HP and didn't know what >to open on his 4441. Now _that_ is a convincing reason not to allow redeals of pass-outs. If pass-outs are redealt, fourth hand can throw in an opening-valued hand which is inconvenient for his system; he expects an average on the redealt board, but a below-average score on the pass-out. For example, you are playing Precision, and you have a 14 count which must be opened 2C. You usually get a below-average score when you open 2C because the field opens 1C, and thus has more room for investigation and can stop lower. (Some hands are well-suited for 2C, but consider something like x AQxx Kxx KQxxx.) However, you are more likely to get a plus than a minus; therefore, you open rather than passing the hand out. If the pass-out were redealt, you could throw the hand in for an average. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Feb 25 02:22:28 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 02:22:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alertable or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 02:13 PM, Karel wrote: > On a recent post about trial bids it was stated that a "natural" rebid > in a > suit of 3 or more cards is not alertable. That's true in the EBU. OB 5.3.1 "The following are considered 'natural' for alerting purposes: (a) a bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about any other suit; the suit shown will be at least four cards before opener rebids but may be on three cards from then on;" Other authorities may have different regulations. > Personally I thought ANY bid > which conveys extra information to pd which the opponents are entitled > to > know is alertable. The following sequence is now fairly common in > expert > circles > > 1D/1H 1M > 2C > > The 2C's can be 3 card up to 17 and is forcing for 1 round. > > Is this alertable ?? > > K. Obviously it depends under which jurisdiction you are playing. In the EBU this is alertable because its forcing nature is other than might be expected. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue Feb 25 02:35:45 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:35:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] MI in IMP? In-Reply-To: References: <002d01c2d274$fbce8450$9522e150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030224210549.02dcd748@mail.comcast.net> At 09:09 AM 2/24/2003, Jack A. Rhind wrote: >Here is from a Pairs event with IMP scoring. > >Bd: 23 Dlr: S Vul: All >Pairs with IMP scoring using screens > > 9432 > J975 > T > KQ86 > >JT865 - >T86 Q3 >Q42 AKJ75 >T9 J75432 > > AKQ7 > AK42 > 9863 > A > > > >N E S W > 1C* P 1C =3D Precision 16+HCP >1D* 1NT Dbl P 1D =3D 0-7 HCP >P 2C 3C P >3NT All Pass > > > >East explained 1NT to North as being for the minors. West explained 1NT to >South as being natural. South doubled 1NT for penalties and South was happy >to accept. Over 2C, South bid 3C assuming that this would show the majors= or >at least elicit a major from North. West assumed the 2C was stayman and was >intending to bid 2S. North assumed that 3C was inviting to play 3NT with >clubs stopped. > >The DA was led and declarer went down one. At this point the differing bids >was discovered and the director was summoned to make a ruling. The Director >ruled that N/S keep their score since they had every opportunity to make a >contract that would have awarded them the same IMPs as 4H/4S and adjusted >the E/W to =AD620. Were N-S damaged? This is hard to tell. If North is a good player, he=20 might have recognized that the auction was strange; if South doubled an=20 unusual NT for penalties with a diamond stack, he should have passed 2C=20 around to North. However, knowing that the auction was strange wouldn't=20 really help North, because he would still have to guess what was going=20 on. And even if North might have bid a major, his 3NT bid wasn't an=20 egregious error absent an agreement that 3C is Stayman; his majors are=20 weak, and his KQxx of clubs would be wasted in a suit contract since South= =20 is short. Thus I would rule that there was damage. Given proper information, the contract will probably be 4H by N-S, which=20 appears to make five on normal play. 4S makes only four, but we assume the= =20 most favorable likely/probable result. I am assuming that declarer's failure to make 3NT was an egregious error,=20 and not the result of E-W cashing five top diamond tricks. If E-W took AKQ= =20 of diamonds and the suit was blocked, then for declarer to throw two hearts= =20 would be an egregious error, since he can throw a spade from hand with no=20 risk, while he needs to keep three hearts in case the HQ drops and spades=20 do not break. Assuming that declarer had a good chance to make 3NT, I do not award N-S=20 any redress for that part of the damage which was self-inflicted. This=20 means that E-W get -650 (not -620), and N-S get the table result, plus any= =20 different between the +630 that they would have had with good play and the= =20 +650 that they might have had. This is close to your ruling, but not quite. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 25 07:34:39 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:34:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 References: <3E554395.9030505@netaccess.co.nz> <008501c2d926$77bee8e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030221083404.00a632b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3E5B1C8F.1080804@skynet.be> Eric, your example illustrates a number of points. Eric Landau wrote: > > Imagine that South, declarer in NT, on lead, tables his cards with the > statement "I have the rest" in this position: > > AQ > AK > - > - > Kx xx > - - > AK xx > - - > xx > xx > - > - > > Obviously, the only "rational" way to try to make the rest of the tricks > is to attempt the club finesse. But if we allow that to mean that we > award him four tricks instead of three under L70E, must we not also > award him one trick instead of three when the East and West hands are > reversed? > > I am a lot more comfortable telling this declarer, "too bad; your SQ > isn't cashing" > This is obviously not an example from the real world, and as such totally uninteresting. But suppose it did come from the real world. Then we need to answer one very important question: why did claimer claim this way. We cannot answer the rationality of different lines unless we know the reason for the claim. So we need to investigate why the player claimed. 1) Perhaps he has a perfect count of the hands, and he knows the finess will work. It will be a little hard to convince the TD of that one, because why did he not say anything about that finesse? But if the TD is convinced, then 4 tricks are given. 2) Perhaps he mistakenly thought the SK had already gone. In that case, the line of cashing the spades first can be considered normal and claimer gets just the one trick. 3) Perhaps this is just the end of a claim in which something else had already gone wrong. Declarer never intended the spade suit to matter so it is rational for him to not have stated anything about that suit. that does not mean however that he is deemed to have forgotten about the SK in the same manner as in case 2) Now, cashing AQ of spades is not a normal line. There are 2 normal lines: -cashing HAK and SA, yielding a certain 3 tricks, or the finesse, yielding 4 or 0. Depending on the situation (number of tricks needed), either line could be judged irrational so only one line remains. Or both lines could remain normal. The ruling is either 4,3 or 0 tricks, depending on the situation and the lie of the SK. This proves once more that bidding and previous play IS important to a claims ruling (even if that was not the case in the particular ruling of Ton's). > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Tue Feb 25 07:52:16 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:52:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <3014524.1046107973736.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <004901c2dc2f$2f21e7c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <004401c2dc60$551c89e0$314927d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000b01c2dca2$d1812670$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "David Burn" > Sven wrote: > > > Simple: You can be constructed to say that it is legal for me at the > table > > in the middle of the auction to say something like: > > > "By the way, I know we haven't noted that on our CC or told you yet so > in > > order to use our agreement I inform you now that my next call is the > Splinter convention. > > . . . . 4H." > > > or (after partner has opened in 2NT): > > > "You should know that we use Baron and Flint over 2NT opening bids . . > . . . > > 3Di" > > > Which I believe with no further ado we both agree would be ridiculous? > > Ridiculous? No, I believe it to be completely normal. I would expect no > less from a screen mate. Of course, it cannot happen without screens, > because the player must not communicate with his partner. But the > paradigm for which we aim is that I have complete access to your > disclosure of your methods, whereas of course your partner has no access > at all. And by "your methods" I mean, as I have said elsewhere, not only > your written system material but your partnership style, philosophy - > and history of accidents and psyches. The laws are written for use without screens, and that is what I have assumed all the time. With screens we have a vast number of laws that by regulations (at least in Norway) are either suspended or at least modified. Yes I know this is against Law 80F, but when screens are wanted it must be accepted that many laws are no longer relevant or applicable in their present form. This discussion can never be meaningful if we switch between the two modes all the time. Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 25 07:54:57 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:54:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 References: <8253191.1045845545954.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E5B2151.30109@skynet.be> David, we agree on far more than you actually know. dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>David, apparently we have a totally different view of this case, >> > > Perhaps. > > >>H:This is where we disagree. You call this person a deluded individual. I call him a malfortunate who happens to show his SQ while issuing a perfectly valid claim statement. >> > > Well, well. There appears to be some doubt about the reality of the whole thing. But I understood that declarer had ruffed a diamond with the queen of spades. Certainly, it appeared that he had played the queen of spades before he started claiming any tricks, and everyone at the table believed with good reason that the queen of spades was the card he was playing to the current trick. In that case, he does not make the jack of diamonds *even though it was part of his claim statement*. We agree on that one. Claimer has ruffed his diamond jack. He now has a trick less than he claimed for. I do not give him back his DJ trick. If it were the case that declarer had in fact been claiming the queen of spades, not ruffing with it, then (perhaps) he would be entitled to five tricks. But I found no such suggestion in Ton's original post. The question was not whether five tricks went to declarer in any case, but whether declarer would be allowed five tricks by means of the club finesse. For that to be an issue, he must be considered to have ruffed the diamond (otherwise, of course, his claim is perfectly valid and there is nothing whatever to discuss). So we proceed on the basis that he has ruffed that diamond. Does he now get the queen of clubs That is indeed the question. > >>No David, your impression of players is wrong - not our claim laws. >> > My impression of players? Herman, I have myself played an entire hand on the basis that I (and not dummy) still had a card that I had parted with at trick one. I have seen players ask for cards that are not in the dummy, not because of a slip of the tongue but because they genuinely believed that dummy still had the card several tricks (not "one second") after it was played. I have seen a man follow to dummy's eight of hearts with... the eight of hearts (from the other board), and *none* of the players at the table realised that anything was amiss. Herman, I play bridge in the real world, where players make mistakes. They are not "irrational" mistakes - they are the kind of clumsiness to which people are prone fom time to time. But you (and Matthias) do not play bridge in the real world at all. For you, a man who has made a mistake suddenly becomes a man incapable of making further mistakes, or of persisting in his original error. For you, a man who has just discarded a winner will notice at once that he has just discarded a winner, and will now by some magical process be transformed into the Reasonable Man of legal fiction, so that he will not discard any more winners, or make any more false assumptions, technical errors, or careless mistakes in the play of the hand. Indeed David, players do sometimes make whopping big errors. This declarer did, by ruffing his certain diamond trick. And he shall pay for that mistake. It is not so, Herman. Someone who claims does not suddenly become a perfect human being. And someone who misclaims, and is therefore known to be an imperfect human being with a faulty perception of reality, does not suddenly become someone incapable of further error. I know what bridge players are. And the kind you imagine when you make your claim rulings and state your "principles" does not exist. But what you are saying, David, is that a player who makes a whopping mistake will always make three more. Yes, players sometimes make mistakes. But the claim laws are written thus (and you may not like it) that whopping mistakes are excluded. If you include whopping mistakes in the adjudication of this claim, then you should in all claims, including those that don't include any errors. Every claim settlement should include two revokes, and yield zero tricks. After all, people sometimes revoke, don't they ? You are right in asking that a claimer proves beyond all doubt that he knows how the cards lie. I believe this declarer does that. His claim statement is fully correct, providing he does not ruff the current trick. But he has done that. So now we must rule on a different case. A case from which we have no full information. If this declarer had ruffed, played out the trick (losing that diamond trick) and then claimed 4 more in full view of the table, that would be an indication there is something wrong with his perception of the club suit. As it stands however, there is no such indication one way or the other. Is it then so much to ask to believe that this man knows the CK is still out? David, I presume you are ruling this case harshly on principle, right, not on the facts ? I presume that we can agree that this claimer knew the CK was still out ? Can I then tell you that not only your principle is way too harsh - it is absolutely not covered by the opinion of anyone else ? So would you please store that opinion in the realm of "how DB would wish the laws to be"? And stop the discussion? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 25 08:05:27 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:05:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 References: <8253191.1045845545954.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224134540.00a7eec0@pop.starpower.net> <001201c2dc39$d73645a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E5B23C7.5010206@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Eric, > > Whatever of this Herman-David truth (I have said a couple of things myself), > I don't think it really matters. 70E seems clear to me. Declarer is not > allowed to guess a suit. In this whole discussion I haven't seen any good > argument why declarer would be allowed to take a finesse. It is a violation > of 70E. Unless you consider it irrational not to do so. But to support a > position that extreme you need to know the bidding, the early play, and the > class of player involved. And it might be a violation of 70D as well. > Because as long as trying to cash the H6 is not irrational this line of play > should also be considered. > Yes indeed Jaap, and that is exactly what I am doing. I have formed an opinion about his knowledge of the hand and decided that it would be irrational for him to attempt to cash the H6. That is a personal opinion, based on an extrapolation of facts. So we need not discuss about this. I have formed an opinion about his knowledge about the CK and decided claimer knows it is still out. That one is very clear in my mind and I'd rather not discuss it because it seems too obvious to me. I don't want to give claimer any more benefit of the doubt so I shall not easily accept from him any statement about him knowing the position of that CK. Given all those points, I rule that only two lines are to be considered: cashing the CA and giving up one trick, or finessing, but certainly without drawing all trumps. All other lines are considered non-normal. Now careful analysis has told us that the finesse yields 4-or-5, and the drop yields 4-or-very-occasionally-5. If declarer is good enough therefor, I might rule that the drop is non-normal. But that is something we cannot decide from here. So yes Jaap, it is simple. L70E tells us what to do. But sadly the application of L70E is not as straightforward as you might think. I'm convinced Burnian claim laws are far easier to apply. But we don't have those. So we need to apply the ones we have. Why should we not be up to the job? > Jaap > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 8:02 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 > > > >>At 11:35 AM 2/24/03, Alain wrote: >> >> >>>At 16:39 21/02/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>My impression of players? Herman, I have myself played an entire hand >>>>on the basis that I (and not dummy) still had a card that I had >>>>parted with at trick one. I have seen players ask for cards that are >>>>not in the dummy, not because of a slip of the tongue but because >>>>they genuinely believed that dummy still had the card several tricks >>>>(not "one second") after it was played. I have seen a man follow to >>>>dummy's eight of hearts with... the eight of hearts (from the other >>>>board), and *none* of the players at the table realised that anything >>>>was amiss. >>>> >>>AG : I will surprise you both : you are both right (will it be >>>unbearable for either ?). >>>Base your decision on your impression of the players and theiri ntents >>>? Sure. >>>Decide that declarer in this deal is of the type that gazes at flying >>>cows ? Certainly not absurd on hearing his claim, and if it is your >>>perception of him, then David is absolutely right. >>>There is, however, a substantial probability that this judgment is >>>unfaithful. Even excluding the case where the SQ was claimed rather >>>than played, there is also the case where declarer pulled the wrong >>>card. In this case, he would probably have realized it before it's too >>>late (for making the club finesse), if only because somebody would >>>have told him he was in his hand. If (and only if) you have solid >>>ground to believe in the slip of the finger (declerer's facial >>>expression on seeing the Queen, perhaps), then a whole new discussion >>>begins, and I'm not sure how I would rule. >>> >>I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that declarer made a >>mechanical error, i.e. played the SQ because he "pulled the wrong >>card". The obvious interpretation of the original scenario is that >>declarer had a "slip of the brain" and ruffed RHO's diamond because he >>thought it was a heart. >> >>Herman argues that this kind of common error gives no weight to any >>legal presumption that declarer was in any way deluded about the >>outstanding cards, and he should therefore be given the benefit of >>assuming that the accuracy and completeness of his knowledge of the >>deal was up to the level we would have presumed had he claimed before >>he mis-saw RHO's card and ruffed it. David argues that if a player >>cannot tell a diamond from a heart, the accuracy and completeness of >>his knowledge of the deal should be assumed to be subject to similar >>mind-losses when we evaluate his subsequent presumptive actions for the >>purpose of adjudicating his claim. >> >>Truth may lie with either, or somewhere in between, but the thread is >>not over, and, AFAIAC, the jury is still out. >> >> >>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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Feb 25 08:04:53 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:04:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: Message-ID: <001701c2dca4$9404b940$6900a8c0@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Sven Pran" Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > On 2/24/03, Sven Pran wrote: > > >And according to Law 75 it is the partnership agreement that is to > >be explained when information is requested. > > I am hooked up with a pickup partner. She says "I play SAYC". I say > "okay". We begin to play. First hand, she deals, and opens 1H. I have a > clear Jacoby 2NT game forcing raise. I bid 2NT. No alert. It turns out > she had no clue that Jacoby 2NT is part of SAYC. What is our partnership > agreement regarding the meaning of 2NT? > > Until this very moment it was including Jacoby 2NT (BTW I haven't the faintest idea what that convention is, but that doesn't matter. It sounds as if it could be more or less the same I know as Stenberg?) >From now on it is: SAYC, but without Jacoby 2NT because partner is unfamiliar with that part. And eventually (preferably sooner) you will have established your partner's understanding of the 2NT bid in this situation and accepted that as your agreement. And - while you are at it maybe you should take a quick walk-through on SAYC with your partner and see if there are more surprises waiting? regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 25 08:09:15 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:09:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 References: <8253191.1045845545954.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224134540.00a7eec0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224153648.00a7cc00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3E5B24AB.5010309@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:20 PM 2/24/03, Jaap wrote: > > > I believe that what Jaap is saying here when he writes, "70E seems clear > to me," is that the original case that started the thread is not one of > those, but rather one for which L70E does provide sufficiently explicit > guidance, so that the Herman-vs-David philosophical debate doesn't > matter -- and I agree. My first post to this thread stated, "I believe > L70E prevents us from ruling that S would have taken a trick with the CQ." > > But sadly, L70E goes on to a last sentence. Now when we are finally there - and there is no other talk anymore about ruling 3 tricks, or zero (rather illogical considering he has three trumps), then we can decide to let the matter rest. We cannot in all honesty rule that the line of dropping the king (irrational after careful analysis) would also be irrational to this declarer at this instant. We don't know enough about declarer for that one. So shall we let this matter rest ? > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Feb 25 08:16:24 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:16:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 References: <3E554395.9030505@netaccess.co.nz> <008501c2d926$77bee8e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030221083404.00a632b0@pop.starpower.net> <3E5B1C8F.1080804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001b01c2dca6$317db900$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman: > This is obviously not an example from the real world, and as such > totally uninteresting. My dear Herman. What do you know about the real world? It is quite common that a finesse risks making less tricks than can be taken without a finesse. Herman: > We cannot answer the rationality of different lines > unless we know the reason for the claim. This is a strange statement coming from one who thinks that the rationality of a line of play can be established without knowing the bidding and early play (at least in some cases and Herman gives the impression in quite a lot of cases). Which in my opinion more than disqualifies Herman as TD and AC-member. If a TD would present to me (as AC) a case which involved bridge judgement without bidding (including dealer and vuln. info), the full hand, and the early play, I would make it very clear that he was not doing his job very well. Although why somebody claimed is interesting information, it is hard to imagine that it will have much consequence. A claim is either correct or it is not. The law doesn't make any provisions for different reasons for claiming incorrectly (yes 70A and some meta-laws protect the misclaimer to a certain extend). Besides after 20 odd years of ruling on AC's I cannot remember any misclaim which was not caused by declarer not counting his tricks or forgetting that some card was still outstanding or not (or the like). Ton's case was original in that respect. But ruffing ones own winner (probably caused by not looking at East's red card) is for me as stupid or smart as not counting your winners so why should I apply the law in a different way. If somebody revokes, leads out of turn, or whatever, I also don't really care about the reason (yes I can imagine some weird exceptions). And there is another problem with 'finding out why he claimed'. Whenever they have a bidding understanding thay always try to sell it as a misbid (obvious given the rules). Somebody who had forgotten the SK (because he had seen the CK) will 'always' say 'how can you possible think that I don't know the SK is still there'. Now you rule 3 tricks maybe because you don't believe him maybe for another reason. He will be mad at you (wheter or not his statement was true). If you rule 3 tricks because you cannot take a finesse (oops guess a suit) after a claim nobody will get angry. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 > Eric, your example illustrates a number of points. > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > Imagine that South, declarer in NT, on lead, tables his cards with the > > statement "I have the rest" in this position: > > > > AQ > > AK > > - > > - > > Kx xx > > - - > > AK xx > > - - > > xx > > xx > > - > > - > > > > Obviously, the only "rational" way to try to make the rest of the tricks > > is to attempt the club finesse. But if we allow that to mean that we > > award him four tricks instead of three under L70E, must we not also > > award him one trick instead of three when the East and West hands are > > reversed? > > > > I am a lot more comfortable telling this declarer, "too bad; your SQ > > isn't cashing" > > > > > This is obviously not an example from the real world, and as such > totally uninteresting. > But suppose it did come from the real world. > Then we need to answer one very important question: why did claimer > claim this way. We cannot answer the rationality of different lines > unless we know the reason for the claim. > > So we need to investigate why the player claimed. > > 1) Perhaps he has a perfect count of the hands, and he knows the > finess will work. It will be a little hard to convince the TD of that > one, because why did he not say anything about that finesse? But if > the TD is convinced, then 4 tricks are given. > > 2) Perhaps he mistakenly thought the SK had already gone. In that > case, the line of cashing the spades first can be considered normal > and claimer gets just the one trick. > > 3) Perhaps this is just the end of a claim in which something else had > already gone wrong. Declarer never intended the spade suit to matter > so it is rational for him to not have stated anything about that suit. > that does not mean however that he is deemed to have forgotten about > the SK in the same manner as in case 2) Now, cashing AQ of spades is > not a normal line. There are 2 normal lines: -cashing HAK and SA, > yielding a certain 3 tricks, or the finesse, yielding 4 or 0. > Depending on the situation (number of tricks needed), either line > could be judged irrational so only one line remains. Or both lines > could remain normal. The ruling is either 4,3 or 0 tricks, depending > on the situation and the lie of the SK. > > This proves once more that bidding and previous play IS important to a > claims ruling (even if that was not the case in the particular ruling > of Ton's). > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 Tue Feb 25 08:24:07 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:24:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <1843654.1046107051974.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E5B2827.2030807@skynet.be> dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > Now, it seems to me the most extraordinary piece of doublethink to say: you are allowed to know x, and you are allowed to know y, but you are not allowed to know both x and y. > No David, no doublethink: You are allowed to know x, and you are entitled to know y, but you are not entitled to know x and y. > David Burn > London, England > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Feb 25 08:38:13 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:38:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 References: <8253191.1045845545954.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224134540.00a7eec0@pop.starpower.net> <001201c2dc39$d73645a0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E5B23C7.5010206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002001c2dca9$3f57d620$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman: >Yes indeed Jaap, and that is exactly what I am doing. >I have formed an opinion about his knowledge of the hand and decided >that it would be irrational for him to attempt to cash the H6. That is >a personal opinion, based on an extrapolation of facts. So we need not >discuss about this. There is no info at all on declarers level of play and his knowledge of the hand. So nobody including Herman can base a decision on that. You are just inventing facts. Besides you are such a poor player that you have no business making this kind of judgements. >Idon't want to give claimer any more benefit of the doubt so I shall >not easily accept from him any statement about him knowing the >position of that CK. Same problem. We have no info. But in real life good players have a pretty good idea about who has outstanding Aces and Kings at this stage of the play (ever asked yourself why good players tend to 'guess' Queens right far more often than tou do). But once again. You are such a poor player that you have no idea what you are talking about. Here you say in a way that declarer is more likely to know the value of the H6 then the location of the CK. Complete nonsense. > Now careful analysis has told us that the finesse yields 4-or-5, and > the drop yields 4-or-very-occasionally-5. How can you say so without knowing the bidding or early play. Given certain answers the finesse might well be 0%. I which case trying the H6 (if you are not so sure) is far from irrational. But al your silly talk is irrelevant. I think 70E is quite clear and that the 'irrational' clause was never meant to treat xxx op AQ different from say Kx opp AJx. Also in the the second case the finesse is much more likely to succeed than playing for the drop. Anybody claiming that playing for the drop is irrational? What is the point of 70E if you refuse to take it seriously. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Eric, > > > > Whatever of this Herman-David truth (I have said a couple of things myself), > > I don't think it really matters. 70E seems clear to me. Declarer is not > > allowed to guess a suit. In this whole discussion I haven't seen any good > > argument why declarer would be allowed to take a finesse. It is a violation > > of 70E. Unless you consider it irrational not to do so. But to support a > > position that extreme you need to know the bidding, the early play, and the > > class of player involved. And it might be a violation of 70D as well. > > Because as long as trying to cash the H6 is not irrational this line of play > > should also be considered. > > > > > Yes indeed Jaap, and that is exactly what I am doing. > I have formed an opinion about his knowledge of the hand and decided > that it would be irrational for him to attempt to cash the H6. That is > a personal opinion, based on an extrapolation of facts. So we need not > discuss about this. > > I have formed an opinion about his knowledge about the CK and decided > claimer knows it is still out. That one is very clear in my mind and > I'd rather not discuss it because it seems too obvious to me. > > I don't want to give claimer any more benefit of the doubt so I shall > not easily accept from him any statement about him knowing the > position of that CK. > > Given all those points, I rule that only two lines are to be > considered: cashing the CA and giving up one trick, or finessing, but > certainly without drawing all trumps. > > All other lines are considered non-normal. > > Now careful analysis has told us that the finesse yields 4-or-5, and > the drop yields 4-or-very-occasionally-5. > > If declarer is good enough therefor, I might rule that the drop is > non-normal. But that is something we cannot decide from here. > > So yes Jaap, it is simple. L70E tells us what to do. But sadly the > application of L70E is not as straightforward as you might think. > > I'm convinced Burnian claim laws are far easier to apply. But we don't > have those. So we need to apply the ones we have. Why should we not be > up to the job? > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Eric Landau" > > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 8:02 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 > > > > > > > >>At 11:35 AM 2/24/03, Alain wrote: > >> > >> > >>>At 16:39 21/02/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>My impression of players? Herman, I have myself played an entire hand > >>>>on the basis that I (and not dummy) still had a card that I had > >>>>parted with at trick one. I have seen players ask for cards that are > >>>>not in the dummy, not because of a slip of the tongue but because > >>>>they genuinely believed that dummy still had the card several tricks > >>>>(not "one second") after it was played. I have seen a man follow to > >>>>dummy's eight of hearts with... the eight of hearts (from the other > >>>>board), and *none* of the players at the table realised that anything > >>>>was amiss. > >>>> > >>>AG : I will surprise you both : you are both right (will it be > >>>unbearable for either ?). > >>>Base your decision on your impression of the players and theiri ntents > >>>? Sure. > >>>Decide that declarer in this deal is of the type that gazes at flying > >>>cows ? Certainly not absurd on hearing his claim, and if it is your > >>>perception of him, then David is absolutely right. > >>>There is, however, a substantial probability that this judgment is > >>>unfaithful. Even excluding the case where the SQ was claimed rather > >>>than played, there is also the case where declarer pulled the wrong > >>>card. In this case, he would probably have realized it before it's too > >>>late (for making the club finesse), if only because somebody would > >>>have told him he was in his hand. If (and only if) you have solid > >>>ground to believe in the slip of the finger (declerer's facial > >>>expression on seeing the Queen, perhaps), then a whole new discussion > >>>begins, and I'm not sure how I would rule. > >>> > >>I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that declarer made a > >>mechanical error, i.e. played the SQ because he "pulled the wrong > >>card". The obvious interpretation of the original scenario is that > >>declarer had a "slip of the brain" and ruffed RHO's diamond because he > >>thought it was a heart. > >> > >>Herman argues that this kind of common error gives no weight to any > >>legal presumption that declarer was in any way deluded about the > >>outstanding cards, and he should therefore be given the benefit of > >>assuming that the accuracy and completeness of his knowledge of the > >>deal was up to the level we would have presumed had he claimed before > >>he mis-saw RHO's card and ruffed it. David argues that if a player > >>cannot tell a diamond from a heart, the accuracy and completeness of > >>his knowledge of the deal should be assumed to be subject to similar > >>mind-losses when we evaluate his subsequent presumptive actions for the > >>purpose of adjudicating his claim. > >> > >>Truth may lie with either, or somewhere in between, but the thread is > >>not over, and, AFAIAC, the jury is still out. > >> > >> > >>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 > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Feb 25 09:04:24 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:04:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: ton: > >Tell me Eric why then you started saying 'no' on question 1, > to me this > >answer you give here seems to say 'yes'. I never said that > the laws do > >require that a player shouild be informed that a player has > forgotten an > >agreement. But that is an obvious conclusion when later > partner tells that > >the agreement made is not what was explained. Eric: > > If the laws do not require that a player should be informed that an > opponent has forgotten an agreement, then the laws do not > offer redress > when he is not so informed. Thank you for this contribution, it offers a good basis to consider law changes. I agree as far as the bidding itself is involved, but is not true as far as explantion is involved. If forgettting an agreement leads to wrong explanation, and it regularly does, redress might be needed. That doesn't change if the reason he was > not so informed was incidental to the commission of an infraction by > his opponents. Here the infraction -- misinformation -- consisted of > his not being given the correct information in the first > place, and the > redress he gets for that infraction is the best result it is at all > likely he would have obtained had there been no infraction, > i.e. had he > been given the correct information in the first place. Also true. But now you concentrate on the misexplanation and the possible damage resulting from that alone. So opponents will say: hadn't we received the misexplanation we would have done something different. And yes then the adjusted score should be based on receiving the right information from the beginning. But there are other possibilities, one of which is that the misexplanation is not restored in time (before play starts) by the declaring side. This is an infraction on its own and opponents now tell the director to be damaged as a result of this infraction. Your answer seems to be that you don't accept this argument. I don't understand why not. If damage occurred the redress should be based on receiving the right information at that stage and including the knowledge that a misunderstanding occurred. the present laws do cover these cases. Which leaves us with the cases where after the first irregularity (misexplanation) and before receiving the right information some other action would be taken, during play for example (quite normal when defenders misexplained). It is my feeling that declarer (following the example) has a good point when he wants redress based on his right to know the agreements and using the information that defenders have a misunderstanding. To be in line with the laws this means that we have to split a misexplanation in that fact alone being an infraction and not informing opponents about the agreement as another. Not very elegant, so a reason to discuss this in the LC. Nobody has reacted on the argument I gave for having this feeling, which is that if the misexplanation had been restored by the player himself, opponents may use the information from both statements. His opponent is not required > to tell him, "I thought it meant X when I bid it, but it really means > Y" -- neither in an original single statement nor in the form of an > incorrect original statement followed by a subsequent correction. What has this to do with the case? He > is entitled only to what the opponents are obligated to give him, > namely correct information throughout, thus he gets redress only if > their failure to give him correct information throughout resulted in > damage. > Perhaps what it comes down to is that I am viewing giving an > incorrect > explanation without offering a subsequent correction as an MI > offense, > to be dealt with by determining what might have happened had it not > occurred, whereas Ton is viewing it as two separate infractions, the > first being MI, the second being a separate infraction of "failing to > correct MI", and is willing to offer redress for the second > infraction > only, on the grounds that the first (after adjudication of > the second) > actually worked to the player's advantage, while the second > resulted in > redressable damage. Yes, well done. > > I don't believe, however, that it is logical to treat a situation as > though there were two separate and independent infractions when the > second could not have occurred absent the first. Is there anything in the laws about seperate and independent infractions? Let us look at a misexplanation which creates UI for partner. Isn't a TD allowed to rule that partner chose from among logical etc. etc., being an infraction on its own for which redress is given. The adjusted score will not necessarily be based on what would have happened without the misexplanation but could be based on what the score would be without the favorable choice made by partner. In fact the opponents wil decide how to deal with it, depending on where the damage came from. Rather similar ain't it? Something to think about? ton > Eric Landau From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Feb 25 09:06:48 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:06:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: Message-ID: <006801c2dcad$a455e220$7425e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What system do you play? > On 2/24/03, Eric Landau wrote: > > >we will have little or no sympathy with a player > >who intentionally fails to disclose a "partnership > >understanding" on the grounds that it is not > >"special". > > E.R.: > Which is, IMO, a copout, since no one seems to > know what "special" means in this case. > +=+ "additional to what is normal and general" says the WBF Code of Practice - and it varies, of course, according to the ambience in which one is playing. The judgement to be made is whether the meaning is so commonly understood among the players in the tournament that it is not necessary to protect the opponent from his failure to understand. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Feb 25 09:05:47 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:05:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <200302242349.SAA12663@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <006701c2dcad$a31b3f40$7425e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > -------- \X/ -------- > > Let's see... > > The Laws require a side to do something. They > fail to do it. If they had done what is required, the > opponents would have gotten a better score (judged > on the "likely/at all probable" basis). And you claim > there is no redress? > ----------- \X/ --------------- > > I also agree with Herman that there is no _general_ > entitlement to know the opponents have had a > misunderstanding. However, there is in L75D2 > a specific entitlement to specific information at a > specific time. > +=+ I have tried to read this thread coherently but it has tended to "ride madly off in all directions". Clearly the recipient of an explanation is entitled to know the partnership agreement as to the meaning of a call; a 'correction' will show there is disagreement as to that meaning - and in the end either the initial explanation or the 'correction' may turn out to be misinformation. Whichever is wrong may lead to damage, although declarer does not receive a 'correction' until after the hand is over. The damage may occur at any time after the incorrect information is given, depending on the course of events. It often seems to me that furnishing an opponent with two differing explanations of a call merely provides added possibilities of alleged damage, and that one of the benefits of screens is that each player receives his information from a single source; it is not contaminated by any 'correction' and it is either a correct statement of the partnership agreement or not. This is why in my mind I toy with the thought that maybe without screens we would be better off if no corrections were permitted by anyone until the end of the play. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 25 09:14:19 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:14:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 References: <3E554395.9030505@netaccess.co.nz> <008501c2d926$77bee8e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030221083404.00a632b0@pop.starpower.net> <3E5B1C8F.1080804@skynet.be> <001b01c2dca6$317db900$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E5B33EB.3070302@skynet.be> Sorry Jaap, but you seem to be in David's league when it comes to argueing "if Herman then wrong". Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman: > >>This is obviously not an example from the real world, and as such >>totally uninteresting. >> > > My dear Herman. What do you know about the real world? It is quite common > that a finesse risks making less tricks than can be taken without a finesse. > > Herman: > >>We cannot answer the rationality of different lines >>unless we know the reason for the claim. >> > > This is a strange statement coming from one who thinks that the rationality > of a line of play can be established without knowing the bidding and early > play (at least in some cases and Herman gives the impression in quite a lot > of cases). No, all I'm saying is that when someone tells us a story from the real world, very often the current situation gives enough clues to deduce the previous play. People who put cases on blml are usually not stupid. They tell us all that matters, and omit things that they believe can easily be deduced. But when Eric posts nothing more than 16 cards, without adding anything, that is not enough. > Which in my opinion more than disqualifies Herman as TD and > AC-member. If a TD would present to me (as AC) a case which involved bridge > judgement without bidding (including dealer and vuln. info), the full hand, > and the early play, I would make it very clear that he was not doing his job > very well. > But we are not here as AC, we are here as blml. We are not asked for a binding ruling. And sometimes the people that post on blml give too little information. > Although why somebody claimed is interesting information, it is hard to > imagine that it will have much consequence. Not much ? Just about all. > A claim is either correct or it > is not. The law doesn't make any provisions for different reasons for > claiming incorrectly (yes 70A and some meta-laws protect the misclaimer to a > certain extend). Well, most claims that get here are incorrect. But we still need to know why. Besides after 20 odd years of ruling on AC's I cannot > remember any misclaim which was not caused by declarer not counting his > tricks or forgetting that some card was still outstanding or not (or the > like). Yes, which one of those ? Ton's case was original in that respect. But ruffing ones own winner > (probably caused by not looking at East's red card) is for me as stupid or > smart as not counting your winners so why should I apply the law in a > different way. Exactly. What's your point? If somebody revokes, leads out of turn, or whatever, I also > don't really care about the reason (yes I can imagine some weird > exceptions). > Exactly. What's your point? > And there is another problem with 'finding out why he claimed'. Whenever > they have a bidding understanding thay always try to sell it as a misbid > (obvious given the rules). Somebody who had forgotten the SK (because he had > seen the CK) will 'always' say 'how can you possible think that I don't know > the SK is still there'. Now you rule 3 tricks maybe because you don't > believe him maybe for another reason. He will be mad at you (wheter or not > his statement was true). If you rule 3 tricks because you cannot take a > finesse (oops guess a suit) after a claim nobody will get angry. > But Jaap, there is a huge difference. Suppose in the original case DJ were not a winner. Declarer ruffs the diamond and then claims 4 tricks. NOW I'm wondering why he claimed wrongly. Did he forget about the CK? Did he think H6 was high? Now I'm off looking why he claimed. But this case is not like that. I know why he claimed - he has five winners (true). I know what he did wrong - he ruffs one of the winners while claiming. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that this claimer thought the H6 or CQ was high. But all that has been said over and over again. > Jaap > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:34 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n+1 > > > >>Eric, your example illustrates a number of points. >> >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >>>Imagine that South, declarer in NT, on lead, tables his cards with the >>>statement "I have the rest" in this position: >>> >>> AQ >>> AK >>> - >>> - >>>Kx xx >>>- - >>>AK xx >>>- - >>> xx >>> xx >>> - >>> - >>> >>>Obviously, the only "rational" way to try to make the rest of the tricks >>>is to attempt the club finesse. But if we allow that to mean that we >>>award him four tricks instead of three under L70E, must we not also >>>award him one trick instead of three when the East and West hands are >>>reversed? >>> >>>I am a lot more comfortable telling this declarer, "too bad; your SQ >>>isn't cashing" >>> >>> >> >>This is obviously not an example from the real world, and as such >>totally uninteresting. >>But suppose it did come from the real world. >>Then we need to answer one very important question: why did claimer >>claim this way. We cannot answer the rationality of different lines >>unless we know the reason for the claim. >> >>So we need to investigate why the player claimed. >> >>1) Perhaps he has a perfect count of the hands, and he knows the >>finess will work. It will be a little hard to convince the TD of that >>one, because why did he not say anything about that finesse? But if >>the TD is convinced, then 4 tricks are given. >> >>2) Perhaps he mistakenly thought the SK had already gone. In that >>case, the line of cashing the spades first can be considered normal >>and claimer gets just the one trick. >> >>3) Perhaps this is just the end of a claim in which something else had >>already gone wrong. Declarer never intended the spade suit to matter >>so it is rational for him to not have stated anything about that suit. >>that does not mean however that he is deemed to have forgotten about >>the SK in the same manner as in case 2) Now, cashing AQ of spades is >>not a normal line. There are 2 normal lines: -cashing HAK and SA, >>yielding a certain 3 tricks, or the finesse, yielding 4 or 0. >>Depending on the situation (number of tricks needed), either line >>could be judged irrational so only one line remains. Or both lines >>could remain normal. The ruling is either 4,3 or 0 tricks, depending >>on the situation and the lie of the SK. >> >>This proves once more that bidding and previous play IS important to a >>claims ruling (even if that was not the case in the particular ruling >>of Ton's). >> >> >> >>> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 25 09:16:18 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:16:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 References: <8253191.1045845545954.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224134540.00a7eec0@pop.starpower.net> <001201c2dc39$d73645a0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E5B23C7.5010206@skynet.be> <002001c2dca9$3f57d620$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E5B3462.1000909@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: >> > > There is no info at all on declarers level of play and his knowledge of the > hand. So nobody including Herman can base a decision on that. You are just > inventing facts. Besides you are such a poor player that you have no > business making this kind of judgements. > Sorry Jaap, I forgot. The claims laws are just up to the level of David and Jaap. Anyone else should just forget they are aver good enough to solve a claim. You have just disqualified yourself from any sensible discussion I am going to continue with you. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 25 09:55:52 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:55:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] MI in IMP? In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030224164818.00aa1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030225105345.00aa3dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:49 24/02/2003 -0400, Jack A. Rhind wrote: >On 2/24/03 11:58 AM, "Alain Gottcheiner" wrote: > > > At 10:09 24/02/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >> Here is from a Pairs event with IMP scoring. > >> > >> Bd: 23 Dlr: S Vul: All > >> Pairs with IMP scoring using screens > >> > >> 9432 > >> J975 > >> T > >> KQ86 > >> > >> JT865 - > >> T86 Q3 > >> Q42 AKJ75 > >> T9 J75432 > >> > >> AKQ7 > >> AK42 > >> 9863 > >> A > >> > >> > >> > >> N E S W > >> 1C* P 1C =3D Precision 16+HCP > >> 1D* 1NT Dbl P 1D =3D 0-7 HCP > >> P 2C 3C P > >> 3NT All Pass > >> > >> > >> > >> East explained 1NT to North as being for the minors. West explained 1NT= to > >> South as being natural. South doubled 1NT for penalties and South was= =20 > happy > >> to accept. Over 2C, South bid 3C assuming that this would show the=20 > majors or > >> at least elicit a major from North. West assumed the 2C was stayman=20 > and was > >> intending to bid 2S. North assumed that 3C was inviting to play 3NT= with > >> clubs stopped. > >> > >> The DA was led and declarer went down one. At this point the differing= =20 > bids > >> was discovered and the director was summoned to make a ruling. The=20 > Director > >> ruled that N/S keep their score since they had every opportunity to= make a > >> contract that would have awarded them the same IMPs as 4H/4S and= adjusted > >> the E/W to =AD620. > >> > >> Do you agree with this ruling? > >> If not, why? Please suggest a better ruling. > > > > AG : if NS can provide explanations as to which better sequence they= could > > have done had South known about the meaning of 1NT, I would be prone to > > adjust the score (if 4S makes a lesser number of tricks, adjust to 2/3= of > > 4H and 1/3 of 4S). Perhaps NS's bidding was imperfect, but > > a) the problems were obviously caused by the discrepancies in the=20 > explanations > > b) NS did nothing so outrageous as to cut this causal link > > (at the very least, South was unaware of the danger of the Diamond suit) > > > > The TD's explanation is unclear, but perhaps the TD means that NS were > > given the contract through some error ad erred back in going down. This > > should not be taken into account. With correct eplanation, NS would not > > have been compelled to play a touch-and-go 3NT. What they did in 3NT is > > therefore irrelevant. > > > > One last question : if 1NT was natural (a strange option indeed), why > > didn't West double 3NT ? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alain. > > >Sorry, I omitted to provide a description of the play which I believe is >relevant. The defense cashed three rounds of diamonds ending in the West >hand (blocking the suit). At trick 4 West switched to the SJ. Declarer now >has a reasonably clear picture of the East hand (at least 5-5 in the minors >and void in spades). Given that declarer is in dummy with no real prospect >of getting to hand to play the heart suit, there is really no option but to >play to drop the HQ doubleton. AG : IBTD. If *West* has the HQ, the play is easy : take the spade, play=20 CA, and heart. Yes, playing two top hearts in case the Q drops doubleton,=20 is better, but a small heart directly is only inferior, not irrational. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 25 09:59:19 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:59:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224134540.00a7eec0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030224172509.00a9b390@pop.ulb.ac.be> <8253191.1045845545954.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030225105707.00aa3550@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:02 24/02/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 11:35 AM 2/24/03, Alain wrote: > >>At 16:39 21/02/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >> >>>My impression of players? Herman, I have myself played an entire hand on >>>the basis that I (and not dummy) still had a card that I had parted with >>>at trick one. I have seen players ask for cards that are not in the >>>dummy, not because of a slip of the tongue but because they genuinely >>>believed that dummy still had the card several tricks (not "one second") >>>after it was played. I have seen a man follow to dummy's eight of hearts >>>with... the eight of hearts (from the other board), and *none* of the >>>players at the table realised that anything was amiss. >> >>AG : I will surprise you both : you are both right (will it be unbearable >>for either ?). >>Base your decision on your impression of the players and theiri ntents ? >>Sure. >>Decide that declarer in this deal is of the type that gazes at flying >>cows ? Certainly not absurd on hearing his claim, and if it is your >>perception of him, then David is absolutely right. >>There is, however, a substantial probability that this judgment is >>unfaithful. Even excluding the case where the SQ was claimed rather than >>played, there is also the case where declarer pulled the wrong card. In >>this case, he would probably have realized it before it's too late (for >>making the club finesse), if only because somebody would have told him he >>was in his hand. If (and only if) you have solid ground to believe in the >>slip of the finger (declerer's facial expression on seeing the Queen, >>perhaps), then a whole new discussion begins, and I'm not sure how I >>would rule. > >I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that declarer made a mechanical >error, i.e. played the SQ because he "pulled the wrong card". The obvious >interpretation of the original scenario is that declarer had a "slip of >the brain" and ruffed RHO's diamond because he thought it was a heart. AG : this also he will realise if he plays out. Because he will ask for a club from the table, and be told he must follow suit. He will then have time to try the club finesse. If claim rules are there to ensure that the result would have been the same as if the hand was played out (are they ?), the discussion and Herman's point of view are to be taken into account. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 25 11:30:18 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:30:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <200302242349.SAA12663@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <006701c2dcad$a31b3f40$7425e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3E5B53CA.6040009@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > It often seems to me that furnishing an opponent > with two differing explanations of a call merely > provides added possibilities of alleged damage, and > that one of the benefits of screens is that each player > receives his information from a single source; it is not > contaminated by any 'correction' and it is either > a correct statement of the partnership agreement > or not. This is why in my mind I toy with the thought > that maybe without screens we would be better off > if no corrections were permitted by anyone until the > end of the play. Or the beginning of the play for defenders ? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 25 10:36:21 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:36:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ivory Tower References: Message-ID: <022801c2dcc6$49991640$c3c74c51@pc> Perhaps I did not fully explain myself. I was intending to refer to a supervised beginners/teaching game where one can break all sorts of laws such as referring to aide-memoirs, asking pard what their bid means, or asking someone else what to bid etc. > On 2/24/03, LarryBennett wrote: > > >For a club event with no master points, > > In the ACBL, at least in the clubs around here, there is no such event. > > In the three years I played in the EBU, albeit admittedly at only one > club, there was no such event. > > The law is clear. Why do people wish not to follow it? From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Tue Feb 25 13:15:11 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:15:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] (blml) Ivory Tower Message-ID: <003001c2dccf$ee785640$3b4765d5@swipnet.se> The real reason why a re-deal should not be allowed is that players are = not entitled to know that the hand has been passed out. E g third hand = is not entitled to know that fourth hand probably has opening values. Regards Hans-Olof From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 25 15:00:29 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:00:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] (blml) Ivory Tower In-Reply-To: <003001c2dccf$ee785640$3b4765d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030225155444.00aa6680@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:15 25/02/2003 +0100, Hans-Olof Hall=E9n wrote: >The real reason why a re-deal should not be allowed is that players are=20 >not entitled to know that the hand has been passed out. E g third hand is= =20 >not entitled to know that fourth hand probably has opening values. AG : in a recent tournament, everybody held a 10-count, but North (1st to=20 speak, deal 17) opened an artificial 2H (4H/5m) and got a good score. The=20 deal was passed to other tables. Everybody knew that in this club, passed=20 hands are redealt. Two Souths reasoned that 4th hand should have an openig= =20 and tried preemption. Their results were ridiculous. Even *knowing* somebody opened doesn't help you. Best regards, Alain. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Feb 25 16:07:07 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:07:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <200302251607.LAA17266@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > Eric: > > If the laws do not require that a player should be informed that an > > opponent has forgotten an agreement, then the laws do not > > offer redress when he is not so informed. > From: "Kooijman, A." > Thank you for this contribution, it offers a good basis to consider law > changes. Yes, Eric's statement puts it very nicely. Either there is an infraction or there isn't. If there is one, and it damages the NOS, there should be redress. > But there are other possibilities, one of which is that the misexplanation > is not restored in time (before play starts) by the declaring side. This is > an infraction on its own and opponents now tell the director to be damaged > as a result of this infraction. As mentioned before, I agree with Ton here. L75D2 has specific requirements, and failing to meet them is an infraction. > Which leaves us with the cases where after the first irregularity > (misexplanation) and before receiving the right information some other > action would be taken, during play for example (quite normal when defenders > misexplained). When 75D2 does not apply, there is only the original MI (plus perhaps UI in some cases). This would be normal behind screens, and Ton gives another good example here. > It is my feeling that declarer (following the example) has a good point when > he wants redress based on his right to know the agreements and using the > information that defenders have a misunderstanding. ... > Nobody has reacted on the argument I gave for having this feeling, which is > that if the misexplanation had been restored by the player himself, > opponents may use the information from both statements. Let me try, then. For (almost?) all other types of infractions, the road to redress starts by imagining what would have happened had the infraction not occurred. In the "simple MI" case (no 75D2), we start by assuming that a correct explanation had been given when required. Since there is no other infraction to redress, once we have determined "likely/at all probable" results with no MI, that's the end of the matter. (Except L12C3 may apply in some jurisdictions.) If a correct explanation had been given, the player would have no way of knowing about a misunderstanding, and so knowledge of a misunderstanding is not a factor in determining the results. This is the basis of Herman's argument, and it seems sound to me. Why would we want to treat MI cases differently than any other type of infraction? > From: "Grattan Endicott" > It often seems to me that furnishing an opponent > with two differing explanations of a call merely > provides added possibilities of alleged damage, and > that one of the benefits of screens is that each player > receives his information from a single source; it is not > contaminated by any 'correction' and it is either > a correct statement of the partnership agreement > or not. Careful, Grattan: you will be joining the DeWael School before long. :-) > This is why in my mind I toy with the thought > that maybe without screens we would be better off > if no corrections were permitted by anyone until the > end of the play. This has a number of advantages and is certainly worth considering. On the other hand, it may lead to more adjusted scores. Suppose a pair have an unobstructed auction -- the other side was never going to do anything other than pass regardless of the explanations. Now if any MI is corrected before the opening lead, there can be no damage, and the table result will stand. Under the proposed new rule, however, the TD will have to judge possible MI damage in the play. This doesn't make the proposed change a bad idea, but it's one thing to consider. From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Feb 25 16:47:05 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:47:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Holmes Wils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ooopps wrong forum .... -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of Karel De Raeymaeker Sent: 25 February 2003 08:05 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: [blml] Holmes Wils Some Holmes wilson Fun 1st and formost this hand defended in true Blm fashion You S Jxxx H QJ9xx D Kx C Ax Dummy S AKx H Axx D JT9xxx C x Bidding was Pd Opp U Opp P 1D 1H Dbl 2C 2d P 2H P 2S P 2NT P 3NT All pass Pd leads club to ace, club back to J, CK you discard a heart and pd continues a low club. Where is the 4/5th trick comming from ?? -------------------------------------- S K87x H KT D Qxx C 97xx Bidding 1S P 2H P 3D P 3S P 4S all pass Your lead ... K. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Feb 25 16:52:56 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:52:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <006801c2dcad$a455e220$7425e150@endicott> Message-ID: > On 2/24/03, Eric Landau wrote: > > >we will have little or no sympathy with a player > >who intentionally fails to disclose a "partnership > >understanding" on the grounds that it is not > >"special". > > E.R.: > Which is, IMO, a copout, since no one seems to > know what "special" means in this case. > +=+ "additional to what is normal and general" says the WBF Code of Practice - and it varies, of course, according to the ambience in which one is playing. The judgement to be made is whether the meaning is so commonly understood among the players in the tournament that it is not necessary to protect the opponent from his failure to understand. +++ Finally in a nutshell the problem I've had with alerting some bids but not others as they are "commonly" understood. IMO take a group of any 10 players and there will not be a concensus to the meaning of 99% of the bids in bridge. In this light surely if there is any extra information, any at all no matter how insignificant you think it may be, which the bid conveys either points, length, shortage, distribution, etc then that bid should be alerted (even though it may take a few extra secinds everytime) in ... fairness ... to the opponents. This then stops you having to make a godlike decision on "common meanings of a bid" or your opponents systems knowledge and abilities to pick out the relevant/irrelevant inferences from your bidding. K. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 25 17:32:29 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:32:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: References: <006801c2dcad$a455e220$7425e150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030225183038.00aab0c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:52 25/02/2003 +0000, Karel wrote: >+++ Finally in a nutshell the problem I've had with alerting some bids but >not others as they are "commonly" understood. IMO take a group of any 10 >players and there will not be a concensus to the meaning of 99% of the bids >in bridge. In this light surely if there is any extra information, any at >all no matter how insignificant you think it may be, which the bid conveys >either points, length, shortage, distribution, etc then that bid should be >alerted AG : isn't this a little bit too much ? Every bid conveys a meaning as to a point range (or tricks or losers), with very few exceptions. Do we have to alert each and every bid ? From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Feb 25 17:20:26 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:20:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] What system do you play? Message-ID: <200302251720.MAA17310@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel" > In this light surely if there is any extra information, any at > all no matter how insignificant you think it may be, which the bid conveys > either points, length, shortage, distribution, etc then that bid should be > alerted As Alain says, this leads to alerting every call (even the passes!). What is needed is sensible SO regulations that don't refer to vague (non-existent!) "usual methods" or similar words. From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Feb 26 03:42:25 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel De Raeymaeker) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:42:25 -0800 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030225183038.00aab0c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: AG : isn't this a little bit too much ? Every bid conveys a meaning as to a point range (or tricks or losers), with very few exceptions. Do we have to alert each and every bid ? +++ ok examples Opening 1NT - weak is 12-14. Str 15-17 or 16-18. Once again this should be stated before any bidding occurs. Opening 1H 1S 4+ or 5+ suit and "an opening bid" whatever definition this is - not alertable. Normal Opening 1D - in ireland if you play 5CM "better minor" is 3+ and is alertable. In WBF land unless playing some weird and wonderful strong diamond or club system this is standard. But even in 5CM systems some opps open 1D with 4333 and some 1C. Which a given pair opens MAY effect an opponent. Also the term "better minor" has completely different meanings depending on the partnership. I feel that if your 1D does not show 4+ diamonds and an opening bid it should be alerted unless your have told the opponents this before any bidding starts. It takes 2/3 seconds - no big deal. The only way around this is to have a universal agreed upon meaning for any particular sequence which is available to everyone. Any deviation from this universal meaning is then alertable. I'll take my hat off to anyone who tries this ... I can see the "alert all" approach may lead to "alert" congestion and may lead to more appeals as some "inference" may not have been mentioned. It may also lead to more "technicality" cases where the alerted bid is off marginally or doesn't match the alert in some way. The game of bridge will take longer ... But ... what is the alternative ?? How can you decide at the table what is alertable, how much is enough on a per opps basis ?? Why should the opps be forced to be familar with your system ?? IMO either alert wholeheartedly or don't bother and get the opps to ask everything (surely a complete disaster approach). Any other approach I predict will become a web of "grey" and will be very hard to objectively and consistently rule on. The example I gave 1D/H 1M 2C as 3+ 11 - 17 F is surely alertable as the F part is hardly standard and an opp assuming a weaker hand may balance and get mangled while with proper info stay quiet. K. From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Feb 25 18:48:01 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:48:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030224172509.00a9b390@pop.ulb.ac.be> <8253191.1045845545954.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20030225105707.00aa3550@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000201c2dd07$5163cdc0$25b54351@noos.fr> Alain: > If claim rules are there to ensure that the > result would have been the same as if the hand was played out (are they ?), I don't think so. It doesn't say so anywhere. And the wording of most of 70 contradicts this idea. 70D says that we have to pick the least favourable non-irrational line. 70E says that claimer cannot guess anything right anymore. That kind of things would not be in the law if the law meant to ensure that the result was the same as if the hand was played out. Then 70 would/should be 'in case of a misclaim TD judges how a player of claimers level would have played the hand'. I don't think that is a good idea, if you are tired or whatever you just misclaim and the TD will do the job for you. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Eric Landau" ; "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 > At 14:02 24/02/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >At 11:35 AM 2/24/03, Alain wrote: > > > >>At 16:39 21/02/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > >> > >>>My impression of players? Herman, I have myself played an entire hand on > >>>the basis that I (and not dummy) still had a card that I had parted with > >>>at trick one. I have seen players ask for cards that are not in the > >>>dummy, not because of a slip of the tongue but because they genuinely > >>>believed that dummy still had the card several tricks (not "one second") > >>>after it was played. I have seen a man follow to dummy's eight of hearts > >>>with... the eight of hearts (from the other board), and *none* of the > >>>players at the table realised that anything was amiss. > >> > >>AG : I will surprise you both : you are both right (will it be unbearable > >>for either ?). > >>Base your decision on your impression of the players and theiri ntents ? > >>Sure. > >>Decide that declarer in this deal is of the type that gazes at flying > >>cows ? Certainly not absurd on hearing his claim, and if it is your > >>perception of him, then David is absolutely right. > >>There is, however, a substantial probability that this judgment is > >>unfaithful. Even excluding the case where the SQ was claimed rather than > >>played, there is also the case where declarer pulled the wrong card. In > >>this case, he would probably have realized it before it's too late (for > >>making the club finesse), if only because somebody would have told him he > >>was in his hand. If (and only if) you have solid ground to believe in the > >>slip of the finger (declerer's facial expression on seeing the Queen, > >>perhaps), then a whole new discussion begins, and I'm not sure how I > >>would rule. > > > >I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that declarer made a mechanical > >error, i.e. played the SQ because he "pulled the wrong card". The obvious > >interpretation of the original scenario is that declarer had a "slip of > >the brain" and ruffed RHO's diamond because he thought it was a heart. > > AG : this also he will realise if he plays out. Because he will ask for a > club from the table, and be told he must follow suit. He will then have > time to try the club finesse. If claim rules are there to ensure that the > result would have been the same as if the hand was played out (are they ?), > the discussion and Herman's point of view are to be taken into account. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Feb 25 11:41:00 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:41:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: <3E5B564C.4040408@skynet.be> This thread has turned on a number of different issues. What are the laws now? What should the laws be? I don't think the first is very important anymore and I want to concentrate on the second. It is my belief that bridge must be seen as a Platonic ideal, with the several forms of the game as mere reflections of that ideal. In the ideal form, every player has full knowledge of their opponents' agreements. It is knowledge he has gained from devine sources, almost. But in the real world, he receives this from various real sources : CC, system notes, alerts, partner's answer of questions, the bidder's own answers. I don't believe that it is the intention of the WBF to start separating the game into different sets of environments. As much as possible, bridge with screens must be the same as bridge without them. So the ideal must be the same even if the approximations differ. Which is why I believe that the basis for redress when there is MI should be that same ideal world: what would have happened if the player, by divine knowledge, had full understanding of the agreements. As you see, that excludes all the information that he did receive. Only in such a way can we insure that bridge with or without screens, F2F and on-line, remain one and the same game. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Feb 25 21:21:31 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:21:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] What system do you play? Message-ID: <200302252121.QAA17506@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" > +++ ok examples What you seem to be doing here is stating your own preferences about what the alert regulations should be. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but most SO's have their own ideas. This is clearly a subject on which reasonable people can disagree. > Opening 1NT - weak is 12-14. Str 15-17 or 16-18. Once again this should be > stated before any bidding occurs. In the EBU, it's the opponents' job to look at the CC. In the ACBL, ranges are announced when the bid is made. Other rules are no doubt possible. In any case, range isn't the issue. Suppose 1NT doesn't indicate a balanced hand at all. Surely that will be alertable in all sensible jurisdictions. But what if it may include a singleton? Or if it denies a four-card major? Or denies five spades but not five hearts? Or some other restriction? No doubt you have your own preferences about which of these should be alertable, just as I have mine, but the important thing is for the SO to establish clear rules. > I feel that if your 1D does not show 4+ > diamonds and an opening bid it should be alerted unless your have told the > opponents this before any bidding starts. It takes 2/3 seconds - no big > deal. While this is surely a possible rule, it has the disadvantage of hiding "real" alerts, when 1D doesn't show diamonds at all. > The only way around this is to have a universal agreed upon meaning for any > particular sequence which is available to everyone. Any deviation from this > universal meaning is then alertable. I'll take my hat off to anyone who > tries this ... As you say, the "universal meaning" approach isn't viable, but thinking it is the "only way" other than yours suggests that you haven't considered a very broad perspective. > what is the alternative ?? How can you decide at the table what is > alertable, how much is enough on a per opps basis ?? Why should the opps be > forced to be familar with your system ?? It shouldn't be on a "per opps" basis. The SO should tell us what needs to be alerted and what doesn't. > The example I gave 1D/H 1M 2C as 3+ 11 - 17 F is surely alertable as the F > part is hardly standard and an opp assuming a weaker hand may balance and > get mangled while with proper info stay quiet. If 2C is forcing, how can an opponent be balancing? In the ACBL, I don't think 2C would necessarily be alertable because the meaning is well within the usual range, perhaps a bit weaker than normal. It might depend on distributional restrictions, if any. Some of responder's next, forced, actions might well be alertable, though, because at least one such action has to avoid promising extra strength. The ACBL rules, sad to say, are not as clear as we would really like. In the EBU, the forcing 2C would clearly be alertable. In other jurisdictions, there would no doubt be other answers. Perhaps this gives some flavor of the variety of regulations that can be established. As long as the regulations are clear, I think which are "best" comes down to personal taste, not logic. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Feb 25 21:23:44 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:23:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: <200302252123.QAA17510@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > Which is why I believe that the basis for redress when there is MI > should be that same ideal world: what would have happened if the > player, by divine knowledge, had full understanding of the agreements. As I said in response to Ton, why do you want MI to be different from all other rules? What is wrong with "if the infraction had not occurred?" From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Feb 25 22:30:15 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:30:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <3E58AB52.5040508@skynet.be> References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <001101c2da3c$9a681300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <003201c2da44$717c5480$25b54351@noos.fr> <001301c2dafc$5ce63640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <3E58AB52.5040508@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 12:06:58 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >With that set-up, a player might hear such explanations as: > >-asking for aces >followed by >-preference for diamonds > >That would give opponents information they are not entitled to. Yes. But I don't understand why it should be a problem that one of the consequences of your not knowing your system is that opponents get a little more information than they are entitled to. If you don't want that to happen, learn your system. By the way, without screens you can easily hear explanations like the ones you quoted above. I remember an occasion long ago where both my ethical opponents were bidding and bidding and bidding and bidding, carefully explaining each bid from either player as being a reply to an asking bid; it stopped somewhere at the seven level. (And no, I don't want to get into a discussion of the "HdW school" here...) I would consider it an advantage to ensure that the two opponents always get their explanation from the same player; that reduces the complexity of some MI cases. But a four-way screen has a very serious impact on the social aspects of the game, so I am pretty sure that this is very theoretical discussion. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Feb 25 23:24:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:24:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ivory Tower Message-ID: <4A256CD8.007EA869.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Richard Hills: >>>Therefore, perhaps Law 22A could be rewritten >>>in the 2005 Laws: >>> >>>"After the auction period has ended, if no player >>>has bid, the hands are returned to the board >>>without play. If the board was computer-dealt >>>there shall not be a redeal. If the board was >>>dealt by hand, and this was the first time it was >>>played, then, if all four players agree, it may be >>>redealt." Eric Landau: >>Could be, but absolutely should not be, for two reasons: >> >>(1) There is no justification for allowing the pairs at >>one table, who have each received a score of 0 for a >>passed-out board, to be given a second chance to improve >>their score by substituting another deal, at the expense >>of pairs at other tables who might be able, by virtue of >>their superior skill, judgment or methods, to obtain a >>plus score on the original deal, just because they >>happened to have played the original board at the table >>at which it was dealt. "The pairs" at the first table are involved in a zero-sum exercise by redealing; any matchpoints one pair gains on the redeal compared to the original deal, the other pair loses. Pairs who play the board in subsequent rounds have the opportunity to exercise their superior skill on either the original deal or the redealt deal. >>(2) There is no reason to (and good reason not to) >>introduce into the laws a precedent by which any valid >>score, legally arrived at, with no irregularity or >>violation of law involved, should not stand as obtained. The good reason is that that is what the majority of grass root players want, and that is what the majority of grass root players already illegally do. If they are going to do it anyway, why not make it legal? Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : please allow me to add > >(3) There is no justification for disallowing a player to >win points, of whichever sort, by cleverly passing where >lesser peones will open and gather a minus score. [snip] If one of the first-round pairs has exercised skill by declining to bid, then that pair can decline the option of a redeal. Note that my proposed new law states "if all four players agree, it may be redealt". Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Feb 26 02:28:14 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:28:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <4A256CD9.000BA9AB.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Grattan wrote: [snip] >>>The time at which the misexplanation may >>>be corrected is clearly specified. Only >>>in the case of a player realizing his >>>own explanation is incorrect is the due >>>time to correct it whilst the auction is >>>in progress. [snip] A hair-splittingly incorrect assertion by Grattan. The auction period does not end until the opening lead has been faced. (Law 17E) The putative declaring side is required to call the TD to correct a misexplanation after the final pass, but before the opening lead, so that is technically during the auction. (Law 75D2) The TD may rule probable damage due to MI, and therefore permit the putative defender who made their side's final Pass the option of restarting the auction with a different call. (Law 21B1) Ton later wrote (in reply to Herman): >>I want to elaborate on the case presented >>already. >> >>case 1: >> >>wrong explanation during the bidding, >>restored by other opponent before play >>starts. possibility to change my call, >>which I do based on the information >>that there is a misunderstanding. >>Completely legal, resulting in a very >>good score. [snip] Yes, in an Australian Youth Final many years ago just such a situation occurred - I changed my Pass to a Double, getting +800. >>case 2: >> >>wrong explanation during the bidding not >>restored by other opponent before play >>starts, which is an infraction. (yes I >>am defender in both cases). I call the >>TD telling I am damaged by this wrong >>information. You are telling me now that >>the decision from the TD (or AC) will >>not include the possibility that I >>would have used both sources? In fact you >>give me a less good score than I received >>in case 1 in which my opponent did what >>he had to do? >> >>Please don't tell me that you don't like >>the laws as applied in case 1, because >>that is not the issue. Those laws we have >>and those laws we need to apply. >> >>And don't tell me that I am not entitled >>to wrong information, I know that and it >>is completely irrelevant. [snip] Yes, it seems to me that Ton has made a clear case that MI and non-timely correction of MI are two separate infractions, requiring two rulings. Grattan's further thoughts: >+=+ I have tried to read this thread >coherently but it has tended to "ride madly >off in all directions". Clearly the >recipient of an explanation is entitled to >know the partnership agreement as to the >meaning of a call; a 'correction' will show >there is disagreement as to that meaning - >and in the end either the initial >explanation or the 'correction' may turn out >to be misinformation. [snip] >It often seems to me that furnishing an >opponent with two differing explanations of >a call merely provides added possibilities >of alleged damage, Any damage to the NOS caused by MI will be corrected by the TD. The NOS is not damaged if two differing explanations allow the NOS to deduce a Double for +800. Or did Grattan mean that the added alleged damage possiblities are that the poor TD and AC get unfairly overworked? >and that one of the benefits of screens is >that each player receives his information >from a single source; it is not contaminated >by any 'correction' Is that a benefit? Differing explanations behind screens have led to knotty MI decisions by ACs just as recondite as MI decisions by ACs where screens were not involved. [snip] >I toy with the thought that maybe without >screens we would be better off if no >corrections were permitted by anyone until >the end of the play. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Now Grattan is toying with a 2005 amendment to Law 75D2, which would shorten the Law to: "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error until play ends. After calling the Director after play ends, the player must inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous." While Herman (and possibly Grattan) believes that "as much as possible, bridge with screens must be the same as bridge without them," I disagree. I believe that the Laws of each form of Bridge should be carefully customised to the nature of each form of Bridge. Having the putative declaring side correct MI before the putative defenders lead and defend has obvious advantages in limiting damage caused by MI to the defence, and obvious advantages in having a deal decided at the table rather than by an AC. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Feb 26 03:34:14 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:34:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? Message-ID: <4A256CD9.0011B442.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >>What is needed is sensible SO regulations that >>don't refer to vague (non-existent!) "usual >>methods" or similar words. The ABF alert regulation http://www.abf.com.au/about/alerts.html contains similarly vague words "may reasonably misinterpret". In my opinion, it is impossible for an SO to fully eradicate the dreaded vague words from its alert regulation. However, in my opinion, an alert regulation can be sensible in practice if the vague words are illustrated by examples, as the ABF does: >The general principle is to alert calls which the >opponents may not fully understand or may >reasonably misinterpret. All natural bids that >convey a meaning that the opponents may not >expect must be alerted. This includes strong bids >that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong, and >all other calls that, by agreement, convey >meanings different from, or in addition to the >normal meaning ascribed to them. For example: > >a 2 over 1 change of suit response by a non- >passed hand that is non-forcing, > >passes or other bids below 3NT that are not >natural or have special partnership agreements. > >In relation to the 1NT opening bid, if it can >systemically contain less than 11 HCP, more than >18 HCP, a singleton, a 6+ card major or a 7-card >minor, it must be alerted. Best wishes Richard From lskelso@ihug.com.au Wed Feb 26 03:54:11 2003 From: lskelso@ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:54:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] To ask or not ask? Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030226135411.00967b20@pop3.norton.antivirus> Dear All The following situation arose a few days ago at one of Australia's largest national events. Bd 23 AJ4 Dlr S J973 All J108762 - Q73 K1086 AQ842 K105 9 Q K1075 AQJ93 952 6 AK543 8642 West North East South - - - Pass 1H Pass 3D* Pass 4H All Pass *Splinter - not alerted Systemically 3D was a splinter bid agreeing hearts. South maintained that if 3D had been alerted he would have inquired and then doubled to show diamonds. North would then have been able to raise to 5D, either buying the contract or ultimately defending 5H. South however also admitted that he was fully aware at the time that 3D was not natural. He explained that he had reasoned it to be either a splinter or a bergen raise, but had elected not to clarify the situation since if he had asked and it subsequently turned out to be bergen, then he still would have had to pass (their agreement being that a double of bergen was take-out) and now his partner would have been in receipt of UI. Has South been damaged by the non-alert? Is there any difference, from a potential UI perspective, if one asks about a non-alerted call compared to asking about an alerted call? Laurie From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Feb 26 04:03:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:03:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+2 Message-ID: <4A256CD9.001457D0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >Imagine that South, declarer in NT, on lead, tables >his cards with the statement "I have the rest" in >this position: > > AQ > AK > - > - >Kx xx >- - >AK xx >- - > xx > xx > - > - > >Obviously, the only "rational" way to try to make >the rest of the tricks is to attempt the club >finesse. But if we allow that to mean that we >award him four tricks instead of three under L70E, >must we not also award him one trick instead of >three when the East and West hands are reversed? > >I am a lot more comfortable telling this declarer, >"too bad; your SQ isn't cashing". That implies that Eric would award South three tricks. David Burn and I would award South one trick (Trick 10 SA; Trick 11 SQ). If "I have the rest" means that "dummy has four top winners because I believe that the SK was played on an earlier trick", is it irrational to attempt to "cash" the SQ before taking the prettier looking winners HA and HK? Best wishes Richard From kaima13@hotmail.com Wed Feb 26 03:38:09 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:38:09 -0800 Subject: [blml] To ask or not ask? References: <3.0.6.32.20030226135411.00967b20@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: > > Has South been damaged by the non-alert? > Is there any difference, from a potential UI perspective, if one asks about > a non-alerted call compared to asking about an alerted call? > > Laurie IMHO, as a player only (not TD or laws expert) Yes, he was damaged and, furthermore, cornered in the bidding. He couldn't ask a question when the 3D was not alerted, and although he suspected the call was artificial he could not know what it systemically meant. Picking up their convention card to look at that moment would also have shown "sudden interest" and drawn his pard's attention to the situation. I hope director was called after the hand was played, damage verified, score adjusted, and EW properly educated about their responsibility to alert an alertable call. D Raija Davis > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Feb 26 04:39:44 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:39:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lucy in the sky with diamonds Message-ID: <4A256CD9.0017B2E2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Canberra Times editorial, February 24th: [big snip] > That said, there are still some grounds for >unease, for thinking that drug testing in sport >itself is on trial and must come up with rules >better designed for the circumstance. The >circumstance is not that Warne is, or most >probably now was a great sporting asset, but >that the end in view is to stop sporting results >being affected by artificial enhancements caused >by drugs. It would not be about different rules >for different people, but rules adapted to >particular sports. > We should not have to wait until a chess >player is banned for using body-building drugs, >or a lawn bowler for using arthritis drugs, >before being allowed to say that a one-size- >fits-all approach to drugs in sport is a little >ridiculous. Or a bridge player? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Feb 26 05:47:47 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:47:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] To ask or not ask? Message-ID: <4A256CD9.001DEDF2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Laurie Kelso wrote: [snip] >>South however also admitted that he was fully >>aware at the time that 3D was not natural. He >>explained that he had reasoned it to be either >>a splinter or a bergen raise, but had elected >>not to clarify the situation since if he had >>asked and it subsequently turned out to be >>bergen, then he still would have had to pass >>(their agreement being that a double of bergen >>was take-out) and now his partner would have >>been in receipt of UI. >> >>Has South been damaged by the non-alert? >> >>Is there any difference, from a potential UI >>perspective, if one asks about a non-alerted >>call compared to asking about an alerted call? Yes to both questions. Law 20F1 does not permit asking about a specific call, only a full explanation of the auction. The ABF Alert Regulation has modified Law 20F1 when an alerted or self-alerting call is made: >At his/her turn to call, a player may request an >explanation of either opponent's alerted or self >alerting call(s) made since his/her own previous >call. > >If a player fails to ask at his/her turn to call >about the latest alerted or self alerting call >of either opponent, he/she must no longer ask >about that specific call, but should instead >request an explanation of the entire auction. > >The proper method of enquiry is to say, "Please >explain your agreement", or, "What is the >meaning of the auction?", or a similar request. > >Any questions about a call or calls must take >into account the requirements of Law 16, covering >Unauthorised Information: Note that the implication of the ABF regulation is that most of the time a proper enquiry about a (self-)alerted call will not create UI. However, *any* enquiry about an individual non-alertable call is improper - contrary to Law 20F1 - and therefore more likely to create UI. South could have asked the superficially legal question, "Could I have an explanation of the auction?", but South would be infracting Law 73B1 if West gave the Bergen answer, and South then had to Pass. Especially if South is a player who routinely asks about alerted calls, it is plausible that the failure to alert damaged North-South on this deal. Best wishes Richard From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 26 08:27:05 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:27:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy in the sky with diamonds In-Reply-To: <4A256CD9.0017B2E2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226091544.00aab610@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:39 26/02/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Canberra Times editorial, February 24th: > >[big snip] > > > That said, there are still some grounds for > >unease, for thinking that drug testing in sport > >itself is on trial and must come up with rules > >better designed for the circumstance. The > >circumstance is not that Warne is, or most > >probably now was a great sporting asset, but > >that the end in view is to stop sporting results > >being affected by artificial enhancements caused > >by drugs. It would not be about different rules > >for different people, but rules adapted to > >particular sports. > > We should not have to wait until a chess > >player is banned for using body-building drugs, > >or a lawn bowler for using arthritis drugs, > >before being allowed to say that a one-size- > >fits-all approach to drugs in sport is a little > >ridiculous. AG : one should distinguish between three cases : a) drugs that help you bypass some threshold usually unpassable by your peers, eg steroids for runners. Should be absolutely banned. b) drugs that only help you remain at the level that's needed for the practice of your sport, eg anti-arthritis drugs for lawn bowlers. YMMV, but I suppose they might be allowed on basis of certification. c) drugs that have nothing to do with the sport you're doing, eg body-building drugs for chess [or bridge] players. No reason to regulate. As was said before on blml, the bridge player's most useful type a) drug is caffeine. Perhaps it wil be banned. Horresco referens. The Shane Warne case is a little bit peculiar : one doesn't ingest masking substances if one is ignorant that one may not use the *other* drug, whichever it is. Warne can't plead ignorance, and that's why they're harsh with him. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 26 08:35:42 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:35:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ivory Tower In-Reply-To: <4A256CD8.007EA869.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226092732.00aa8570@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:24 26/02/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >"The pairs" at the first table are involved in a zero-sum >exercise by redealing; any matchpoints one pair gains on >the redeal compared to the original deal, the other pair >loses. Pairs who play the board in subsequent rounds >have the opportunity to exercise their superior skill on >either the original deal or the redealt deal. AG : what if your pair plays a system that proves superior on 10-10-10-10 deals (eg mini-notrumps) ? Why should they be deprived of the opportunity of a good score ? Redealing modifies the relative frequency of hand types (as does computer-dealing). I'm against computer-dealing, but sometimes it is necessary. And I'm against redealing. Call this a mathematician's idiosyncrasy, but isn't it fairer ? > >>(2) There is no reason to (and good reason not to) > >>introduce into the laws a precedent by which any valid > >>score, legally arrived at, with no irregularity or > >>violation of law involved, should not stand as obtained. > >The good reason is that that is what the majority of grass >root players want, and that is what the majority of grass >root players already illegally do. If they are going to >do it anyway, why not make it legal? AG : most people bypass red lights, thus ... Best regards, Alain. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Feb 26 08:25:51 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:25:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: > > > > From: Herman De Wael > > Which is why I believe that the basis for redress when there is MI > > should be that same ideal world: what would have happened if the > > player, by divine knowledge, had full understanding of the > agreements. > Steve: > As I said in response to Ton, why do you want MI to be different from > all other rules? What is wrong with "if the infraction had not > occurred?" > I tried to explain to you what is wrong with it. It seems necessary to treat the misinformation and the mistake not to inform opponents/defenders in time, before the auction ends, as separate infractions. I have read some suggestions to change the laws but that is not the issue here. Let us suppose two tables where the same infraction happens in the same auction: misexplanation. At table A one defender knows it to be misexplanation and combining both he takes a clear decision based on predictable misunderstanding between both opponents, very good score. No damage, no TD called. At table B defenders are not aware of this misexplanation, or too late aware to take such advantageous decision. We know that they where entitled to know the partnership agreement from the moment on they received the misexplanation. How is it possible to defend the idea that they are not entitled to the same good score as defenders at table A received? ton From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Wed Feb 26 08:54:21 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 03:54:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] KO match: how would you rule? Message-ID: <200302260854.h1Q8sLA12182@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> This hand came up in a recent KO match and I was the director. If you have questions about the deal, I might be able to either get the answers or have the answers already. I ruled as noted below. Had the result on this deal mattered, E/W would have appealed the ruling and they felt that I was unjustified in my ruling. How would you rule? -Ted Ying. Board #20, BOTH Vul, Dealer W At the first table the following ensued: NORTH S: A6 H: 3 D: QT7653 C: AQ84 WEST EAST S: KQJT843 S: 9 H: K95 H: AQJT942 D: 4 D: K2 C: J3 C: 652 SOUTH S: 752 H: 86 D: AJ98 C: KT97 Auction: South West North East -- 1S 2D 2H 3D 4H 5D X (1) (1) Hesitation before bidding P 5H P P P I was called to the table after the 5H bid had been made. Both sides agreed that there had been a significant break in tempo before the X. East/West contend that information in the given hand was enough to warrant that the 5H bid was justified. They stated that once the hand with no quick tricks and little defense opted to open the bidding 1S and not some preempt in spades, that the hand would never sit for the double. North/South called me back to the table at the end of the hand. Based on L16A and L12C2, I believe that pass is a logical alternative and the hesitation suggests that bidding would be better than passing. So, I opted to convert the result back to 5D-X making 5 (750 to N/S). From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 26 09:33:53 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:33:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] KO match: how would you rule? In-Reply-To: <200302260854.h1Q8sLA12182@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226102116.00aa4d70@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 03:54 26/02/2003 -0500, Ted Ying wrote: >This hand came up in a recent KO match and I was the >director. If you have questions about the deal, I might be >able to either get the answers or have the answers already. >I ruled as noted below. Had the result on this deal mattered, >E/W would have appealed the ruling and they felt that I was >unjustified in my ruling. How would you rule? > > -Ted Ying. > >Board #20, BOTH Vul, Dealer W > >At the first table the following ensued: > > NORTH > S: A6 > H: 3 > D: QT7653 > C: AQ84 > >WEST EAST >S: KQJT843 S: 9 >H: K95 H: AQJT942 >D: 4 D: K2 >C: J3 C: 652 > > SOUTH > S: 752 > H: 86 > D: AJ98 > C: KT97 > >Auction: >South West North East >-- 1S 2D 2H >3D 4H 5D X (1) (1) Hesitation before bidding >P 5H P P >P > >I was called to the table after the 5H bid had been made. Both >sides agreed that there had been a significant break in tempo >before the X. East/West contend that information in the given >hand was enough to warrant that the 5H bid was justified. They >stated that once the hand with no quick tricks and little defense >opted to open the bidding 1S and not some preempt in spades, that >the hand would never sit for the double. North/South called me >back to the table at the end of the hand. > >Based on L16A and L12C2, I believe that pass is a logical >alternative and the hesitation suggests that bidding would be >better than passing. So, I opted to convert the result back to >5D-X making 5 (750 to N/S). AG : when the TD thinks the case is too close for him to decide, he should take the view most severe to the (potential) OS and notify them their right to appeal. Thus, you did quite right here. Now, assume the AC has to judge this case. Is pass a LA ? It is, nearly every time, after a penalty double. And this hand is no exception. If you decide not to preempt, you take upon yourself the possible competitive problems that might ensue. Yes, pass is a LA. But it's close. If West's hand were 74, I would probably accept the pull. And I imagine some ACs would accept it in this case. This does not take anything off the rightness and lawfulness of your decision. Of course, East is responsible. After taking some time, he should have passed. Yes, his tempo shows doubt, but so does his (forcing) pass, so very little UI is transmitted, as opposed to what happens after a slow double. The motto "if you tranced, don't pass" is not always right. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 26 09:36:27 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:36:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226092732.00aa8570@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002001c2dd7a$896f3330$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ............. > Redealing modifies the relative frequency of hand types > (as does computer-dealing). I'm against computer-dealing, > but sometimes it is necessary. And I'm against redealing. > Call this a mathematician's idiosyncrasy, but isn't it fairer ? > case 1: "Redealing modifies the relative frequence of hand types" Correct, because it involves filtering out a certain class of hand types (those not suitable for opening in any hand). case 2. "as does computer-dealing". Correct (sic.!), because (in most cases) hand shuffling is rather imperfect and results in too many "flat" distribution types compared to what would be the case if the dealing of the hands were truly random. There is a major difference between those two cases: In case 1 we intentionally remove a particular "class" of deals from the total "family" of all deals. In case 2 we avoid "over-representation" of a particular class of ("flat") distribution types. I remember reading somewhere that the Italian Blue Team players were aware of this fact and were famous for shuffling the spots off the cards because they were favoured by their system with more "freak" distributions. The essential question boils down to whether we want to stick to the traditional way of shuffling cards with all its "imperfections", or rather prefer obtaining card dealing characteristics with better correlation to the statistics for a truly random process. IMHO while case 1 above is "obviously" undesirable case 2 is equally "highly" desirable simply because it allows us to apply the statistical tools we have available when playing. A curious point is by the way that the hand types we avoid over-represented with computer-dealing are to some extent exactly the same hand types that are filtered out due to all pass redeals! regards Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 26 09:42:51 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:42:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+2 References: <4A256CD9.001457D0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001a01c2dd7b$70624700$25b54351@noos.fr> I am with the hawks that I am absolutly against allowing declarer guessing suits including AQ. But: Eric: > Obviously, the only "rational" way to try to make > the rest of the tricks is to attempt the club > finesse. Once again, without bidding and early play nobody can judge the rationality or normality of the finesse versus the drop. But if you replace 'rational' with 'normal' (in the normal sense of the word) I can live with this statement. Eric >I am a lot more comfortable telling this declarer, >"too bad; your SQ isn't cashing". [rather than forcing a finesse for 1 trick] Here Eric is right imho, we (experienced TD/AC) can make rulings bases on arcane logic only we understand but which we can never sell to the public. Richard: > ....... is it irrational to > attempt to "cash" the SQ before taking the prettier > looking winners HA and HK? The example can be improved with changing the hearts to #AQ (or worse). Then those other winners look as pretty (or even less) as that loser. Richard: > If "I have the rest" means that "dummy has four > top winners because I believe that the SK was > played on an earlier trick", If you manage to establish that I agree with 1 trick. But in my experience incorrectly claiming the rest almost always means 'I didn't count my tricks' so without clear evidence to the contrary I tend to assume that default. After which it becomes 'funny'.Given 70E you have to award 4 if the CK is stiff onside. You have to award 3 if the CK is long onside (we give declarer CK is still there). You have to award 0 if the K is stiff offside. To be consequent you have impose the finesse if the K is offside with 1 or 2 sidewinners. So this can be ruled for anything between 0 and 4 depending on breaks. This can lead to some very silly rulings. Suppose we play teams and declarer needed just 2 or 3 tricks for his contract (which goes a long way to explain a sloppy claim like this). In real life he would never have finessed so why force it on him. But of course I don't want to give him 4 tricks if the K dropped stiff offside. I would prefer my own version of this law which simply says 'if you claim too many tricks you get your top tricks, period'. This will give declarer always 3 tricks in this ending (given there is no doubt about the winners being winners and being perceived as winners) whatever the breaks. My law is easier to apply and I don't believe it produces more silly rulings than the current law does. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n+2 > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > [snip] > > >Imagine that South, declarer in NT, on lead, tables > >his cards with the statement "I have the rest" in > >this position: > > > > AQ > > AK > > - > > - > >Kx xx > >- - > >AK xx > >- - > > xx > > xx > > - > > - > > > >Obviously, the only "rational" way to try to make > >the rest of the tricks is to attempt the club > >finesse. But if we allow that to mean that we > >award him four tricks instead of three under L70E, > >must we not also award him one trick instead of > >three when the East and West hands are reversed? > > > >I am a lot more comfortable telling this declarer, > >"too bad; your SQ isn't cashing". > > That implies that Eric would award South three > tricks. David Burn and I would award South one > trick (Trick 10 SA; Trick 11 SQ). > > If "I have the rest" means that "dummy has four > top winners because I believe that the SK was > played on an earlier trick", is it irrational to > attempt to "cash" the SQ before taking the prettier > looking winners HA and HK? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 26 10:20:14 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:20:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] KO match: how would you rule? References: <200302260854.h1Q8sLA12182@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <004801c2dd80$a9357340$25b54351@noos.fr> Ted, Nice case. If there was a real break in tempo, pas is a LA, I agree with your ruling, BUT if there was only an hesitation, table result. The problem is that it is normal in high level competition to take/need some time. I would consider around 3 seconds normal tempo. The problem is (specially at low level) that people often bid in a split second in this kind of situation (which at the top level we tend to see as an infraction but at top level we nowadays always play with screens). So now there are two different variants of normal tempo. You always break one or another. The solution is not to bid too quickly in sensitive situations (this means a kind of informal mini stop rule) or to play with screens. In Holland we tend to rule that around 3 seconds (an hesistation is often such a period) in such a situation is normal tempo (knowing it is not for certain people, but this is an anomaly in the rules). So if the double didn't include a serious pause I would rule table. But if EW agreed on the break in tempo you did very well and I would support you on AC. Although if EW consider 3 seconds a break in tempo this creates a paradox. My only problem with the case is that your 'hesistation' is not compatible with 'a significant break in tempo' the way I use those words. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Ying" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "Ted Ying" Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:54 AM Subject: [blml] KO match: how would you rule? > > This hand came up in a recent KO match and I was the > director. If you have questions about the deal, I might be > able to either get the answers or have the answers already. > I ruled as noted below. Had the result on this deal mattered, > E/W would have appealed the ruling and they felt that I was > unjustified in my ruling. How would you rule? > > -Ted Ying. > > Board #20, BOTH Vul, Dealer W > > At the first table the following ensued: > > NORTH > S: A6 > H: 3 > D: QT7653 > C: AQ84 > > WEST EAST > S: KQJT843 S: 9 > H: K95 H: AQJT942 > D: 4 D: K2 > C: J3 C: 652 > > SOUTH > S: 752 > H: 86 > D: AJ98 > C: KT97 > > Auction: > South West North East > -- 1S 2D 2H > 3D 4H 5D X (1) (1) Hesitation before bidding > P 5H P P > P > > I was called to the table after the 5H bid had been made. Both > sides agreed that there had been a significant break in tempo > before the X. East/West contend that information in the given > hand was enough to warrant that the 5H bid was justified. They > stated that once the hand with no quick tricks and little defense > opted to open the bidding 1S and not some preempt in spades, that > the hand would never sit for the double. North/South called me > back to the table at the end of the hand. > > Based on L16A and L12C2, I believe that pass is a logical > alternative and the hesitation suggests that bidding would be > better than passing. So, I opted to convert the result back to > 5D-X making 5 (750 to N/S). > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 26 10:42:40 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:42:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: <002001c2dd7a$896f3330$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226092732.00aa8570@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226112850.00ab9360@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:36 26/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >case 2. >"as does computer-dealing". >Correct (sic.!), because (in most cases) hand shuffling is >rather imperfect and results in too many "flat" distribution >types compared to what would be the case if the dealing >of the hands were truly random. AG : there are no "truly random" processes. You could theoretically call the result of a die roll, based on the law of mechanics. And computer randomizers only do approximatively the trick. I can't say why, but the deals that are dealt by computers in Belgian and French championships and tournaments contain : - statistically correct frequencies of patterns and HCP strengths - statistically significant high number of bad splits of your main suit (and theirs :-) - statistically significant high numbers of huge fits and double fits I am inclined to say that, alas, computer-dealing isn't "truly random". Also, some hand-shuffllng types make fairly good randomizers, most notably "combing" (sorry, translation of the French) : mixing two half packs by browsing them at the same speed, many times in a row. >The essential question boils down to whether we want >to stick to the traditional way of shuffling cards with >all its "imperfections", or rather prefer obtaining card >dealing characteristics with better correlation to the >statistics for a truly random process. AG : randomness is the name we give to any event series from which we can't make head nor tail :-) Give me a truly random process at the macroscopic level and I can ensure you a Fields medal. Of course, there is an open door to Q-mech based dealing ... >IMHO while case 1 above is "obviously" undesirable >case 2 is equally "highly" desirable simply because it >allows us to apply the statistical tools we have available >when playing. AG : unless, of course, statistics are biased by computer-dealing. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 26 10:27:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:27:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+2 References: <4A256CD9.001457D0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <001a01c2dd7b$70624700$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <003001c2dd81$aa12be70$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Jaap van der Neut" .......... > This can lead to some very silly rulings. Suppose we play teams and declarer > needed just 2 or 3 tricks for his contract (which goes a long way to explain > a sloppy claim like this). In real life he would never have finessed so why > force it on him. Because if he doesn't sufficiently specify his intended line of play for the remaining tricks he shall NOT be allowed the claim as a sleeping pillow to avoid any mistake he might have made had he played it out. He needs a very convincing reason for not mentioning all doubtful details with his claim to avoid being assumed unaware of the detail and thus being deemed to maybe having failed had he played it out. In my own claim rulings I always maintain a few principles: 1: If the claimer does not specify any particular sequence in which his different suits are played (when he has cards left in more than one suit) I always rule the sequence that gives opponents most favour. Trump suit or not makes no difference here. 2: Unless the claimer specify a different sequence I always rule that the cards in a particular suit are led from top downwards. 3: Unless the claimer explicitly specify otherwise I always rule that if he plays towards a tenace with a choice he selects the wrong choice except when this choice is "irrational". 4: "Irrationality" is limited to facts that could not be overlooked in any way had the board been played out. Net resuilt: If he can make a mistake playing it out, he makes that mistake when claiming without mentioning essential detail(s). (Allowing some reasonable leeway when dealing with inexperienced players) Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 26 10:57:07 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:57:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n+2 References: <4A256CD9.001457D0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <001a01c2dd7b$70624700$25b54351@noos.fr> <003001c2dd81$aa12be70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <01a201c2dd85$d0658c20$25b54351@noos.fr> Sven, We agree on everything. I would rule 0-4 tricks depending on the breaks regardless of how many tricks declarer needed for his contract. Just 70E. I am a hardliner in this respect. The only reason I mentioned 'he would never take this finesse' is to compare the results of current laws and the law as I would like them to be. I got comments that my proposal was too extreme and would produce what Ton c.s. consider 'silly' rulings (and they want no 'silly' rulings). So this was just a nice example where current laws produce a 'silly' ruling and my proposal does not. By the way I am sure in this case if 'we' rule 3NT-1 (suppose the finesse loses and the guy has another winner to set the contract) Ton c.s. would invoke the 'irrational' clause in 70E. And then we go again discussing whether this is irrational or just careless. If you put this kind of clauses everywhere there are by definition no more silly 'rulings' forced by the rules (the clauses let us overrule whatever we want), we just end up with meaningless rules and a lot of random and thus 'silly' AC rulings. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n+2 > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > .......... > > This can lead to some very silly rulings. Suppose we play teams and > declarer > > needed just 2 or 3 tricks for his contract (which goes a long way to > explain > > a sloppy claim like this). In real life he would never have finessed so > why > > force it on him. > > Because if he doesn't sufficiently specify his intended line of play for > the remaining tricks he shall NOT be allowed the claim as a sleeping > pillow to avoid any mistake he might have made had he played it out. > > He needs a very convincing reason for not mentioning all doubtful > details with his claim to avoid being assumed unaware of the detail > and thus being deemed to maybe having failed had he played it out. > > In my own claim rulings I always maintain a few principles: > > 1: If the claimer does not specify any particular sequence in > which his different suits are played (when he has cards left in more > than one suit) I always rule the sequence that gives opponents > most favour. Trump suit or not makes no difference here. > > 2: Unless the claimer specify a different sequence I always rule > that the cards in a particular suit are led from top downwards. > > 3: Unless the claimer explicitly specify otherwise I always rule > that if he plays towards a tenace with a choice he selects the > wrong choice except when this choice is "irrational". > > 4: "Irrationality" is limited to facts that could not be overlooked > in any way had the board been played out. > > Net resuilt: If he can make a mistake playing it out, he makes > that mistake when claiming without mentioning essential detail(s). > > (Allowing some reasonable leeway when dealing with > inexperienced players) > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 26 11:28:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:28:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226092732.00aa8570@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030226112850.00ab9360@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004201c2dd8a$3aabd400$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 10:36 26/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > >case 2. > >"as does computer-dealing". > >Correct (sic.!), because (in most cases) hand shuffling is > >rather imperfect and results in too many "flat" distribution > >types compared to what would be the case if the dealing > >of the hands were truly random. > > AG : there are no "truly random" processes. You could theoretically call > the result of a die roll, based on the law of mechanics. And computer > randomizers only do approximatively the trick. A "truly random process" is a mathematical abstraction describing a process where the results satisfy certain statistical criteria based upon probabilities. In the case of a dice roll the criteria is that the six faces will show up with exactly the same probability and with no correlation between succeessive rolls. Mathematical tests exist to validate the randomness of for instance a dice by analyzing the obtained results from a sufficient number of rolls. > > I can't say why, but the deals that are dealt by computers in Belgian and > French championships and tournaments contain : > - statistically correct frequencies of patterns and HCP strengths > - statistically significant high number of bad splits of your main suit > (and theirs :-) > - statistically significant high numbers of huge fits and double fits > I am inclined to say that, alas, computer-dealing isn't "truly random". If certain statistic tests can be provided to show deviations from what should be expected had the process been truly random when using your card dealing programs then this could be an indication that your programs are unsatisfactory. Testing for randomness involves much more than verifying a correlation between actually observed distribution frequencies and theory and is no trivial task. (May I add that I never accept analyzing less than ten times ten series of 800 deals each or a total of 80 000 deals for an initial validation of a card dealing program algorithm! And I have disclosed some non-random patterns in well reputed programs during my time). An extremely important test is to verify that the deviations from theory vary with probabilities (of better matches to theory) also exhibiting a random pattern linearly between 0 and 1. > > Also, some hand-shuffllng types make fairly good randomizers, most notably > "combing" (sorry, translation of the French) : mixing two half packs by > browsing them at the same speed, many times in a row. Yes, this way of shuffling has been analyzed, I believe the outcome was that after the fifth combing you could expect to having broken all internal interdependencies in the card pack. However, it is important that each combing varies slightly. (With manual shuffling THAT is not a problem!) > > > > >The essential question boils down to whether we want > >to stick to the traditional way of shuffling cards with > >all its "imperfections", or rather prefer obtaining card > >dealing characteristics with better correlation to the > >statistics for a truly random process. > > AG : randomness is the name we give to any event series from which we can't > make head nor tail :-) > Give me a truly random process at the macroscopic level and I can ensure > you a Fields medal. Oh, that is no problem. Go to any serious gambling house and watch the roulette. Those are so closely monitored that non- random behaviour will be detected (and corrected) almost immediately. > Of course, there is an open door to Q-mech based dealing ... > > > >IMHO while case 1 above is "obviously" undesirable > >case 2 is equally "highly" desirable simply because it > >allows us to apply the statistical tools we have available > >when playing. > > AG : unless, of course, statistics are biased by computer-dealing. HUH? The statistical tools we have available assume "true random processes". If a computer dealing program behaves differently in such a way that you can "bias" your statistical tools correspondingly then that program has a very seriouos flaw and should immediatly be excused from further use. But your remark has some merit: Many sayings like "the King is always offside the Queen" was based upon experience from manually dealing cards for rubber bridge (obviously not based upon mathematics). Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Feb 26 11:49:49 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:49:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 Message-ID: <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Japp wrote: > We agree on everything. I would rule 0-4 tricks depending on the breaks regardless of how many tricks declarer needed for his contract. Just 70E. I am a hardliner in this respect. Hardliner? I have never heard anything so soft in my life. If I have understood correctly, this is the position: AQ AK None None ?x ?x None None xx xx None None xx xx None None Declarer claims four tricks, believing SQ to be high. If the lead is in North, he makes 0 tricks (he leads SQ, then discards spades from both hands on the diamonds). If the lead is in South and East has the king of sppades, he makes 0 tricks (spade to the queen). If the lead is in South and West has the king of spades, he makes 1 trick (heart to dummy, SQ). But more than 1 trick is impossible. Silly? Ton would say so, I guess. But consider: if instead of claiming, he plays the hand out by leading a heart from hand and playing dummy's ace of spades on the trick, then he makes 0 tricks in all cases. What is the difference between failing to follow suit and not knowing whether a card is high? David Burn London, England From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Feb 26 12:02:22 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:02:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 Message-ID: > > Japp wrote: > > > We agree on everything. I would rule 0-4 tricks depending > on the breaks regardless of how many tricks declarer needed > for his contract. Just 70E. I am a hardliner in this respect. > > Hardliner? I have never heard anything so soft in my life. If > I have understood correctly, this is the position: > > AQ > AK > None > None > ?x ?x > None None > xx xx > None None > xx > xx > None > None > > Declarer claims four tricks, believing SQ to be high. If the > lead is in North, he makes 0 tricks (he leads SQ, then > discards spades from both hands on the diamonds). If the lead > is in South and East has the king of sppades, he makes 0 > tricks (spade to the queen). If the lead is in South and West > has the king of spades, he makes 1 trick (heart to dummy, > SQ). But more than 1 trick is impossible. > > Silly? Ton would say so, I guess. You GUESS? Start reading my messages again (they aren't that dull). ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 26 12:34:20 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:34:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 In-Reply-To: <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226133334.00ab0b70@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:49 26/02/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >Silly? Ton would say so, I guess. But consider: if instead of claiming, he >plays the hand out by leading a heart from hand and playing dummy's ace of >spades on the trick, then he makes 0 tricks in all cases. What is the >difference between failing to follow suit and not knowing whether a card >is high? AG : the latter is legal, the former isn't. You may not compel a claimer to do anything illegal. >David Burn >London, England > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Feb 26 12:27:03 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:27:03 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 Message-ID: <2844111.1046262423720.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Ton wrote: > > Silly? Ton would say so, I guess. > You GUESS? Start reading my messages again (they aren't that dull). Well, I knew, really. But one can hope that a ray of light will occasionally break through the darkness. I have a proposal that will save the WBF a fortune. Nobody need go to Monte Carlo for the next Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup at all. Instead, all the players need do is send their system files. Then, the directors can work out on every deal what the bidding would have been (assuming that everyone bid according to his system and did not misinform his opponents), and how many tricks would have been made if declarer had claimed at trick one. After all, why should anyone go to the trouble of actually playing a hand, when the Real Bridge Result on the hand can be determined purely by the rules? David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 26 12:44:08 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:44:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: <004201c2dd8a$3aabd400$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226092732.00aa8570@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030226112850.00ab9360@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226133550.00ab2980@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:28 26/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > At 10:36 26/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > >case 2. > > >"as does computer-dealing". > > >Correct (sic.!), because (in most cases) hand shuffling is > > >rather imperfect and results in too many "flat" distribution > > >types compared to what would be the case if the dealing > > >of the hands were truly random. > > > > AG : there are no "truly random" processes. You could theoretically call > > the result of a die roll, based on the law of mechanics. And computer > > randomizers only do approximatively the trick. > >A "truly random process" is a mathematical abstraction describing >a process where the results satisfy certain statistical criteria based >upon probabilities. AG : I'd call 'truly random' any process where there is no way to better our prediction of the result, how deep our analysis. One example is the moment when an atomic nucleus will split. >In the case of a dice roll the criteria is that the six faces will show >up with exactly the same probability and with no correlation between >succeessive rolls. Mathematical tests exist to validate the randomness >of for instance a dice by analyzing the obtained results from a sufficient >number of rolls. AG : indeed. And those tests have been used used on computer deals ; they hint to the fact that they aren't random in several respects. >Yes, this way of shuffling has been analyzed, I believe the outcome was >that after the fifth combing you could expect to having broken all >internal interdependencies in the card pack. However, it is important >that each combing varies slightly. (With manual shuffling THAT is >not a problem!) AG : agreed. > > > > > > > > >The essential question boils down to whether we want > > >to stick to the traditional way of shuffling cards with > > >all its "imperfections", or rather prefer obtaining card > > >dealing characteristics with better correlation to the > > >statistics for a truly random process. > > > > AG : randomness is the name we give to any event series from which we >can't > > make head nor tail :-) > > Give me a truly random process at the macroscopic level and I can ensure > > you a Fields medal. > >Oh, that is no problem. Go to any serious gambling house and >watch the roulette. Those are so closely monitored that non- >random behaviour will be detected (and corrected) almost >immediately. AG : only in your sense of 'random' , ie chaotic in the mechanics sense of the term. It is not true randomness. Not in mine (see above). >HUH? >The statistical tools we have available assume "true random processes". >If a computer dealing program behaves differently in such a way that you >can "bias" your statistical tools correspondingly then that program has >a very seriouos flaw and should immediatly be excused from further use. AG : 'twould be nice if you could convince the organization body of the Belgian Federation. Herman, are you reading me ? From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Feb 26 12:39:10 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:39:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 Message-ID: > David: > > > Silly? Ton would say so, I guess. > > Ton wrote: > > > You GUESS? Start reading my messages again (they aren't that dull). David: > Well, I knew, really. But one can hope that a ray of light > will occasionally break through the darkness. > > I have a proposal that will save the WBF a fortune. Nobody > need go to Monte Carlo for the next Bermuda Bowl and Venice > Cup at all. Instead, all the players need do is send their > system files. Then, the directors can work out on every deal > what the bidding would have been (assuming that everyone bid > according to his system and did not misinform his opponents), > and how many tricks would have been made if declarer had > claimed at trick one. After all, why should anyone go to the > trouble of actually playing a hand, when the Real Bridge > Result on the hand can be determined purely by the rules? > Don't let your mind be influenced by mad ideas from mad people, because I really would miss your contributions. Did you ever notice the conditions of contest for worldchampionships going into 5 steps for 4 or more teams ranked equally? At last we should need them, since every system claims to be the best of cours. Up to you to work out the possibilities with the word 'claims' I used in the previous sentence. ton From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Feb 26 12:40:36 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:40:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 Message-ID: <4024677.1046263236250.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote: >What is the difference between failing to follow suit and not knowing whether a card is high? > AG : the latter is legal, the former isn't. You may not compel a claimer to do anything illegal. Yes, I know. That wasn't the question. The question, though I don't know why I am asking it for the hundredth time when no one has answered it the other ninety nine, is: what is so special about claiming? If you play the wrong card, you get a bad result. If you make the wrong bid, you get a bad result. But if you make a wrong claim, you get the same result as you would have got if you'd made a right one, because some nice tournament director will work out that of course you knew where all the rest of the cards were, and of course you wouldn't have done anything silly, and... You can't take a bid back - make the wrong one, and you don't get another go. You can't take a play back - make the wrong one, and you're stuck with it. (Yes, I know about Law 25 and the rest - I am speaking in general terms.) But you can take a claim back - make a wrong one, and provided Herman can work out where you went wrong, you'll get another fifteen shots at going right. "Claims are good for the game" is the usual bleat, "and we don't want to discourage them". But bidding is good for the game also, and so is playing cards. David Burn London, England From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Feb 26 12:42:18 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:42:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <001101c2da3c$9a681300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <003201c2da44$717c5480$25b54351@noos.fr> <001301c2dafc$5ce63640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <3E58AB52.5040508@skynet.be> Message-ID: I wrote: >I remember an occasion long ago where >both my ethical opponents were bidding and bidding and bidding >and bidding, carefully explaining each bid from either player as >being a reply to an asking bid; it stopped somewhere at the seven >level. Somehow I turned that upside down: each bid was of course explained as an asking bid (and intended as a reply). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Feb 26 12:48:23 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:48:23 -0600 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:25 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Horrible revisited > > > > > > > > From: Herman De Wael > > > Which is why I believe that the basis for redress when there is MI > > > should be that same ideal world: what would have happened if the > > > player, by divine knowledge, had full understanding of the > > agreements. > > > > Steve: > > > > As I said in response to Ton, why do you want MI to be different from > > all other rules? What is wrong with "if the infraction had not > > occurred?" > > > > > I tried to explain to you what is wrong with it. It seems necessary to treat > the misinformation and the mistake not to inform opponents/defenders in > time, before the auction ends, as separate infractions. > > I have read some suggestions to change the laws but that is not the issue > here. > > Let us suppose two tables where the same infraction happens in the same > auction: misexplanation. At table A one defender knows it to be > misexplanation and combining both he takes a clear decision based on > predictable misunderstanding between both opponents, very good score. No > damage, no TD called. > At table B defenders are not aware of this misexplanation, or too late aware > to take such advantageous decision. We know that they where entitled to know > the partnership agreement from the moment on they received the > misexplanation. > How is it possible to defend the idea that they are not entitled to the same > good score as defenders at table A received? A player that has only the agreements of his opponents will not be in a position to take inference from extraneous information he does not have. Is it the position of law that players are to have available their opponents' agreement to the actions performed? This is the relevant question in ascertaining damage that is a consequence of the failure to make the agreement available. regards roger pewick > ton From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 26 12:52:06 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:52:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226092732.00aa8570@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030226112850.00ab9360@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030226133550.00ab2980@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000d01c2dd95$de9cf890$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ......... > > > >Correct (sic.!), because (in most cases) hand shuffling is > > > >rather imperfect and results in too many "flat" distribution > > > >types compared to what would be the case if the dealing > > > >of the hands were truly random. > > > > > > AG : there are no "truly random" processes. You could theoretically call > > > the result of a die roll, based on the law of mechanics. And computer > > > randomizers only do approximatively the trick. > > > >A "truly random process" is a mathematical abstraction describing > >a process where the results satisfy certain statistical criteria based > >upon probabilities. > > AG : I'd call 'truly random' any process where there is no way to better > our prediction of the result, how deep our analysis. One example is the > moment when an atomic nucleus will split. How do you know that man never shall be able to predict accurately that process? My own simplified illustrative (but inaccurate) definition of a random process is that man shall not be able to foresee the next outcome of that process with better confidence than what follows from the laws on statistics. If man ever learns the finer details of atomic fissions then he may possibly be able to "lift" that process from random to deterministic. .......... > > > Give me a truly random process at the macroscopic level and I can ensure > > > you a Fields medal. > > > >Oh, that is no problem. Go to any serious gambling house and > >watch the roulette. Those are so closely monitored that non- > >random behaviour will be detected (and corrected) almost > >immediately. > > AG : only in your sense of 'random' , ie chaotic in the mechanics sense of > the term. It is not true randomness. Not in mine (see above). If I understand you correct then your definition depends upon the instant level of human knowledge. Which means that what you(!) consider random today could very well be deterministic (or non-random) tomorrow. Not a very good "absolute" criterium. By the way, this also touches the reason why it is imperative that any "random process" must be tested, not only for randomness in its basic behaviour but also in its end application. For instance, I do wonder if the programs based upon cryptographic algorithms (which have a much stronger requirement than algorithms for statistical purposes) take into account that certain bit sequences must be filtered and discarded when used for enciphering/deciphering? I think I shall stick to my own definition based upon initial assumptions on the algorithm and verified by extensive observations. > >HUH? > >The statistical tools we have available assume "true random processes". > >If a computer dealing program behaves differently in such a way that you > >can "bias" your statistical tools correspondingly then that program has > >a very seriouos flaw and should immediatly be excused from further use. > > AG : 'twould be nice if you could convince the organization body of the > Belgian Federation. Herman, are you reading me ? I have convinced the Norwegian body, if given the time and opportunity I just might run som evaluation on "foreign" programs but that is definitely not among my prime interests. From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 26 12:56:50 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:56:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <4024677.1046263236250.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <001701c2dd96$87b2cc70$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: ...... > Yes, I know. That wasn't the question. The question, though I don't know why I am asking it for the hundredth time when no one has answered it the other ninety nine, is: what is so special about claiming? If you play the wrong card, you get a bad result. If you make the wrong bid, you get a bad result. But if you make a wrong claim, you get the same result as you would have got if you'd made a right one, because some nice tournament director will work out that of course you knew where all the rest of the cards were, and of course you wouldn't have done anything silly, and... Well, don't you ever try an incomplete claim with me as a Director and expect to get away protected from making silly errors! Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Feb 26 13:00:40 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:00:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) Message-ID: <5574741.1046264440088.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote: > AG : indeed. And those tests have been used used on computer deals ; they hint to the fact that they aren't random in several respects. Of course they do. If they did not, one would be deeply suspicious of the deals. There is a theorem - can't remember whose - to this effect: no series of finite length can pass all tests for randomness. Suppose you have a machine that measures when atomic nuclei split; it will output a 1 if a nucleus splits during an odd-numbered second(i.e. in the interval 0-1 seconds, 2-3 seconds, and so on), and a 0 otherwise. Such a machine (yes, I know it can't be made in practice, but it can in theory) would produce a sequence of 1s and 0s that most would accept as "truly random". Suppose it produces a trillion digits. We count the number of 1s and 0s - roughly 50-50. Good. We count the number of 00s, 01s, 10, and 11s. ROughly 25% of each. Good. We count the number of times the pattern 11011 is followed by the pattern 00100. This conforms with theoretical predictions. And so on, and so forth... Sooner or later, we will come up with a (perfectly valid) test for randomness that our sequence of digits will fail. In fact, we will come up with dozens of them, and if we search hard enough, with scores of them, hundreds of them... Is this the fault of our machine? No. Of the atomic nuclei? No. Of Herman de Wael? Probably, since everything else is. But the simple truth is as the theorem to which I have alluded states. You could not even *construct* a series of a trillion digits which would pass every possible test for randomness, or even a small fraction of such possible tests. Human beings are very good at recognising patterns, even where there is in fact no agent creating them. After one tournament, someone rushed up to me and excitedly pointed out that the six and four of spades had been in the same hand on 17 out of the 24 deals we had played that session! And mutterings about the non-randomness of singleton kings, or trump breaks, or whatever, are prevalent everywhere computer deals are used. There is probably no truth in them. Of course, I don't know what the Belgians are worried about specifically, and I am sure that qualified people are on the case. But it is quite important that people do not get the wrong idea about the amount of randomness there really is in the world. David Burn London, England From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Feb 26 13:09:23 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:09:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 Message-ID: > From: > ...... > > Yes, I know. That wasn't the question. The question, though > I don't know > why I am asking it for the hundredth time when no one has > answered it the > other ninety nine, is: what is so special about claiming? If > you play the > wrong card, you get a bad result. If you make the wrong bid, > you get a bad > result. But if you make a wrong claim, you get the same > result as you would > have got if you'd made a right one, because some nice > tournament director > will work out that of course you knew where all the rest of > the cards were, > and of course you wouldn't have done anything silly, and... > > Well, don't you ever try an incomplete claim with me as a Director and > expect to get away protected from making silly errors! > You better apply the laws! ton > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Feb 26 13:27:13 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:27:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] KO match: how would you rule? In-Reply-To: <200302260854.h1Q8sLA12182@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226081619.00a86900@pop.starpower.net> At 03:54 AM 2/26/03, Ted wrote: >This hand came up in a recent KO match and I was the >director. If you have questions about the deal, I might be >able to either get the answers or have the answers already. >I ruled as noted below. Had the result on this deal mattered, >E/W would have appealed the ruling and they felt that I was >unjustified in my ruling. How would you rule? > >Board #20, BOTH Vul, Dealer W > >At the first table the following ensued: > > NORTH > S: A6 > H: 3 > D: QT7653 > C: AQ84 > >WEST EAST >S: KQJT843 S: 9 >H: K95 H: AQJT942 >D: 4 D: K2 >C: J3 C: 652 > > SOUTH > S: 752 > H: 86 > D: AJ98 > C: KT97 > >Auction: >South West North East >-- 1S 2D 2H >3D 4H 5D X (1) (1) Hesitation before bidding >P 5H P P >P > >I was called to the table after the 5H bid had been made. Both >sides agreed that there had been a significant break in tempo >before the X. East/West contend that information in the given >hand was enough to warrant that the 5H bid was justified. They >stated that once the hand with no quick tricks and little defense >opted to open the bidding 1S and not some preempt in spades, that >the hand would never sit for the double. North/South called me >back to the table at the end of the hand. > >Based on L16A and L12C2, I believe that pass is a logical >alternative and the hesitation suggests that bidding would be >better than passing. So, I opted to convert the result back to >5D-X making 5 (750 to N/S). Easy ruling, WTP? West would have to be psychic to know it was right to bid 5H without "help". Swap North's Dx for East's Hx and 5D is down off the top, while 5H has the same no chance. The more I look at the hand, the more egregious West's infraction looks (it's hard to imagine him not passing a crisp, in tempo double). To say that he had to pull because he has such a crummy opening bid is entirely specious; he thought it was worth an opening bid when he opened it. If E-W had appealed this ruling, I'd have voted to keep a deposit, which I tend to do far less often than most BLMLers. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 26 13:40:50 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:40:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E5CC3E2.6000509@skynet.be> Aha, here it is! (meanwhile responded to the main part of this) dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > Silly? Ton would say so, I guess. But consider: if instead of claiming, he plays the hand out by leading a heart from hand and playing dummy's ace of spades on the trick, then he makes 0 tricks in all cases. What is the difference between failing to follow suit and not knowing whether a card is high? > No David, that is wrong. This claimer may be considered as forgetting about the SK, but we may not force him to revoke. Forgetting about the SK is a whopping error, and he has made it, and we shall stick him with it. But we won't force him to make any other whopping errors. For example, if the lay-out is: AQ AK None None ?x ?x None None xx xx None None xx Qx None None (I have added the heart queen) Now claimer, after playing the SQ in the first trick and seeing it taken to his big surprise, will not be deemed to make the second whopping error of keeping HQ and HA for the last trick. He keeps HQ and SA and makes the final trick. The first whopping big error has been made. It must stand. The second whopping big error must not be "normal" play. Or else each and every claim - even those that are uncontested - should yield zero tricks. > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Feb 26 13:41:31 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:41:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: <002001c2dd7a$896f3330$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226092732.00aa8570@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226083230.00a83800@pop.starpower.net> At 04:36 AM 2/26/03, Sven wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > >case 1: >"Redealing modifies the relative frequence of hand types" >Correct, because it involves filtering out a certain class of >hand types (those not suitable for opening in any hand). If that were literally true, redealing wouldn't be so offensive. Indeed, I expect that it comes close to literal truth at those clubs where redealing is routine, and in the games where those who favor it play. But there is no defined "class of hand types" that get passed out. Redealing filters out not "those not suitable for opening in any hand", but rather "those not suitable for opening in any hand in the methods played at the dealer's table", even though one or more hand may be perfectly suitable for opening in the methods played at the next table. It biases the competition in favor of certain classes of systems (those with sounder opening bid requirements), which, at least IMO, is something we should strive to avoid. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 26 14:01:01 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: <000d01c2dd95$de9cf890$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226092732.00aa8570@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030226112850.00ab9360@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030226133550.00ab2980@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226144822.00a9c7d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:52 26/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > AG : I'd call 'truly random' any process where there is no way to better > > our prediction of the result, how deep our analysis. One example is the > > moment when an atomic nucleus will split. > >How do you know that man never shall be able to predict accurately >that process? AG : okay, mitigate that one. The theory about nuclear disintegration is that the process is absolutely random ; it is of course possible that one comes up with a so called "hidden variable theory", which will make it the same category as a die roll : subject to determination after endless calculations, but easier understood if considered as random. However, several experimentations (about the Bell inequality ia) seem to indicate that quantum mechanics properties imply that the processes are random in the strictest sense. >If man ever learns the finer details of atomic fissions then he may >possibly be able to "lift" that process from random to deterministic. AG : it seems not. See above. However, your position is akin to Einstein's : you are in good company. Only, experiments conducted after Einstein's death seem to have proved him wrong. >Which means that what you(!) consider random today could very well be >deterministic (or non-random) tomorrow. Not a very good "absolute" >criterium. AG : what one considers random today will be deterministic tomorrow. Indeed. What is truly random won't ever be; It might even be taken as a definition for "truly random". Take 30-day weather predictions, for example. It is not within the calculation power of present computers, so it is best considered as random. This doesn't mean it *is* random. Only, variables are too numerous and the influence of small deviations too big. That's the whole difference I wanted to mention. Die rolls, long time weather prediction, computer deals, roulette etc. are best considered as totally random, but they aren't ; they're merely chaotic. Subatomic processes *are* random, unless modern physics is badly wrong. More on this in any modern physics course, under "Copenhagen school", and under "chaos theory". >By the way, this also touches the reason why it is imperative that any >"random process" must be tested, not only for randomness in its basic >behaviour but also in its end application. > >For instance, I do wonder if the programs based upon cryptographic >algorithms (which have a much stronger requirement than algorithms >for statistical purposes) take into account that certain bit sequences >must be filtered and discarded when used for enciphering/deciphering? AG : according to a friend of mine, currently working in the field, they are. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 26 13:47:06 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:47:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <4024677.1046263236250.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E5CC55A.3040908@skynet.be> dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > Yes, I know. That wasn't the question. The question, though I don't know why I am asking it for the hundredth time when no one has answered it the other ninety nine, is: what is so special about claiming? If you play the wrong card, you get a bad result. If you make the wrong bid, you get a bad result. But if you make a wrong claim, you get the same result as you would have got if you'd made a right one, because some nice tournament director will work out that of course you knew where all the rest of the cards were, and of course you wouldn't have done anything silly, and... > But we do! We do punish bad claims - but not to your level. Revokes are punished, but not with absolute zeroes. A pass out of turn is punished, but hardly ever to an extent that matters. David, you are focusing too much on claim cases that come up on blml. The original case saw a declarer make a silly error, and on many lay-outs that would cost him a trick. On the actual lay-out and in my opinion, which is far from "fixed", it would not cost a trick. Some mistakes don't cost a trick, as you certainly have found out while playing bridge. There is no reason why the claim laws should be such that this silly mistake would cost two tricks, like you propose. And the fact that this mistake costs nothing is certainly not a valid argument for your point. I have claimed wrongly quite often in my career. Sometimes I got lucky and it did not cost anything. Quite often it cost a trick or more. Those cases never made it to blml. Perhaps they should have, and your perception would not be so tainted. > You can't take a bid back - make the wrong one, and you don't get another go. You can't take a play back - make the wrong one, and you're stuck with it. (Yes, I know about Law 25 and the rest - I am speaking in general terms.) But you can take a claim back - make a wrong one, and provided Herman can work out where you went wrong, you'll get another fifteen shots at going right. > > "Claims are good for the game" is the usual bleat, "and we don't want to discourage them". But bidding is good for the game also, and so is playing cards. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 26 14:10:35 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:10:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: <5574741.1046264440088.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226150143.00ab1180@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:00 26/02/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >Alain wrote: > > > AG : indeed. And those tests have been used used on computer deals ; > they hint to the fact that they aren't random in several respects. > >Of course they do. If they did not, one would be deeply suspicious of the >deals. > >There is a theorem - can't remember whose - to this effect: no series of >finite length can pass all tests for randomness. AG : absolutely right. It's only a matter of frequence. Any series will fail some test ; a series which recurrently fails tests is wrong somehow. >Sooner or later, we will come up with a (perfectly valid) test for >randomness that our sequence of digits will fail. In fact, we will come up >with dozens of them, and if we search hard enough, with scores of them, >hundreds of them... AG : yes, but if it's too soon and too frequently ... >Human beings are very good at recognising patterns, even where there is in >fact no agent creating them. After one tournament, someone rushed up to me >and excitedly pointed out that the six and four of spades had been in the >same hand on 17 out of the 24 deals we had played that session! AG : considering all possible pairs of cards, this is surely not statistically significant. But if they were in the same hand in 730000 deals out of 1000000, it would be. >There is probably no truth in them. Of course, I don't know what the >Belgians are worried about specifically AG : the fact that, in each series of 1000 deals delat by our programs, trumps split 4-1 quite more often than statistic would indicate. Of course, it is possible that they do 35% of the time in some series, but not in nearly all of them. There should be "regular" series and "irregular" series ; there seem only to be irregular ones. >, and I am sure that qualified people are on the case. But it is quite >important that people do not get the wrong idea about the amount of >randomness there really is in the world. AG : deviations to random behavior that don't even out after some time mean that the process is not random (Kolmogorov's theorem). I feel this is no wrong idea. Best regards, Alain. From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Feb 26 14:35:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ton wrote: > Let us suppose two tables where the same infraction happens in the same > auction: misexplanation. At table A one defender knows it to be > misexplanation and combining both he takes a clear decision based on > predictable misunderstanding between both opponents, very good score. No > damage, no TD called. > At table B defenders are not aware of this misexplanation, or too late > aware to take such advantageous decision. We know that they where > entitled to know the partnership agreement from the moment on they > received the misexplanation. How can the defender at table A know it is a misexplantion while the player at table B doesn't? OK the A player may be familiar with his opps while the B player isn't but then the scenario at the two tables is different - and the adjustments may therefore be different. Our grounds for adjustment must surely be "Had a correct explanation been received at the time of the infraction might the player have chosen a different action?". If the answer to that question is "Not at all likely" then we have no grounds to adjust. Of course if the correct explanation would have indicated that a bidding misunderstanding was probably in process there is often a very good chance that the player might have tried throwing a further spanner into the works. You hold: Kxx,xx,AKxx,AKxx non-vul vs vul. Opps bid (1N)-P-(2H)-?. 2H is explained as a transfer to Spades, do you bid 3H because opps *might* be having a misunderstanding? I seriously doubt it. However if you *know* that the 2H was intended as natural then 3H is certainly worth considering. Are you suggesting that we can adjust *as if* 3H had been chosen when opps claim damage from the MI of the alert/explanation? Tim From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Feb 26 14:52:29 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:52:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: > > Ton wrote: > > > Let us suppose two tables where the same infraction happens > in the same > > auction: misexplanation. At table A one defender knows it to be > > misexplanation and combining both he takes a clear decision based on > > predictable misunderstanding between both opponents, very > good score. No > > damage, no TD called. > > At table B defenders are not aware of this misexplanation, > or too late > > aware to take such advantageous decision. We know that they where > > entitled to know the partnership agreement from the moment on they > > received the misexplanation. > > How can the defender at table A know it is a misexplantion while the > player at table B doesn't? OK the A player may be familiar > with his opps > while the B player isn't but then the scenario at the two tables is > different - and the adjustments may therefore be different. Is this a useful contribution? If the scenario's hadn't been different there wasn't much reason to describe the two cases. Do you agree? And my statement is that there is no reason - more strongly: that I do not understand why - to give different adjustments. ton From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Wed Feb 26 14:59:20 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:59:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> David, I used the assumption he miscounted his tricks (as they always do), not that he thought the SQ was good. With that assumption 70E seems pretty automatic to me. I will give 0 if the K is stiff offside with 3 winners, 4 with K stiff onside, etc. I prefer the rules to be different but that is something else. I tried to raise a more interesting issue. Suppose declarer needs 3 tricks from this holding. He claims the rest (assuming he just miscounted his toptricks, not that he missed the SK). Now I will apply 70E. So the guy is down with the K offside (if the K has at least one side winner). Ton c.s. might say this is irrational. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > Japp wrote: > > > We agree on everything. I would rule 0-4 tricks depending on the breaks regardless of how many tricks declarer needed for his contract. Just 70E. I am a hardliner in this respect. > > Hardliner? I have never heard anything so soft in my life. If I have understood correctly, this is the position: > > AQ > AK > None > None > ?x ?x > None None > xx xx > None None > xx > xx > None > None > > Declarer claims four tricks, believing SQ to be high. If the lead is in North, he makes 0 tricks (he leads SQ, then discards spades from both hands on the diamonds). If the lead is in South and East has the king of sppades, he makes 0 tricks (spade to the queen). If the lead is in South and West has the king of spades, he makes 1 trick (heart to dummy, SQ). But more than 1 trick is impossible. > > Silly? Ton would say so, I guess. But consider: if instead of claiming, he plays the hand out by leading a heart from hand and playing dummy's ace of spades on the trick, then he makes 0 tricks in all cases. What is the difference between failing to follow suit and not knowing whether a card is high? > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Feb 26 15:16:02 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:16:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: <5422657.1046272562549.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> TWM wrote: >How can the defender at table A know it is a misexplantion while the player at table B doesn't? Because at both tables, he is told (or for the purposes of adjudication, it is assumed that he was told, or that he otherwise knew.) That is what Ton and I have been saying. There is a difference between the "partnership agreement" about a call and the "meaning" of the call - a difference that is apparent in some measure to both of us, but as far as we can gather, to almost nobody else. >Our grounds for adjustment must surely be "Had a correct explanation been received at the time of the infraction might the player have chosen a different action?". Indeed they must. But an explanation of what? The rest of you benighted souls think that it is the "agreement" that must be explained; Ton and I think that it is the "meaning" that must be explained. We think this because Law 40 says that it is so. If there is more than one "meaning" at the time the call is made, then both must be "explained" - or at any rate, the presumption must always be that the questioner received both explanations. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Feb 26 15:26:51 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:26:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 Message-ID: <3775608.1046273211421.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Japp wrote: >I used the assumption he miscounted his tricks (as they always do), not th= at he thought the SQ was good. If you are going to go around making assumptions about what the man was thi= nking, then you are falling into the same trap as Herman. It *does not matt= er* what the man was thinking, or why he made a wrong claim, or what he thi= nks of George Bush, or what he thinks of "Here we go round the mulberry bus= h". If a man claims the rest without further amplification, it's because he= thinks he has them - that is, he thinks that at any time from now until th= e end of play, any of his cards if played to the current trick would win it= . No further assumptions about his state of mind should be made, because (a= ) they cannot be verified and (b) they are irrelevant. If some one of his c= ards would in fact not win the trick to which it was played, then he is con= sidered to have played that card as early as is legally possible, and to ha= ve lost all the tricks he could "rationally" lose thereafter (the word "rat= ionally" should be replaced by the word "legally" in any sensible set of ru= les, but this will not happen). People talk about "real life" as though claims were part of it. They are no= t. A claim, by definition, creates a position involving a series of hypothe= tical, unreal, plays. That is why dubious claims are difficult - everyone h= as a different view of what "would" happen. Only a principle which renders = what "would" happen deterministic has any chance at all of being fair. To a= nswer a point Ton made earlier, equity is not about keeping everyone happy,= for that is impossible. Equity may just as well be served by keeping every= one equally miserable, and that is relatively simple. David Burn London, England From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Feb 26 15:39:25 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:39:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 Message-ID: > David, > > I used the assumption he miscounted his tricks (as they > always do), not that > he thought the SQ was good. With that assumption 70E seems > pretty automatic > to me. I will give > 0 if the K is stiff offside with 3 winners, 4 with K stiff > onside, etc. > > I prefer the rules to be different but that is something else. > > I tried to raise a more interesting issue. Suppose declarer > needs 3 tricks > from this holding. He claims the rest (assuming he just miscounted his > toptricks, not that he missed the SK). Now I will apply 70E. > So the guy is > down with the K offside (if the K has at least one side > winner). Ton c.s. > might say this is irrational. > > Jaap I saw my name. I have to confess that I am not following this case but also that I am not using the word 'irratrional' anymore since my feeling is that it doesn't have an agreed meaning as bridge terminology. For me what is called 'irrational' should be 'outside the range of what we consider normal'. This is not too helpful since there is no 'we' considering what is 'normal'. But we will probably agree that the collection 'irrational' is included in 'not normal', which means that a player may choose a non-irrational line which is not normal, and so should not be considered when judging a claim. Mind you I am talking about the present laws which with we have to live for another couple of years. And since we now know that Monte Carlo will be the place, unless David's influence is even bigger than he wants himself (is England qualified?), I would like to ask Grattan to put this on our agenda there: 'Interpretation of irrational'. ton From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Wed Feb 26 15:46:34 2003 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:46:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 In-Reply-To: <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> References: <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> Message-ID: <20030226154634.A677926C7A@www.fastmail.fm> Declarer is in 3NT having taken 5 tricks. West leads the CQ and South shows his hand with no statement. How many tricks do you award declarer? 43 2 2 2 KQ 65 - 3 - 3 QJT 3 A2 A A A -- David Kent -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin From kaima13@hotmail.com Wed Feb 26 15:54:33 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:54:33 -0800 Subject: [blml] KO match: how would you rule? References: <200302260854.h1Q8sLA12182@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: > > This hand came up in a recent KO match and I was the > director. If you have questions about the deal, I might be > able to either get the answers or have the answers already. > I ruled as noted below. Had the result on this deal mattered, > E/W would have appealed the ruling and they felt that I was > unjustified in my ruling. How would you rule? > > -Ted Ying. > > I was called to the table after the 5H bid had been made. Both > sides agreed that there had been a significant break in tempo Having read ACBL rulings from the Nationals as "bedtime reading" and being somewhat familiar with Laws as well, even a regular player such as myself (with no qualifications) can see that pulling the double was a direct result of the 'significant break in tempo' - which was agreed by all at the table. No break, he would very likely pass. I like Ted's ruling. D Raija From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 26 16:05:04 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:05:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: <5422657.1046272562549.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E5CE5B0.9010305@skynet.be> Sorry to have to say this David, but this contribution is gibberish. dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > TWM wrote: > > >>How can the defender at table A know it is a misexplantion while the player at table B doesn't? >> > Because at both tables, he is told (or for the purposes of adjudication, it is assumed that he was told, or that he otherwise knew.) That is what Ton and I have been saying. There is a difference between the "partnership agreement" about a call and the "meaning" of the call - a difference that is apparent in some measure to both of us, but as far as we can gather, to almost nobody else. H=We have been discussin the meaning of the phrases "partnership agreement" and "meaning" for so long that any sentence that pretends to talk about the difference between the two is bound to add nothing to the common knowledge of the members of blml. > > > >>Our grounds for adjustment must surely be "Had a correct explanation been received at the time of the infraction might the player have chosen a different action?". >> > > Indeed they must. But an explanation of what? The rest of you benighted souls think that it is the "agreement" that must be explained; Ton and I think that it is the "meaning" that must be explained. We think this because Law 40 says that it is so. If there is more than one "meaning" at the time the call is made, then both must be "explained" - or at any rate, the presumption must always be that the questioner received both explanations. > Indeed they must. But an explanation of what? The rest of you benighted souls think that it is the "agreement" that must be explained; Ton and I think that it is the "meaning" that must be explained. We think this because Law 40 says that it is so. If there is more than one "meaning" at the time the call is made, then both must be "explained" - or at any rate, the presumption must always be that the questioner received both explanations. Again, sorry - no one really knows what "agreement" and "meaning" actually mean, and L40 talks only of "partnership understanding". Don't add to the confusion David. Everybody knows what "agreement", "meaning" and "understanding" mean. Ton and I are discussing something totally different. We are trying to find out whether or not the knowledge of misunderstanding is entitled knowledge. > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 26 16:08:04 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:08:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> Message-ID: <3E5CE664.50201@skynet.be> Yes Jaap. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > David, > > I used the assumption he miscounted his tricks (as they always do), not that > he thought the SQ was good. With that assumption 70E seems pretty automatic > to me. I will give > 0 if the K is stiff offside with 3 winners, 4 with K stiff onside, etc. > > I prefer the rules to be different but that is something else. > > I tried to raise a more interesting issue. Suppose declarer needs 3 tricks > from this holding. He claims the rest (assuming he just miscounted his > toptricks, not that he missed the SK). Now I will apply 70E. So the guy is > down with the K offside (if the K has at least one side winner). Ton c.s. > might say this is irrational. As of course it is. If the player needs three tricks, and he knows it, and he knows the SK is out, then playing anything else than AKA is irrational. How can you maintain that it isn't ? The interesting question is not whether this line is irrational, but whether or not the conditions are as you put them. > > Jaap > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:49 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > > > >>Japp wrote: >> >> >>>We agree on everything. I would rule 0-4 tricks depending on the breaks >>> > regardless of how many tricks declarer needed for his contract. Just 70E. I > am a hardliner in this respect. > >>Hardliner? I have never heard anything so soft in my life. If I have >> > understood correctly, this is the position: > >> AQ >> AK >> None >> None >>?x ?x >>None None >>xx xx >>None None >> xx >> xx >> None >> None >> >>Declarer claims four tricks, believing SQ to be high. If the lead is in >> > North, he makes 0 tricks (he leads SQ, then discards spades from both hands > on the diamonds). If the lead is in South and East has the king of sppades, > he makes 0 tricks (spade to the queen). If the lead is in South and West has > the king of spades, he makes 1 trick (heart to dummy, SQ). But more than 1 > trick is impossible. > >>Silly? Ton would say so, I guess. But consider: if instead of claiming, he >> > plays the hand out by leading a heart from hand and playing dummy's ace of > spades on the trick, then he makes 0 tricks in all cases. What is the > difference between failing to follow suit and not knowing whether a card is > high? > >>David Burn >>London, England >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 26 16:28:46 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:28:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 In-Reply-To: <20030226154634.A677926C7A@www.fastmail.fm> References: <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226172439.00a9cab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:46 26/02/2003 -0500, David Kent wrote: >Declarer is in 3NT having taken 5 tricks. West leads the CQ and South >shows his hand with no statement. How many tricks do you award declarer? > > 43 > 2 > 2 > 2 >KQ 65 >- 3 >- 3 >QJT 3 > A2 > A > A > A AG : two more. The CA and the SA. After that he plays a spade and doesn't make another trick. This is the minimum number of tricks available with a non-irrational line of play. As was said before : suits in any order, from top downwards, switching to and fro between suits possible. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Feb 26 16:13:30 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:13:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 Message-ID: <6139061.1046276010801.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> David Kent wrote: > Declarer is in 3NT having taken 5 tricks. West leads the CQ and South shows his hand with no statement. How many tricks do you award declarer? 43 2 2 2 KQ 65 - 3 - 3 QJT 3 A2 A A A How many is he asking for? If "no statement" is literally true, then he is presumably asking for the rest, believing his hand to be high. He gets two tricks under present guidance (CA, SA, S2 - order of suits irrelevant, top down within suits), and one trick under sensible rules (CA, S2 - order of presumed winners irrelevant, cards not specified in claim to be played in least favourable order). David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 26 16:13:40 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:13:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) References: <5574741.1046264440088.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000f01c2ddb2$074b5590$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: > Alain wrote: > > > AG : indeed. And those tests have been used used on computer deals ; they hint to the fact that they aren't random in several respects. > > Of course they do. If they did not, one would be deeply suspicious of the deals. Sorry David, but this statement reveals some lack of understanding the essentials when testing for randomness. > > There is a theorem - can't remember whose - to this effect: no series of finite length can pass all tests for randomness. First of all, the relevant testing procedures depend very much on the number of samples you have for testing. There is no sense in testing a trillion digits sample with a preocedure that has no meaning for less than ten trillion digits. Suppose you have a machine that measures when atomic nuclei split; it will output a 1 if a nucleus splits during an odd-numbered second(i.e. in the interval 0-1 seconds, 2-3 seconds, and so on), and a 0 otherwise. Such a machine (yes, I know it can't be made in practice, but it can in theory) would produce a sequence of 1s and 0s that most would accept as "truly random". > > Suppose it produces a trillion digits. We count the number of 1s and 0s - roughly 50-50. Good. No - BAD!!!!! The probability of a near 50-50 distribution is very small! We count the number of 00s, 01s, 10, and 11s. ROughly 25% of each. Good. No again - BAD! We count the number of times the pattern 11011 is followed by the pattern 00100. This conforms with theoretical predictions. And so on, and so forth... etc. etc. The theoretical predictions are that you shall expect distributional frequencies in the neighbourhood of the theoretical averages, but a close match is highly improbable. > > Sooner or later, we will come up with a (perfectly valid) test for randomness that our sequence of digits will fail. In fact, we will come up with dozens of them, and if we search hard enough, with scores of them, hundreds of them... Sure, because one trillion digits are insufficient for the "perfectly valid" tests. > > Is this the fault of our machine? No. Of the atomic nuclei? No. Of Herman de Wael? Probably, since everything else is. But the simple truth is as the theorem to which I have alluded states. You could not even *construct* a series of a trillion digits which would pass every possible test for randomness, or even a small fraction of such possible tests. Yes, you can (excluding tests that require more than your trillion digits) - but that is completely irrelevant. The important question is: Can you produce xxx digits that pass the tests for randomness applicable to the intended use of these digits? > > Human beings are very good at recognising patterns, even where there is in fact no agent creating them. After one tournament, someone rushed up to me and excitedly pointed out that the six and four of spades had been in the same hand on 17 out of the 24 deals we had played that session! And mutterings about the non-randomness of singleton kings, or trump breaks, or whatever, are prevalent everywhere computer deals are used. And what do you think is the probability of finding the same two cards (no matter which) in the same hand at least 17 out of 24 boards? I made a quick calculation, not sure against making errors, but it did not surprise me finding that this should happen on the average once in every 37 sets of 24 boards. (Frankly I had expected it to occur even more frequent). Are you familiar with the birthday paradox? If you have a random assembly of at least 23 people then the probability is better than 50-50 for finding two persons with the same birthday in that assembly. A proper test for randomness should evaluate the probability of a closer match for the tested parameter to the theoretical average for a number of series each sufficiently long to make such tests relevant. (I have arbitrarily used 800 deals in each set which is sufficient for testing distributions up to the 8-2-2-1 distribution). This calculation should be repeated for several series and the requirement is that the calculated probabilities must show a near linear spread between 0 and 1. Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 26 16:15:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:15:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: Message-ID: <001501c2ddb2$37adf620$6900a8c0@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Sven Pran'" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:09 PM Subject: RE: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > > From: > > ...... > > > Yes, I know. That wasn't the question. The question, though > > I don't know > > why I am asking it for the hundredth time when no one has > > answered it the > > other ninety nine, is: what is so special about claiming? If > > you play the > > wrong card, you get a bad result. If you make the wrong bid, > > you get a bad > > result. But if you make a wrong claim, you get the same > > result as you would > > have got if you'd made a right one, because some nice > > tournament director > > will work out that of course you knew where all the rest of > > the cards were, > > and of course you wouldn't have done anything silly, and... > > > > Well, don't you ever try an incomplete claim with me as a Director and > > expect to get away protected from making silly errors! > > > > You better apply the laws! I do! (And feel I have the consent of the Norwegian NBO which in fact to my knowledge apply the same principles). Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Feb 26 16:25:09 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:25:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: <584107.1046276709507.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > Sorry to have to say this David, but this contribution is gibberish. Oh, that's all right. But it would help if you could read. > Again, sorry - no one really knows what "agreement" and "meaning" actually mean, and L40 talks only of "partnership understanding". What is the word before the comma in Law 40B, Herman? > Don't add to the confusion David. Everybody knows what "agreement", "meaning" and "understanding" mean. Let me see now: "no one really knows what 'agreement' and 'meaning' actually mean"; and then, in the very next sentence, "everybody knows what 'agreement', 'meaning' and 'understanding' mean." And *you* accuse *me* of talking gibberish? I do not know which of these two contradictory propositions you actually believe. But you and I are part of "everybody", are we not? Very well then. In the context of Law 40, please give me a definition of "meaning" such that I will know what you understand by the word (and we will perhaps see whether or not it is what "everybody" thinks the word means). >Ton and I are discussing something totally different. We are trying to find out whether or not the knowledge of misunderstanding is entitled knowledge. Yes, I know. So am I. But, as usual, you are trying to argue it from an entrenched standpoint that you have held for many years, and I am trying to argue it by finding out what the rules say. David Burn London, England From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Wed Feb 26 16:26:12 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:26:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] KO match: how would you rule? In-Reply-To: from "Jaap van der Neut" at Feb 26, 2003 11:20:14 AM Message-ID: <200302261626.h1QGQCE30478@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Jaap, Actually, both sides agreed there had been a very significant break in tempo (closer to 15 seconds than 10). Thanks to those who have responded so far. I am taking a poll through members of the local appeals committee and BLML on behalf of East/West who questioned the ruling and the situation should it come to committee. If you haven't responded, but have additional input, please respond. I will be summarizing the comments to the East/West pair for their information. Note to those folks who have not responded yet, I am on the BLML mailing list so you don't have to add me to the CC (if you just group reply to the mailing, I get two copies as my address is auto-appended, and if you add me to the CC, then I get three copies). -Ted. > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:20:14 +0100 > > Ted, > > Nice case. > > If there was a real break in tempo, pas is a LA, I agree with your ruling, > BUT if there was only an hesitation, table result. > > The problem is that it is normal in high level competition to take/need some > time. I would consider around 3 seconds normal tempo. The problem is > (specially at low level) that people often bid in a split second in this > kind of situation (which at the top level we tend to see as an infraction > but at top level we nowadays always play with screens). So now there are two > different variants of normal tempo. You always break one or another. The > solution is not to bid too quickly in sensitive situations (this means a > kind of informal mini stop rule) or to play with screens. > > In Holland we tend to rule that around 3 seconds (an hesistation is often > such a period) in such a situation is normal tempo (knowing it is not for > certain people, but this is an anomaly in the rules). So if the double > didn't include a serious pause I would rule table. But if EW agreed on the > break in tempo you did very well and I would support you on AC. Although if > EW consider 3 seconds a break in tempo this creates a paradox. My only > problem with the case is that your 'hesistation' is not compatible with 'a > significant break in tempo' the way I use those words. > > Jaap > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ted Ying" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Cc: "Ted Ying" > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:54 AM > Subject: [blml] KO match: how would you rule? > > > > > > This hand came up in a recent KO match and I was the > > director. If you have questions about the deal, I might be > > able to either get the answers or have the answers already. > > I ruled as noted below. Had the result on this deal mattered, > > E/W would have appealed the ruling and they felt that I was > > unjustified in my ruling. How would you rule? > > > > -Ted Ying. > > > > Board #20, BOTH Vul, Dealer W > > > > At the first table the following ensued: > > > > NORTH > > S: A6 > > H: 3 > > D: QT7653 > > C: AQ84 > > > > WEST EAST > > S: KQJT843 S: 9 > > H: K95 H: AQJT942 > > D: 4 D: K2 > > C: J3 C: 652 > > > > SOUTH > > S: 752 > > H: 86 > > D: AJ98 > > C: KT97 > > > > Auction: > > South West North East > > -- 1S 2D 2H > > 3D 4H 5D X (1) (1) Hesitation before bidding > > P 5H P P > > P > > > > I was called to the table after the 5H bid had been made. Both > > sides agreed that there had been a significant break in tempo > > before the X. East/West contend that information in the given > > hand was enough to warrant that the 5H bid was justified. They > > stated that once the hand with no quick tricks and little defense > > opted to open the bidding 1S and not some preempt in spades, that > > the hand would never sit for the double. North/South called me > > back to the table at the end of the hand. > > > > Based on L16A and L12C2, I believe that pass is a logical > > alternative and the hesitation suggests that bidding would be > > better than passing. So, I opted to convert the result back to > > 5D-X making 5 (750 to N/S). > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Feb 26 16:28:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ton wrote: > > > Let us suppose two tables where the same infraction happens > > in the same > > > auction: misexplanation. At table A one defender knows it to be > > > misexplanation and combining both he takes a clear decision based on > > > predictable misunderstanding between both opponents, very > > good score. No > > > damage, no TD called. > > > At table B defenders are not aware of this misexplanation, > > or too late > > > aware to take such advantageous decision. We know that they where > > > entitled to know the partnership agreement from the moment on they > > > received the misexplanation. > > > > How can the defender at table A know it is a misexplantion while the > > player at table B doesn't? OK the A player may be familiar > > with his opps while the B player isn't but then the scenario at the > > two tables is different - and the adjustments may therefore be > > different. > > Is this a useful contribution? > If the scenario's hadn't been different there wasn't much reason to > describe the two cases. Do you agree? And my statement is that there is > no reason - more strongly: that I do not understand why - to give > different adjustments. Because at Table B it was judged that the defender, on receiving a correct explanation at the proper time, would not have chosen a different call precisely because if he had received a correct explanation he would not have suspected a misunderstanding. If the player at table A got a good score because he was better prepared, had inspected the opposing CC, had more experience of his opponents than the player at table B and thus was able to *diagnose*, and exploit, a misexplanation then more power to his elbow. Why should the player at table B receive in adjustment the good score achieved at table A - a score we do not think would have been achieved had he had a correct and timely explanation. Tim From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 26 16:34:43 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:34:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030226150143.00ab1180@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002501c2ddb4$f789a500$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ........... > >There is probably no truth in them. Of course, I don't know what the > >Belgians are worried about specifically > > AG : the fact that, in each series of 1000 deals delat by our programs, > trumps split 4-1 quite more often than statistic would indicate. Of course, > it is possible that they do 35% of the time in some series, but not in > nearly all of them. There should be "regular" series and "irregular" series > ; there seem only to be irregular ones. That is cause for a serious alarm. Ages ago I happened to discover that one of the most popular card dealing programs at that time in Norway resulted in the Queen of clubs (I think it was) being located in South 4 times as frequent as in North. And this was a repeating pattern, but nobody had ever noticed it over the years (or we would have heard!). The fact was only detected when I ran my tests on the program. I alerted the NBO (which used that program at the time) and the constructor of the program, the program was immediately ordered out of service until this problem was fixed. To this day I have no idea what actually caused that error (and I really do not bother). Any error like that (including the behaviour you describe) would result in immediate ban on that program here in Norway. No discussion, no grace period to fix the error, and a new complete validation required before the program would be admitted back in service again. ............. > > AG : deviations to random behavior that don't even out after some time mean > that the process is not random (Kolmogorov's theorem). I feel this is no > wrong idea. Lack of deviations is in itself a serious danger signal as is a consistent skewness one way or the other. Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 26 16:40:25 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:40:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <3775608.1046273211421.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <005301c2ddb5$c4f7fa00$25b54351@noos.fr> David, I wouldn't mind too much to see your rules become law. I like the general idea. You don't have to convince me, you should convince Ton c.s. But that is not the point here. I am advocating a strict application of current laws which happen to be the current laws like it or not. Lots of people want even to suspend or circumvent 70D and 70E and allow a finesse with AQ. I am just opposing that concept. David: > If you are going to go around making assumptions about what the man was thinking ... I agree with you (in principle). Unfortunatly most people do not. If I would take your position at an AC I easily lose all influence. And in real life it is hard enough to stop them allowing the finesse. I just try to win that one. I just try them to take the current laws seriously. Hard enough without proposing different laws at the same time. Besides, my law proposal (I know you don't agree) for claim resolve is that when someone claims too many tricks he just get the tricks he clearly has regardless of breaks (that might give him more like K stiff onside under current 70E). This is very simple. This is reasonable because the rest means cashing and I let him cash, period. And this avoids having to make any assumptions on what the man is thinking or might do. Well not quite. Because another of my basic laws would be that forgotten cards do maximum damage. So yes TD/AC has to judge if he just miscounted his winners or a card was missing. In my own experience this very rarely creates a problem. A small price for a simple claim resolve that is easily understood by all and tends to generate 'normal' rulings. Opponents feel 'cheated' if after a misclaim the TD gives the claimer a trick allowing a finesse or whatever. Opponents will never feel 'cheated' because they didn't get the rest of the tricks. That kind of consideration is also important. I do think Ton c.s. is way too lenient, but I also think your solution is too extreme. Because Ton is right about one thing. Claiming is and should remain a 'normal' part of bridge. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 Japp wrote: >I used the assumption he miscounted his tricks (as they always do), not that he thought the SQ was good. If you are going to go around making assumptions about what the man was thinking, then you are falling into the same trap as Herman. It *does not matter* what the man was thinking, or why he made a wrong claim, or what he thinks of George Bush, or what he thinks of "Here we go round the mulberry bush". If a man claims the rest without further amplification, it's because he thinks he has them - that is, he thinks that at any time from now until the end of play, any of his cards if played to the current trick would win it. No further assumptions about his state of mind should be made, because (a) they cannot be verified and (b) they are irrelevant. If some one of his cards would in fact not win the trick to which it was played, then he is considered to have played that card as early as is legally possible, and to have lost all the tricks he could "rationally" lose thereafter (the word "rationally" should be replaced by the word "legally" in any sensible set of rules, but this will not happen). People talk about "real life" as though claims were part of it. They are not. A claim, by definition, creates a position involving a series of hypothetical, unreal, plays. That is why dubious claims are difficult - everyone has a different view of what "would" happen. Only a principle which renders what "would" happen deterministic has any chance at all of being fair. To answer a point Ton made earlier, equity is not about keeping everyone happy, for that is impossible. Equity may just as well be served by keeping everyone equally miserable, and that is relatively simple. David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 26 16:50:02 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:50:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5.1.0.14.0.20030226172439.00a9cab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <008101c2ddb7$2062e160$25b54351@noos.fr> Maybe I become a softie. I would take that as a claim for 9 tricks. Of course this kind of thing should be done by the table TD. But if not 3SA= we have to publish very clear instructions how to claim, and even then claiming becomes practically impossible if you rule this as 3NT-x. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > At 10:46 26/02/2003 -0500, David Kent wrote: > >Declarer is in 3NT having taken 5 tricks. West leads the CQ and South > >shows his hand with no statement. How many tricks do you award declarer? > > > > 43 > > 2 > > 2 > > 2 > >KQ 65 > >- 3 > >- 3 > >QJT 3 > > A2 > > A > > A > > A > > AG : two more. The CA and the SA. After that he plays a spade and doesn't > make another trick. This is the minimum number of tricks available with a > non-irrational line of play. As was said before : suits in any order, from > top downwards, switching to and fro between suits possible. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Feb 26 16:57:30 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:57:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: Message-ID: <001e01c2ddb8$27707e80$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Ton, Whatever your definition of irrational, this word happens to be in the exception clause of 70E. But Herman already confirmed my assumption that it would be invoked to stop the finesse. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "David Burn" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:39 PM Subject: RE: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > > David, > > > > I used the assumption he miscounted his tricks (as they > > always do), not that > > he thought the SQ was good. With that assumption 70E seems > > pretty automatic > > to me. I will give > > 0 if the K is stiff offside with 3 winners, 4 with K stiff > > onside, etc. > > > > I prefer the rules to be different but that is something else. > > > > I tried to raise a more interesting issue. Suppose declarer > > needs 3 tricks > > from this holding. He claims the rest (assuming he just miscounted his > > toptricks, not that he missed the SK). Now I will apply 70E. > > So the guy is > > down with the K offside (if the K has at least one side > > winner). Ton c.s. > > might say this is irrational. > > > > Jaap > > > > I saw my name. > I have to confess that I am not following this case but also that I am not > using the word 'irratrional' anymore since my feeling is that it doesn't > have an agreed meaning as bridge > terminology. > > For me what is called 'irrational' should be 'outside the range of what we > consider normal'. This is not too helpful since there is no 'we' considering > what is 'normal'. But we will probably agree that the collection > 'irrational' is included in 'not normal', which means that a player may > choose a non-irrational line which is not normal, and so should not be > considered when judging a claim. > > Mind you I am talking about the present laws which with we have to live for > another couple of years. > > And since we now know that Monte Carlo will be the place, unless David's > influence is even bigger than he wants himself (is England qualified?), I > would like to ask Grattan to put this on our agenda there: 'Interpretation > of irrational'. > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Feb 26 17:04:31 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:04:31 -0600 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: <5422657.1046272562549.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3E5CE5B0.9010305@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible revisited > Sorry to have to say this David, but this contribution is gibberish. > > dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > > TWM wrote: > > > > > >>How can the defender at table A know it is a misexplantion while the player at table B doesn't? > Because at both tables, he is told (or for the purposes of > adjudication, it is assumed that he was told, or that he otherwise > knew.) That is what Ton and I have been saying. There is a difference > between the "partnership agreement" about a call and the "meaning" of > the call - a difference that is apparent in some measure to both of > us, but as far as we can gather, to almost nobody else. > > H=We have been discussin the meaning of the phrases "partnership > agreement" and "meaning" for so long that any sentence that pretends > to talk about the difference between the two is bound to add nothing > to the common knowledge of the members of blml. > >>Our grounds for adjustment must surely be "Had a correct explanation been received at the time of the infraction might the player have chosen a different action?". I believe that a condition for claiming damage from MI it is necessary for the player to assert he would have done THIS to the exclusion of anything else. I do think that if the THIS is something a bit dubious there might be a judgment that it is not a valid thing to assert [iow, no damage]. But generally, thereafter there is a judgment to be made about where the assertion takes the outcome. Which is to say 'I might have done this; or I might have done that; or I might have done something else' only goes to judging if there could have been damage; but goes nowhere as to judging if there was damage. The first situation is a worthless exercise and the second goes to the heart of the matter. regards roger pewick > > Indeed they must. But an explanation of what? The rest of you benighted souls think that it is the "agreement" that must be explained; Ton and I think that it is the "meaning" that must be explained. We think this because Law 40 says that it is so. If there is more than one "meaning" at the time the call is made, then both must be "explained" - or at any rate, the presumption must always be that the questioner received both explanations. > Again, sorry - no one really knows what "agreement" and "meaning" > actually mean, and L40 talks only of "partnership understanding". > > Don't add to the confusion David. Everybody knows what "agreement", > "meaning" and "understanding" mean. Ton and I are discussing something > totally different. We are trying to find out whether or not the > knowledge of misunderstanding is entitled knowledge. > > > > David Burn > > London, England > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Feb 26 17:07:32 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:07:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: <200302261707.MAA23038@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > It seems necessary to treat > the misinformation and the mistake not to inform opponents/defenders in > time, before the auction ends, as separate infractions. And I agree completely with this part. I know it's easy to get lost about who believes what. There are just too many messages to keep track of. A long time ago, vast numbers of posts on BLML were concerned with what to do when there were two separate infractions before the TD got called. Aside from issuing PP's :-), the consensus was to treat each infraction separately. What would have happened with infraction A only, B only, neither, or both? (One of these will usually be determined at the table.) Of these four results, give the NOS the best one, giving due weight to "likely," "at all probable," and L12C3 if enabled. (We all know the mechanics of L12C3/12C3.) I don't see why Ton's example (MI given, not corrected at the proper time) should be treated differently, although there are only three possibilities, not four: a) the actual result with MI given and not corrected, b) the result with no original MI, and c) the result with the original MI but corrected at the time specified in L75D2. (If there is no original MI, there cannot be a failure to correct it, so possibility d does not exist.) If the MI was significant, it is quite likely that c) will be the most favorable result for the NOS, if it isn't the same as b). Where Ton and I disagree is that he apparently wants to add some extra information in judging likely results. For example, if I understand his position, he wants to imagine a situation where there is no original MI but somehow the NOS know _at that moment_ that the OS are having a misunderstanding. That seems to me to depart from the normal procedures for assigning scores. This all comes down to a difference between "entitled" and "authorized" information. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Feb 26 17:12:03 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:12:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] To ask or not ask? Message-ID: <200302261712.MAA23045@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Laurie Kelso > Has South been damaged by the non-alert? Another perfect example of the principle in the "horrible" thread. Ask yourself this: if the alert had been given, would the result have been different? (As always, consider "likely" and "at all probable.") Then you will have your answer. You could also ask whether South did anything "irrational, wild, or gambling," but it doesn't seem so on the facts stated. What you _must not do_ is ask whether South, having been given MI, might have done something different. Maybe so, maybe not, but it doesn't matter. Focus on what would have happened absent the infraction. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 26 17:27:19 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:27:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: Message-ID: <3E5CF8F7.8000801@skynet.be> I've come back to this message of Ton's to try and explain a difference. Kooijman, A. wrote: >> >> > > > > Let us suppose two tables where the same infraction happens in the same > auction: misexplanation. At table A one defender knows it to be > misexplanation and combining both he takes a clear decision based on > predictable misunderstanding between both opponents, very good score. No > damage, no TD called. > At table B defenders are not aware of this misexplanation, or too late aware > to take such advantageous decision. We know that they where entitled to know > the partnership agreement from the moment on they received the > misexplanation. > How is it possible to defend the idea that they are not entitled to the same > good score as defenders at table A received? > Maybe table A got something additional. That would account for their getting a better score. I've always said that information about misunderstandings is AI, just not EI. If A gets something more than B - that might account for a better score, would it not ? You have not explained what the extra might be. If at table A, apart from listening to opponents, the player also remembers having read their CC, and from that he deduces the misunderstanding, that might account for the better result, no? > > 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 Wed Feb 26 17:26:54 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:26:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) Message-ID: <200302261726.MAA23057@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > (in most cases) hand shuffling is > rather imperfect and results in too many "flat" distribution This is commonly stated, but it is not always true. It is true if the hands are sorted into suits before redealing, as for example seems to be common in the UK and is certainly common at rubber bridge. In the ACBL, players commonly shuffle their hands before placing them back in the board, and when that is done the distribution patterns are consistent with randomness. That doesn't exclude other artifacts, but there seem to be none that is easy to recognize. > My own simplified illustrative (but inaccurate) definition of a random > process is that man shall not be able to foresee the next outcome of > that process with better confidence than what follows from the laws > on statistics. As I understand it, one formal definition of "random" is that it is something that is both unpredictable and stochastic, i.e., that (in our case) each deal is unknowable in advance and is uninfluenced by previous deals. > If man ever learns the finer details of atomic fissions then he may > possibly be able to "lift" that process from random to deterministic. As Alain says, experiments seem to rule this out. In practice, for bridge, stochastic is not necessary. It is sufficient that all deals be equiprobable and that no player can have prior knowledge of any actual deal, even with prior knowledge of previous deals. Weaker conditions are probably sufficient as well, but these two are both sufficient and achievable. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > I can't say why, but the deals that are dealt by computers in Belgian and > French championships and tournaments contain : > - statistically significant high number of [various things] If this is really true, these dealing programs are broken. As Sven and David B. point out, statistical testing is not trivial and depends on adequate samples, but problems such as the ones mentioned ought to be easy to verify if they are big enough to be significant in play. If there is any doubt, why not switch to "Big Deal" or something similar? From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 26 19:16:00 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:16:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) References: <200302261726.MAA23057@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3E5D1270.40407@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >>From: "Sven Pran" >> (in most cases) hand shuffling is >>rather imperfect and results in too many "flat" distribution >> > > This is commonly stated, but it is not always true. It is true if the > hands are sorted into suits before redealing, as for example seems to > be common in the UK and is certainly common at rubber bridge. In the > ACBL, players commonly shuffle their hands before placing them back in > the board, and when that is done the distribution patterns are > consistent with randomness. That doesn't exclude other artifacts, > but there seem to be none that is easy to recognize. > Shuffling before putting them in the board deals with the problem, but not every one does that, particularly in the last round. No need to sort them before putting them back. Just leaving them in play order also does it. If the first trick is spades, those 4 spades will be placed in positions 1-14-27-40 of the unshuffled book. A small shuffle will make certain that those four cards are again in different hands. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Feb 26 19:40:05 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:40:05 -0600 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: <200302261726.MAA23057@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200302261726.MAA23057@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Sven Pran" >> (in most cases) hand shuffling is > > rather imperfect and results in too many "flat" distribution > >This is commonly stated, but it is not always true. It is true if the >hands are sorted into suits before redealing, as for example seems to >be common in the UK and is certainly common at rubber bridge. In the >ACBL, players commonly shuffle their hands before placing them back in >the board, and when that is done the distribution patterns are >consistent with randomness. That doesn't exclude other artifacts, >but there seem to be none that is easy to recognize. > I kept careful records of the human-shuffled hands I held, and the results (on something over 1000 hands) was distinctly flatter than random-too many 4333 compared with 4432, and so on, at every level with enough examples to make a judgement on. These all came from unsorted deals, and probably mostly shuffled hands. (Some people shuffle their hands always, some only part of the time, and some only if it is not the last played round.) I will hunt out my summary (if I can find it) and post it. Not a large enough sample to be conclusive, but strongly suggestive. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 26 19:57:31 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:57:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) References: <200302261726.MAA23057@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <007001c2ddd1$4c825b30$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Steve Willner" ................ > > From: "Sven Pran" > > (in most cases) hand shuffling is > > rather imperfect and results in too many "flat" distribution > > This is commonly stated, but it is not always true. Of course it is not "always" true. Exaggerations hardly ever prove or disprove anything. But it is a fact that too many players began noticing an increase in "not so flat" hands when we began using computer generated deals for such statements to be ignored. The first person I know to have pointed out the imperfect shuffling and dealing of cards is Ely Culbertson which in several(?) of his books introduced what he called a factor X that should explain the discrepancies between theory and actually observed hand types. He reasoned that there was an internal structure in the deck of cards with subsequences of cards of the same denomination, either as in rubber from tricks consisting of such cards or in duplicate from long suits being run contiguously. And unless one shuffles the spots off the cards before dealing the result will necessarily be an over-representation of "flat" hands. I am not arguing theory, I am arguing observations which cannot be ignored but which can be explained. Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Feb 26 20:08:39 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:08:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) Message-ID: <200302262008.PAA23171@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > And unless one shuffles the spots off the cards before > dealing the result will necessarily be an over-representation of > "flat" hands. If you can criticize my 'always', I can criticize your 'necessarily'. When I did the experiment of recording hand patterns in over 1000 hand-shuffled deals, one hand per deal, no deal shuffled by me, the hand patterns were consistent with expectation. Hardly anyone "shuffled the spots off the cards" when I was collecting data. If it isn't how the cards are put back into the boards after the last time they are played, I am at a loss to explain the difference between my results and other people's. From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Feb 26 20:25:45 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:25:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited In-Reply-To: <5422657.1046272562549.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226143550.00a80640@pop.starpower.net> At 10:16 AM 2/26/03, dalburn wrote: >TWM wrote: > > >How can the defender at table A know it is a misexplantion while the > player at table B doesn't? > >Because at both tables, he is told (or for the purposes of >adjudication, it is assumed that he was told, or that he otherwise >knew.) That is what Ton and I have been saying. There is a difference >between the "partnership agreement" about a call and the "meaning" of >the call - a difference that is apparent in some measure to both of >us, but as far as we can gather, to almost nobody else. I would suggest that just about all of us understand very well the difference between "partnership agreement" and "meaning". Which is why we think that David's view is misguided: L75 is about "partnership agreements", and L40 is about calls or plays based on "partnership understanding(s), which is essentially synonymous. Neither speaks to "meaning", which, as David says, is something very different. If the difference weren't apparent, we would have no problem accepting David's position. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 26 20:35:48 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:35:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) References: <200302262008.PAA23171@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00a501c2ddd6$a59e25a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) > > From: "Sven Pran" > > And unless one shuffles the spots off the cards before > > dealing the result will necessarily be an over-representation of > > "flat" hands. > > If you can criticize my 'always', I can criticize your 'necessarily'. > > When I did the experiment of recording hand patterns in over 1000 > hand-shuffled deals, one hand per deal, no deal shuffled by me, the > hand patterns were consistent with expectation. Hardly anyone > "shuffled the spots off the cards" when I was collecting data. > > If it isn't how the cards are put back into the boards after the last > time they are played, I am at a loss to explain the difference between > my results and other people's. Robert E. Harris just posted a diffent experience from his similar analysis, in fact so similar I had to check twice to verify that you were indeed two different persons. 8-) regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Feb 26 20:38:01 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:38:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 In-Reply-To: <3775608.1046273211421.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226152854.00a86340@pop.starpower.net> At 10:26 AM 2/26/03, dalburn wrote: >Japp wrote: > > >I used the assumption he miscounted his tricks (as they always do), > not that he thought the SQ was good. > >If you are going to go around making assumptions about what the man >was thinking, then you are falling into the same trap as Herman. It >*does not matter* what the man was thinking, or why he made a wrong >claim, or what he thinks of George Bush, or what he thinks of "Here we >go round the mulberry bush". If a man claims the rest without further >amplification, it's because he thinks he has them - that is, he thinks >that at any time from now until the end of play, any of his cards if >played to the current trick would win it. No further assumptions about >his state of mind should be made, because (a) they cannot be verified >and (b) they are irrelevant. If some one of his cards would in fact >not win the trick to which it was played, then he is considered to >have played that card as early as is legally possible, and to have >lost all the tricks he could "rationally" lose thereafter (the word >"rationally" should be replaced by the word "legally" in any sensible >set of rules, but this will not happen). I simply do not believe (nor do I think any of us except for David and perhaps one or two others believe) that a player who claims six tricks holding AKQJ32 opposite 654 does so "because he thinks that at any time from now until the end of play, any of his cards if played to the current trick would win it". Which is why we do not subscribe to the Burn school of claim adjudication. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Feb 26 20:48:30 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:48:30 +1300 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: <004201c2dd8a$3aabd400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000501c2ddd8$6f281f10$de2d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Thursday, 27 February 2003 12:29 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) > > > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > At 10:36 26/02/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > Also, some hand-shuffllng types make fairly good > randomizers, most notably > > "combing" (sorry, translation of the French) : mixing two > half packs by > > browsing them at the same speed, many times in a row. > > Yes, this way of shuffling has been analyzed, I believe the > outcome was > that after the fifth combing you could expect to having broken all > internal interdependencies in the card pack. However, it is important > that each combing varies slightly. (With manual shuffling THAT is > not a problem!) > I thought seven was the number. As one who performs perfect faro shuffles from time to time it should be noted that 8 perfect faros where the cards exactly interleave reproduce the original order. Two perfect faros and you can deal the players the same hands that they just played. This would be a good party trick. With my skill the other players would need to be fairly drunk for me to get away with this ruse. :-) Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Feb 26 20:56:47 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:56:47 +1300 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: <3E5D1270.40407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c2ddd9$974a35e0$de2d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Thursday, 27 February 2003 8:16 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) > > > Steve Willner wrote: > > >>From: "Sven Pran" > >> (in most cases) hand shuffling is > >>rather imperfect and results in too many "flat" distribution > >> > > > > This is commonly stated, but it is not always true. It is > true if the > > hands are sorted into suits before redealing, as for > example seems to > > be common in the UK and is certainly common at rubber > bridge. In the > > ACBL, players commonly shuffle their hands before placing > them back in > > the board, and when that is done the distribution patterns are > > consistent with randomness. That doesn't exclude other artifacts, > > but there seem to be none that is easy to recognize. > > > > > Shuffling before putting them in the board deals with the > problem, but > not every one does that, particularly in the last round. > No need to sort them before putting them back. Just leaving them in > play order also does it. If the first trick is spades, those 4 spades > will be placed in positions 1-14-27-40 of the unshuffled > book. A small > shuffle will make certain that those four cards are again in > different > hands. > And there is a correlation between tricks. Players often draw trumps for two or three rounds or Run a long suit on subsequent tricks or Win the opening lead and return partner's suit etc This places cards together in your little pile of 13 ... An 'imperfect' shuffle leaves these cards together and therefore spreads them around the table on the next deal resulting in 'flattish distributions' Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Feb 26 21:02:38 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:02:38 +1300 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: <3E5D1270.40407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c2ddda$682aa730$de2d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Thursday, 27 February 2003 8:16 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) > > > Steve Willner wrote: > > >>From: "Sven Pran" > >> (in most cases) hand shuffling is > >>rather imperfect and results in too many "flat" distribution > >> > > > > This is commonly stated, but it is not always true. It is > true if the > > hands are sorted into suits before redealing, as for > example seems to > > be common in the UK and is certainly common at rubber > bridge. In the > > ACBL, players commonly shuffle their hands before placing > them back in > > the board, and when that is done the distribution patterns are > > consistent with randomness. That doesn't exclude other artifacts, > > but there seem to be none that is easy to recognize. > > > > > Shuffling before putting them in the board deals with the > problem, but > not every one does that, particularly in the last round. > No need to sort them before putting them back. Just leaving them in > play order also does it. If the first trick is spades, those 4 spades > will be placed in positions 1-14-27-40 of the unshuffled > book. A small > shuffle will make certain that those four cards are again in > different > hands. > And there is a correlation between tricks. Players often draw trumps for two or three rounds or Run a long suit on subsequent tricks or Win the opening lead and return partner's suit etc This places cards together in your little pile of 13 ... An 'imperfect' shuffle leaves these cards together and therefore spreads them around the table on the next deal resulting in 'flattish distributions' Wayne From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Feb 26 21:21:46 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:21:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226154055.00a8dc70@pop.starpower.net> At 10:39 AM 2/26/03, Kooijman wrote: >For me what is called 'irrational' should be 'outside the range of what we >consider normal'. This is not too helpful since there is no 'we' >considering >what is 'normal'. But we will probably agree that the collection >'irrational' is included in 'not normal', which means that a player may >choose a non-irrational line which is not normal, and so should not be >considered when judging a claim. We quite clearly do not agree that "the collection 'irrational' is included in 'not normal'". We should, however, agree that the collection "irrational" is included in "not 'normal'", where "'normal'" is defined by the footnote to L69-71. The folks who wrote the footnote were well aware of the difference, which is why they put the word "normal" in quotes. It is confusion between the meanings of "'normal'" (in the footnote) and "normal" (in the dictionary) that repeatedly leads otherwise sensible folk to grossly misinterpret what the footnote means by "irrational". For the purpose of applying the footnote, any line must be called either "normal" (meaning we consider it), or "irrational" (meaning we don't). There are four cases: (1) if a line is rational and normal, we call it "normal"; (2) if a line is rational and not normal, we call it "normal"; (3) if a line is irrational and normal, we call it "irrational"; (4) if a line is irrational and not normal, we call it "irrational". Therefore when judging a claim, we should consider non-irrational lines which are not normal (but are "'normal'"), but should not consider irrational lines which are normal (but are not "'normal'"). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 26 13:35:31 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:35:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: Message-ID: <3E5CC2A3.6010802@skynet.be> Somehow I missed David's post on this one. So I am replying on Ton's answer to it. Kooijman, A. wrote: > > [I presume David wrote:] >> >>Hardliner? I have never heard anything so soft in my life. If >>I have understood correctly, this is the position: >> >> AQ >> AK >> None >> None >>?x ?x >>None None >>xx xx >>None None >> xx >> xx >> None >> None >> >>Declarer claims four tricks, believing SQ to be high. If the >>lead is in North, he makes 0 tricks (he leads SQ, then >>discards spades from both hands on the diamonds). If the lead >>is in South and East has the king of sppades, he makes 0 >>tricks (spade to the queen). If the lead is in South and West >>has the king of spades, he makes 1 trick (heart to dummy, >>SQ). But more than 1 trick is impossible. >> I agree with David. (seems strange perhaps, but I do) On one condition though. That David's first sentence is true. "believing SQ to be high" The way this case was presented, there was nothing to guide us as to what mistake claimer had made. I have proposed a few alternatives, one of which was indeed that he thought the SQ was high. In that case, 1 or zero tricks ought to be correct. Which again prompts me to say that the most important element in deciding on the claim is determining the mistake claimer made. >>Silly? Ton would say so, I guess. >> > > > > You GUESS? Start reading my messages again (they aren't that dull). > > 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 ehaa@starpower.net Wed Feb 26 22:01:13 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:01:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 In-Reply-To: <20030226154634.A677926C7A@www.fastmail.fm> References: <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226162826.00a93490@pop.starpower.net> At 10:46 AM 2/26/03, David wrote: >Declarer is in 3NT having taken 5 tricks. West leads the CQ and South >shows his hand with no statement. How many tricks do you award declarer? > > 43 > 2 > 2 > 2 >KQ 65 >- 3 >- 3 >QJT 3 > A2 > A > A > A Four. Because I consider it irrational for declarer, even if he has completely lost track of everything, not to realize that his opponents cannot possibly hold cards that beat his aces. Change the position to... 43 2 2 2 KQ 65 - 3 - 3 QJ10 3 A2 K K A ...and he gets two. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Feb 26 22:02:20 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 23:02:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) Message-ID: [Robert Harris:] I kept careful records of the human-shuffled hands I held, and the results (on something over 1000 hands) was distinctly flatter than random-too many 4333 compared with 4432, and so on, at every level with enough examples to make a judgement on. These all came from unsorted deals, and probably mostly shuffled hands. (Some people shuffle their hands always, some only part of the time, and some only if it is not the last played round.) ==================================================================== A careful investigation of the question whether manually dealt hands are significantly flatter than hands dealt by a correct computer program - i.e. by a program that generates every possible hand with equal probability - shows the following. A deck stacked as if played (either in the manner of duplicate or rubber play - it doesn't matter which) and then dealt without shuffling, riffled once, twice, ... 5 times, leads to the following probabilities for the most frequent patterns (each sample 100'000 deals): Pattern | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | a priori 4432 | 0.363 | 0.227 | 0.222 | 0.220 | 0.219 | 0.218 | 0.216 5332 | 0.140 | 0.155 | 0.157 | 0.156 | 0.156 | 0.155 | 0.155 5431 | 0.018 | 0.128 | 0.128 | 0.127 | 0.130 | 0.129 | 0.129 5422 | 0.042 | 0.104 | 0.106 | 0.106 | 0.104 | 0.106 | 0.106 4333 | 0.415 | 0.112 | 0.108 | 0.108 | 0.107 | 0.106 | 0.105 Chi-sq |0.0E+00|7.7E-32|1.1E-07|1.2E-05| 0.540 | 0.240 | The last row gives the probability that the chi-squared goodness of fit criterion calculated from the observed values (over all patterns) is exceeded by the corresponding value of the theoretical distribution. You can see that the deviation from the theoretical values disappears very quickly and is very unlikely to be apparent to a casual observer after 2 shuffles. The simulated shuffles are very good reliable riffles, probably better than manual riffles. Similar effects are seen when suit splits and suit length are considered. For example, for the length of the longest suit one finds: L | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | a priori 4 | 0.786 | 0.368 | 0.359 | 0.358 | 0.356 | 0.353 | 0.351 5 | 0.202 | 0.439 | 0.444 | 0.440 | 0.441 | 0.443 | 0.443 6 | 0.011 | 0.155 | 0.159 | 0.163 | 0.164 | 0.163 | 0.165 7 | 0.000 | 0.033 | 0.033 | 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.035 | 0.035 Ch| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.012 | 0.325 | The conclusion is that the belief that computer hands and manually dealt hands differ significantly appears to be an illusion. Around 1990 Persi Diaconis and others published some results on card shuffling, and these were widely quoted as showing that it takes 7 shuffles to randomize a deck. Obviously such a statement depends upon the particular measure of randomness that was used. Here it seems that sensible statistical criteria for randomness of the deal are usually met after 5 riffles. Jürgen From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Feb 26 23:16:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:16:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] KO match: how would you rule? Message-ID: <4A256CD9.007DF6E5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Ted Ying wrote: >Actually, both sides agreed there had >been a very significant break in tempo >(closer to 15 seconds than 10). [big snip] Given that UI has been confirmed by both sides, and given that a slow penalty double demonstrably suggests its removal, I agree with Eric Landau that the deposit should be retained if an appeal occurs. I have yet to find an exception to the iron law, "it is always a logical alternative to pass a high-level penalty double". Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Wed Feb 26 22:23:06 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 23:23:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) References: Message-ID: <001801c2dde5$a36dda50$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Jürgen Rennenkampff" ............ > [Robert Harris:] > I kept careful records of the human-shuffled hands I held, and the > results (on something over 1000 hands) was distinctly flatter than > random-too many 4333 compared with 4432, and so on, at every level > with enough examples to make a judgement on. These all came from > unsorted deals, and probably mostly shuffled hands. (Some people > shuffle their hands always, some only part of the time, and some only > if it is not the last played round.) > > ==================================================================== > > A careful investigation of the question whether manually dealt hands are > significantly flatter than hands dealt by a correct computer program - > i.e. by a program that generates every possible hand with equal > probability - shows the following. > > A deck stacked as if played (either in the manner of duplicate or rubber > play - it doesn't matter which) and then dealt without shuffling, riffled > once, twice, ... 5 times, leads to the following probabilities for the most > frequent patterns (each sample 100'000 deals): > > Pattern | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | a priori > 4432 | 0.363 | 0.227 | 0.222 | 0.220 | 0.219 | 0.218 | 0.216 > 5332 | 0.140 | 0.155 | 0.157 | 0.156 | 0.156 | 0.155 | 0.155 > 5431 | 0.018 | 0.128 | 0.128 | 0.127 | 0.130 | 0.129 | 0.129 > 5422 | 0.042 | 0.104 | 0.106 | 0.106 | 0.104 | 0.106 | 0.106 > 4333 | 0.415 | 0.112 | 0.108 | 0.108 | 0.107 | 0.106 | 0.105 > Chi-sq |0.0E+00|7.7E-32|1.1E-07|1.2E-05| 0.540 | 0.240 | > > The last row gives the probability that the chi-squared goodness > of fit criterion calculated from the observed values > (over all patterns) is exceeded by the corresponding value > of the theoretical distribution. > > You can see that the deviation from the theoretical values > disappears very quickly and is very unlikely to be apparent > to a casual observer after 2 shuffles. The simulated shuffles > are very good reliable riffles, probably better than manual riffles. > > Similar effects are seen when suit splits and suit length are > considered. For example, for the length of the longest suit one > finds: > > L | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | a priori > 4 | 0.786 | 0.368 | 0.359 | 0.358 | 0.356 | 0.353 | 0.351 > 5 | 0.202 | 0.439 | 0.444 | 0.440 | 0.441 | 0.443 | 0.443 > 6 | 0.011 | 0.155 | 0.159 | 0.163 | 0.164 | 0.163 | 0.165 > 7 | 0.000 | 0.033 | 0.033 | 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.035 | 0.035 > Ch| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.012 | 0.325 | > > The conclusion is that the belief that computer hands and > manually dealt hands differ significantly appears to be > an illusion. > > Around 1990 Persi Diaconis and others published some results on > card shuffling, and these were widely quoted as showing that > it takes 7 shuffles to randomize a deck. Obviously such a > statement depends upon the particular measure of randomness that > was used. Here it seems that sensible statistical criteria for > randomness of the deal are usually met after 5 riffles. > > Jürgen If we only could trust everybody to perform such high-quality riffles or equivalent shuffles in the older fashion? When I see players shuffle cards they usually do not bother to riffle more than twice, and if they (like me) shuffle the cards the "old" way, well - you know. Except for that, an interesting tabulation. regards Sven From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Wed Feb 26 22:30:58 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:30:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] KO match: how would you rule? In-Reply-To: <4A256CD9.007DF6E5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Feb 27, 2003 09:16:46 AM Message-ID: <200302262230.h1QMUwt24846@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Subject: Re: [blml] KO match: how would you rule? > Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:16:46 +1000 > > Ted Ying wrote: > > >Actually, both sides agreed there had > >been a very significant break in tempo > >(closer to 15 seconds than 10). > > [big snip] > > Given that UI has been confirmed by > both sides, and given that a slow > penalty double demonstrably suggests > its removal, I agree with Eric Landau > that the deposit should be retained if > an appeal occurs. > > I have yet to find an exception to the > iron law, "it is always a logical > alternative to pass a high-level > penalty double". > > Best wishes > > Richard > Actually, I'm not sure the double is definitely penalty in their system and the pass would not necessarily be a forcing pass. I forwarded a question to East about their system (actually, if the pass by West would have been forcing) and received the following answer: "By our methods [East] misbid (4H). My 2H was only forcing 1 round and thus she should have bid 3H (= minimum hand which I can pass) if she chooses to support Hearts. 4H shows extra values. Thus a pass of 5D by me denies extra strength/distribution (I would bid on) and implies lack of defensive values and a double suggests I don't have extra strength/distribution and that I do have defensive values. We do not have a definitive agreement to play forcing passes excect in stong opening bid (2NT, 2C, etc.) situations so we don't have the ability to Pass-and-Pull to suggest a slam. So the problem is compounded by the question of whether we had a system problem (1S-2H is game forcing if there is no interference and fast-arrival applies) where she didn't realize my bid was no longer forcing or she bid too quickly and realized later that she had shown extra values and I was counting on this and she compensated by making the bid she expected to minimize our maximum loss." Does this make the decision murkier for anyone? Note, this is a long-term experienced partnership of expert-level players. -Ted. -ted. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Feb 26 23:50:34 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:50:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) Message-ID: <4A256CD9.00810E6E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Jurgen simulated manual shuffling: [snip] >You can see that the deviation from the >theoretical values disappears very quickly >and is very unlikely to be apparent to a >casual observer after 2 shuffles. The >simulated shuffles are very good reliable >riffles, probably better than manual riffles. [snip] GIGO. My at-the-table experience of Aussie players doing manual shuffling is that they usually do *not* use the riffle shuffle, but instead use the less effective overhand (or "poker") shuffle a desultory number of times. As a probable consequence, my at-the-table Aussie experience has been that manually shuffled hands are flatter than computer- dealt hands. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 26 13:23:50 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:23:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: Message-ID: <3E5CBFE6.9090001@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: >> > > Let us suppose two tables where the same infraction happens in the same > auction: misexplanation. At table A one defender knows it to be > misexplanation and combining both he takes a clear decision based on > predictable misunderstanding between both opponents, very good score. No > damage, no TD called. > At table B defenders are not aware of this misexplanation, or too late aware > to take such advantageous decision. We know that they where entitled to know > the partnership agreement from the moment on they received the > misexplanation. > How is it possible to defend the idea that they are not entitled to the same > good score as defenders at table A received? > You start from the wrong premisse: You say that table A receive a better score than table B. You go on by asking why B should get less than A. You try to make that an argument to say that B is entitled to more. I can easily counter that one: What is wrong with allowing A to receive more than they are entitled to? So while the question remains - the argument fails. I don't dispute that there is some small problem here - but that is no argument for proving that the laws are as you imagine them to be - nor is it a compelling argument for changing the laws if they are not. Have you commented on Tenerife 7 yet, Ton? > > 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 jurgenr@t-online.de Thu Feb 27 00:04:49 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 01:04:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) Message-ID: [Richard Hills:] GIGO. My at-the-table experience of Aussie players doing manual shuffling is that they usually do *not* use the riffle shuffle, but instead use the less effective overhand (or "poker") shuffle a desultory number of times. As a probable consequence, my at-the-table Aussie experience has been that manually shuffled hands are flatter than computer- dealt hands. =========================================== Dealing has to be quite sloppy to cause a distinct effect, I think. For the simulated riffle one needs to specify for every card the probability that it comes from one half-deck or the other. One can, for example, introduce a "stickiness parameter", which makes it more or less likely that a card will come from the same half as its predecessor. - Surprisingly, the value of such a paramater, unless quite extreme, has very little effect on the qualitative behavior. Same for some other attempts to make the riffle more realistic. The property that causes flatness is obviously the tendency for the 4 cards of a trick to be dealt to four different hands; i.e. for the position index of the 4 cards to have differend remainders when divided by four. This is clearly a property that is easily destroyed. Jürgen PS - what does GIGO mean? From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Feb 27 00:51:20 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:51:20 +1300 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c2ddfa$5b6c6c70$8a2e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of J=FCrgen Rennenkampff > Sent: Thursday, 27 February 2003 1:05 p.m. > To: BLML > Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower)=20 >=20 >=20 > [Richard Hills:] > GIGO. My at-the-table experience of Aussie > players doing manual shuffling is that they > usually do *not* use the riffle shuffle, but > instead use the less effective overhand (or > "poker") shuffle a desultory number of times. >=20 > As a probable consequence, my at-the-table > Aussie experience has been that manually > shuffled hands are flatter than computer- > dealt hands. >=20 > = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > Dealing has to be quite sloppy to cause a distinct > effect, I think. >=20 > For the simulated riffle one needs to specify for > every card the probability that it comes from one > half-deck or the other. One can, for example, introduce a > "stickiness parameter", which makes it more or less > likely that a card will come from the same half > as its predecessor. - Surprisingly, the value of > such a paramater, unless quite extreme, has very > little effect on the qualitative behavior. Same > for some other attempts to make the riffle more > realistic. >=20 > The property that causes flatness is obviously the > tendency for the 4 cards of a trick to be dealt to > four different hands; i.e. for the position index of the > 4 cards to have differend remainders when divided > by four. This is clearly a property that is easily > destroyed. I would have thought that even two or three cards being=20 more likely to be dealt to different hands would have an effect on the randomness. Wayne From dkent@sujja.com Thu Feb 27 01:02:28 2003 From: dkent@sujja.com (David Kent) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:02:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 In-Reply-To: <6139061.1046276010801.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: And I guess if he shows his hand and states "I'll give you a spade", you would also give him one trick since after winning the CA, he 'stated' that he would lead the S2. -- David Kent > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > dalburn@btopenworld.com > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:14 AM > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > > > David Kent wrote: > > > Declarer is in 3NT having taken 5 tricks. West leads the CQ > and South shows his hand with no statement. How many tricks do > you award declarer? > > 43 > 2 > 2 > 2 > KQ 65 > - 3 > - 3 > QJT 3 > A2 > A > A > A > > How many is he asking for? If "no statement" is literally true, > then he is presumably asking for the rest, believing his hand to > be high. He gets two tricks under present guidance (CA, SA, S2 - > order of suits irrelevant, top down within suits), and one trick > under sensible rules (CA, S2 - order of presumed winners > irrelevant, cards not specified in claim to be played in least > favourable order). > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 27 01:25:26 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 01:25:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: Message-ID: <001f01c2ddff$1bc094c0$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> David wrote: > And I guess if he shows his hand and states "I'll give you a spade", you > would also give him one trick since after winning the CA, he 'stated' that > he would lead the S2. No. Whereas I would condemn his sloppiness, which will cost him several tricks when the proper claim laws are brought in sometime in the next millennium, in this one he has made an adequate statement. He could, it is true, have made his actual statement a trifle longer: "I will cash my aces and give you a spade". But why should he? This would have made the play of the hand intolerably long, and might have led to a slow play fine after the round had finished. Moreover, it is well known that rabbits are all serious asthmatics, and it is not to be contemplated that they should have to utter a single word more than necessary. Rather, a bevy of tournament directors and appeals committee members should be at their beck and call to work out how many tricks they might have made on any given deal. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 27 01:49:38 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 01:49:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226152854.00a86340@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004301c2de02$7d301840$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> Eric wrote: > I simply do not believe (nor do I think any of us except for David and > perhaps one or two others believe) that a player who claims six tricks > holding AKQJ32 opposite 654 does so "because he thinks that at any time > from now until the end of play, any of his cards if played to the > current trick would win it". Which is why we do not subscribe to the > Burn school of claim adjudication. Well, that is not a reason. You see, in actual misclaim positions, people do not have AKQJ32 facing 654, or four aces and a two. What they have is a miscellaneous collection of aces, jacks, smallish trumps, cards in non-trump suits that they think are winners, and the like. Now, the Burn school of claim adjudication treats them all as fairly (or as unfairly) as each other; moreover, it does this in such a way that the worst tournament director in the world can give the same ruling as the best, and it will be understood by everybody from the best player in the world to the worst. This cannot be said of, for example, the Landau-Kooijman-de-Wael-Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and All school of claim adjudication, which requires: a battery of psychiatrists to work out the extent of the derangement of a particular lunatic at any given moment in time; a plethora of double-dummy analysts to work out what might have happened had this lunatic come to his senses at any one of a number of given moments in time; and a trained bomb disposal unit to blow up any English dictionaries that may be lying around the place, lest anyone should look up the words "normal" and "irrational" in them. I believe simply that a man who claims should tell the assembled company what tricks he is going to win with which cards. I do not think that this is a whole lot to ask. If he isn't going to win the tricks he says he is going to win with the cards he says are going to win them, I think he should lose some tricks; if, on occasion, he loses more tricks than he might have done had he not claimed, so be it. David Burn London, England From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Feb 27 10:07:42 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel De Raeymaeker) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 02:07:42 -0800 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <200302252121.QAA17506@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: +++ cant argue with any of what Steve said. It does though put a whole lot of pressure on the SO's and with all the good will in the world won't cover 1/4 of the potential scenarios. To put my case in a nutshell I feel you should be forced, by bridge law, to alert any bid which may may contain more information than the natural meaning of that bid (ie) err on the side of too much info as a curtesy to the opps. I play in Ireland - The SO has rules about what needs to be alerted etc ... fine. Now I go abroad. 1st off I presumably have to locate and read the SO's rules. Just as an aside - I wonder how many pairs actually do this ?? I would venture very few, I amongst them. We start bidding and an auction occurs which isn't covered by the SO (hardly surprising). I fall back on my Irish SO rules - it is not alertable. So I don't alert. The opponent's countries Bridge body/SO states this sequence is alertable if it doesn't mean x,y or z. They call the TD and ..... No one is wrong, but the opponents have been damaged. Both pairs are not working from the same rules or perspective - and never will !!Surely alerting a bid, even though it takes time, is better than assuming people will be aware of the definitions and rules laid down by the EBU, ACBL, WBF, the SO - whoever. In the end this leads to making no assumptions and alerting all bids which may "possibly" require an alert. Seems fair to me. The feeling I get on BLM is that people are opposed to this. For example - They quote laws x,y & z which state a bid is natural if blah blah blah. How many of our players ever heard of these laws ?? Are we now in effect saying that players need to know their laws before they can sit down and play bridge ?? I say you should be forced to alert, alert and alert some more - where's the harm. K. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 27 02:14:38 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 02:14:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226143550.00a80640@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004d01c2de05$fb097920$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> Eric wrote: > I would suggest that just about all of us understand very well the > difference between "partnership agreement" and "meaning". Which is why > we think that David's view is misguided: L75 is about "partnership > agreements", and L40 is about calls or plays based on "partnership > understanding(s), which is essentially synonymous. No, it is not. Eric, you and I have never agreed on the meaning of the word "watermelon". Yet we would understand one another if either of us used it. We have never agreed on the meaning of the word "mad" either, and there is a fair chance that we might seriously misunderstand one another if either of us used it. If, for example, you were to say in reply to one of my posts "David seems to be mad", you would mean only that I seemed to be angry, yet I would think that you believed me to be insane. (Of course, you personally would choose your words more carefully, but I am speaking in general terms.) There is a huge difference between an "agreement" and an "understanding". They are not "synonymous" in the general sense at all, and even in the constricted language of bridge, the difference is important. > Neither speaks to > "meaning", which, as David says, is something very different. God pardon and defend us all. What *is* that word before the comma in Law 40B? > If the difference weren't apparent, we would have no problem accepting > David's position. Oh, well. It is not apparent to me. Nor do I quite follow the argument here. Even if "understanding" and "agreement" were synonymous, which they are not, Law 40 seems to me to say that I am entitled to know "the meaning" of anything "based on" an "understanding". Now, it happens very often that a player makes a call in the pious hope that although there is no "agreement" (for the situation has never been explicitly discussed), partner will nevertheless "understand", by reference to similar positions in the partnership experience, or to the partnership philosophy, or whatever. Thus, a call may be based on an "understanding" even though it is not based on an "agreement". In those circumstances, it seems to me that Law 40B requires that the opponents are entitled to know the "meaning" of the call. It's only words. But words are all I have. David Burn London, England From lskelso@ihug.com.au Thu Feb 27 04:00:30 2003 From: lskelso@ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:00:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] To ask or not ask? In-Reply-To: <4A256CD9.001DEDF2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030227140030.008a32f0@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 15:47 26/02/03 +1000, Richard Hills wrote: > >Laurie Kelso wrote: > >[snip] > >>>South however also admitted that he was fully >>>aware at the time that 3D was not natural. He >>>explained that he had reasoned it to be either >>>a splinter or a bergen raise, but had elected >>>not to clarify the situation since if he had >>>asked and it subsequently turned out to be >>>bergen, then he still would have had to pass >>>(their agreement being that a double of bergen >>>was take-out) and now his partner would have >>>been in receipt of UI. >>> >>>Has South been damaged by the non-alert? >>> >>>Is there any difference, from a potential UI >>>perspective, if one asks about a non-alerted >>>call compared to asking about an alerted call? > >Yes to both questions. > >Law 20F1 does not permit asking about a specific >call, only a full explanation of the auction. >The ABF Alert Regulation has modified Law 20F1 >when an alerted or self-alerting call is made: > >>At his/her turn to call, a player may request an >>explanation of either opponent's alerted or self >>alerting call(s) made since his/her own previous >>call. >> >>If a player fails to ask at his/her turn to call >>about the latest alerted or self alerting call >>of either opponent, he/she must no longer ask >>about that specific call, but should instead >>request an explanation of the entire auction. >> >>The proper method of enquiry is to say, "Please >>explain your agreement", or, "What is the >>meaning of the auction?", or a similar request. >> >>Any questions about a call or calls must take >>into account the requirements of Law 16, covering >>Unauthorised Information: > >Note that the implication of the ABF regulation is >that most of the time a proper enquiry about a >(self-)alerted call will not create UI. However, >*any* enquiry about an individual non-alertable >call is improper - contrary to Law 20F1 - and >therefore more likely to create UI. > >South could have asked the superficially legal >question, "Could I have an explanation of the >auction?", but South would be infracting Law 73B1 >if West gave the Bergen answer, and South then had >to Pass. > >Especially if South is a player who routinely asks >about alerted calls, it is plausible that the >failure to alert damaged North-South on this deal. I was hoping that the issue would be examined without needing to consider the actual ABF Alert regulations. However the same regulations also say: "When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but are likely to have been aware of probable alternative meanings of a call), their claim will be unsuccessful if they could have enquired as to the meaning of the call before damage occurred (unless they can demonstarte the inability to enquire because, in so doing, they would have conveyed unauthorised information, and/or given opponents information to which they were not entitled)." Laurie From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Feb 27 04:32:39 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:32:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: <4A256CDA.00170BF0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Burn wrote: [big snip] >Oh, well. It is not apparent to me. Nor do I >quite follow the argument here. Even if >"understanding" and "agreement" were synonymous, >which they are not, Law 75 defines implicit partnership agreements as being as disclosable as explicit partnership agreements. So, in my opinion, the Law 40 words "partnership understanding" have a high degree of overlap with the Law 75 words "partnership agreement". Therefore, as TD or AC I would rule the words synonymous for bridge purposes. >Law 40 seems to me to say that I am entitled to >know "the meaning" of anything "based on" an >"understanding". Not quite. Wherever the word "understanding" appears in Law 40 it is modified by the adjective "partnership". >Now, it happens very often that a player makes a >call in the pious hope that although there is no >"agreement" (for the situation has never been >explicitly discussed), partner will nevertheless >"understand", by reference to similar positions in >the partnership experience, If so, I would rule that a Law 75 implicit partnership agreement exists, equivalent to ruling that a Law 40 partnership understanding exists. >or to the partnership philosophy, If so, I would rule that a Law 75 implicit partnership agreement exists, equivalent to ruling that a Law 40 partnership understanding exists. >or whatever. Thus, a call may be based on an >"understanding" even though it is not based on an >"agreement". In those circumstances, it seems to me >that Law 40B requires that the opponents are >entitled to know the "meaning" of the call. Agree that full disclosure includes both ordinary agreements and meta-agreements. Disagree with the fine distinction David Burn seems to be drawing between a "partnership understanding" and an "implicit partnership agreement". >It's only words. But words are all I have. I recommend that the WBF LC amalgamate Law 40 and Law 75 in the 2005 Laws. I further recommend that the amalgamated Law use either the word "understanding" or the word "agreement", but not both words. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Feb 27 04:56:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:56:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? Message-ID: <4A256CDA.001932E5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Karel wrote: [big snip] >Are we now in effect saying that players need >to know their laws before they can sit down >and play bridge ?? Knowing the basics would be helpful, especially knowing Law 9B1. >I say you should be forced to alert, alert and >alert some more - where's the harm? 1. If you alert all calls, then your alerts are meaningless annoyances to the opponents. 2. Many SOs *prohibit* alerts of particular calls. They judge that possible UI given to pard by such alerts is more than any useful AI the opponents would gain from such alerts. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 27 04:08:59 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 04:08:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: <4A256CDA.00170BF0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <008301c2de15$f4d870a0$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: > Law 75 defines implicit partnership agreements as > being as disclosable as explicit partnership > agreements. > So, in my opinion, the Law 40 words "partnership > understanding" have a high degree of overlap with > the Law 75 words "partnership agreement". > Therefore, as TD or AC I would rule the words > synonymous for bridge purposes. One might extend this argument as follows: Green alligators are as dangerous as green hand grenades. So the words "green alligators" have a high degree of overlap with the words "green hand grenades". Therefore, I would rule the word "alligator" a synonym of the phrase "hand grenade". David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Feb 27 05:40:30 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:40:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: <4A256CDA.001D42C2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >Richard wrote: > >>Law 75 defines implicit partnership agreements as >>being as disclosable as explicit partnership >>agreements. >> >>So, in my opinion, the Law 40 words "partnership >>understanding" have a high degree of overlap with >>the Law 75 words "partnership agreement". >>Therefore, as TD or AC I would rule the words >>synonymous for bridge purposes. > >One might extend this argument as follows: > >Green alligators are as dangerous as green hand grenades. >So the words "green alligators" have a high degree of overlap with the >words "green hand grenades". >Therefore, I would rule the word "alligator" a synonym of the phrase >"hand grenade". > >David Burn >London, England "Professor, your wife met an alligator, Its jaws opened wide, then it ate her!" The Professor could not help but smile, "You mean, of course, a crocodile." Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 27 04:59:02 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 04:59:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: <4A256CDA.001D42C2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <00bb01c2de1c$f25989c0$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: > "Professor, your wife met an alligator, > Its jaws opened wide, then it ate her!" > The Professor could not help but smile, > "You mean, of course, a crocodile." Now, I may not know diddley-squat about the rules of bridge. But about the poetry of Ogden Nash, I am prepared to bet that I know far more than the rest of you put together (even Kojak, if he's still listening). Richard's lines above were actually not a bad shot at the work of the master: I give you now Professor Twist, A conscientious scientist. Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles!" And sent him off to distant jungles. Camped on a tropic riverside, One day he missed his loving bride. She had, the guide informed him later, Been eaten by an alligator. Professor Twist could not but smile. "You mean," he said, "a crocodile." Still, his point is well taken. Alligators are less dangerous than hand grenades. My point? Well, if it were not consistently obscured by a wealth of irrelevant detail... David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Feb 27 07:03:59 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:03:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? Message-ID: <4A256CDA.0024E6D8.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Eric Landau wrote: >>>we will have little or no sympathy with a player >>>who intentionally fails to disclose a "partnership >>>understanding" on the grounds that it is not >>>"special". Ed Reppert wrote: >>Which is, IMO, a copout, since no one seems to >>know what "special" means in this case. Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ "additional to what is normal and general" says >the WBF Code of Practice - and it varies, of course, >according to the ambience in which one is playing. > The judgement to be made is whether the >meaning is so commonly understood among the >players in the tournament that it is not necessary to >protect the opponent from his failure to understand. > ~ G ~ +=+ Transfers over 1NT are normal and general at the Canberra Bridge Club. Therefore, is Grattan saying that I can act this way? -> Me: 1NT LHO: Pass Pard: 2D Me: Alert RHO: Please explain Me: Shan't :-) Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Feb 26 17:22:34 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:22:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: <584107.1046276709507.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E5CF7DA.3010106@skynet.be> dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Sorry to have to say this David, but this contribution is gibberish. >> > > Oh, that's all right. But it would help if you could read. > > >>Again, sorry - no one really knows what "agreement" and "meaning" actually mean, and L40 talks only of "partnership understanding". >> > > What is the word before the comma in Law 40B, Herman? > meaning, OK, once ! sorry. But don't distract us from the real issue. You were saying that Ton and you were talking about "meaning" while others are talking about "agreement". I was just adding that the laws talk about "understanding". > >>Don't add to the confusion David. Everybody knows what "agreement", "meaning" and "understanding" mean. >> > > Let me see now: "no one really knows what 'agreement' and 'meaning' actually mean"; and then, in the very next sentence, "everybody knows what 'agreement', 'meaning' and 'understanding' mean." And *you* accuse *me* of talking gibberish? > > I do not know which of these two contradictory propositions you actually believe. But you and I are part of "everybody", are we not? Very well then. In the context of Law 40, please give me a definition of "meaning" such that I will know what you understand by the word (and we will perhaps see whether or not it is what "everybody" thinks the word means). > Of course they were meant to be contradictory. We all know what they mean, and we all know that no-one really knows what they mean. But that is not in the discussion here. > >>Ton and I are discussing something totally different. We are trying to find out whether or not the knowledge of misunderstanding is entitled knowledge. >> > > Yes, I know. So am I. But, as usual, you are trying to argue it from an entrenched standpoint that you have held for many years, and I am trying to argue it by finding out what the rules say. > Well, maybe the fact that I have held the same opinion for a very long time might actually count for something. In contrast to my views in the DwS, these views of mine have never been contested before; they have been agreed to by all posters in this thread except you two. Ton has been trying to find out why his view apparently contradicts ours. You have only contributed that what Herman says must by force of law be wrong. In some instances (like your contribution on random deals) that stance is funny. Here it's not. > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Feb 27 07:18:27 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:18:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: <4A256CDA.00263A3B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >For example, if I understand his position, he wants >to imagine a situation where there is no original MI >but somehow the NOS know _at that moment_ that the >OS are having a misunderstanding. That seems to me >to depart from the normal procedures for assigning >scores. > >This all comes down to a difference between "entitled" >and "authorized" information. Yes and no. Even when there is no MI, sometimes you know that the opponents are having a misunderstanding because one of them has just made a non-systemic call. For example, the opponents have agreed to play the Simple Stayman convention. LHO RHO 1NT 2C 3C Now you are "entitled", not merely "authorised", to the knowledge that a wheel has fallen off. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 27 07:32:28 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:32:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: Message-ID: <3E5DBF0C.1070006@skynet.be> Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: > > > I play in Ireland - The SO has rules about what needs to be alerted etc ... > fine. Now I go abroad. 1st off I presumably have to locate and read the > SO's rules. Just as an aside - I wonder how many pairs actually do this ?? > I would venture very few, I amongst them. > > We start bidding and an auction occurs which isn't covered by the SO (hardly > surprising). I fall back on my Irish SO rules - it is not alertable. So I > don't alert. The opponent's countries Bridge body/SO states this sequence > is alertable if it doesn't mean x,y or z. They call the TD and ..... > > No one is wrong, but the opponents have been damaged. Both pairs are not > working from the same rules or perspective - and never will !!Surely > alerting a bid, even though it takes time, is better than assuming people > will be aware of the definitions and rules laid down by the EBU, ACBL, WBF, > the SO - whoever. > > In the end this leads to making no assumptions and alerting all bids which > may "possibly" require an alert. Seems fair to me. The feeling I get on > BLM is that people are opposed to this. For example - They quote laws x,y & > z which state a bid is natural if blah blah blah. How many of our players > ever heard of these laws ?? Are we now in effect saying that players need > to know their laws before they can sit down and play bridge ?? I say you > should be forced to alert, alert and alert some more - where's the harm. > I have met quite a number of foreign nationals in Belgian tournaments and it turns out there is hardly any problem with this alerting. Players should realize that their opponents may not know the real alert procedure and they do. A case like the one recently put forward, where it was clear that 3Di should be alerted, would be ruled quite differently if opponent were a foreignor. No-one would even suspect that South's asking would carry any meaning other than "what does it mean in your country?", so there would not even be UI. > > K. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 27 07:41:33 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:41:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5.2.0.9.0.20030226162826.00a93490@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3E5DC12D.4000602@skynet.be> All this proves is that it is difficult to rule on claims without knowing what is going on in claimer's mind, specifically what is going wrong with it. Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:46 AM 2/26/03, David wrote: > >> Declarer is in 3NT having taken 5 tricks. West leads the CQ and South >> shows his hand with no statement. How many tricks do you award declarer? >> >> 43 >> 2 >> 2 >> 2 >> KQ 65 >> - 3 >> - 3 >> QJT 3 >> A2 >> A >> A >> A > > > Four. Because I consider it irrational for declarer, even if he has > completely lost track of everything, not to realize that his opponents > cannot possibly hold cards that beat his aces. > > Change the position to... > > 43 > 2 > 2 > 2 > KQ 65 > - 3 > - 3 > QJ10 3 > A2 > K > K > A > > ...and he gets two. > Depends on how many he is asking. I would give him four if he wanted four, and probably two if he wanted five. I would then ask him whether he thought the spades had all gone or if he knew there was one out. Last week someone claimed against me after having played clubs three times in this position dummy: AT8xx me: Q9xx x decl: KJx He had played first to the king and then played the Jack. I had covered and was saddened to see partner show out. In the end, declarer claimed, with no great elaboration in the clubs. He did not say he would finesse again. I asked and it turned out he hadn't noticed my partner had shown out. So we agreed that I would get my C9. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 27 07:46:08 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:46:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226152854.00a86340@pop.starpower.net> <004301c2de02$7d301840$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E5DC240.3080507@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > Well, that is not a reason. You see, in actual misclaim positions, > people do not have AKQJ32 facing 654, or four aces and a two. What they > have is a miscellaneous collection of aces, jacks, smallish trumps, > cards in non-trump suits that they think are winners, and the like. > > Now, the Burn school of claim adjudication treats them all as fairly (or > as unfairly) as each other; moreover, it does this in such a way that > the worst tournament director in the world can give the same ruling as > the best, and it will be understood by everybody from the best player in > the world to the worst. > > This cannot be said of, for example, the Landau-Kooijman-de-Wael-Old > Uncle Tom Cobbley and All school of claim adjudication, which requires: > a battery of psychiatrists to work out the extent of the derangement of > a particular lunatic at any given moment in time; a plethora of > double-dummy analysts to work out what might have happened had this > lunatic come to his senses at any one of a number of given moments in > time; and a trained bomb disposal unit to blow up any English > dictionaries that may be lying around the place, lest anyone should look > up the words "normal" and "irrational" in them. > Yet that particular school solves hundreds of thousands of contested claims every year, with about four of them making it to blml and generating interesting discussions that might lead to one thing: better understanding of that particular school. David, don't argue with success. The claims laws work. Millions of players are happy with them. > I believe simply that a man who claims should tell the assembled company > what tricks he is going to win with which cards. I do not think that > this is a whole lot to ask. If he isn't going to win the tricks he says > he is going to win with the cards he says are going to win them, I think > he should lose some tricks; if, on occasion, he loses more tricks than > he might have done had he not claimed, so be it. > Your belief is commendable, but we have by now grasped it. Please stop hammering us with it and let the Kooijman-DeWael-whomever school go on with fine tuning their understanding of the word "normal". We would like to go on with OUR laws, David, not yours. > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 27 07:56:49 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:56:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: <4A256CDA.00263A3B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3E5DC4C1.2050701@skynet.be> No Richard, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > > [snip] > > > > Yes and no. Even when there is no MI, sometimes you > know that the opponents are having a misunderstanding > because one of them has just made a non-systemic call. > > For example, the opponents have agreed to play the > Simple Stayman convention. > > LHO RHO > 1NT 2C > 3C > > Now you are "entitled", not merely "authorised", to the > knowledge that a wheel has fallen off. > No Richard, you are entitled to know that the 3C response does not exist in the system opponents are playing. You are allowed to make deductions from that, and in this case I would rule that you would undoubtably reach the conclusion that a wheel might have fallen off. But that is not the same as saying that you are entitled to that knowledge. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Thu Feb 27 08:25:48 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:25:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) References: <000201c2ddfa$5b6c6c70$8a2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001701c2de39$d4f25a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Wayne Burrows" .......... I would have thought that even two or three cards being more likely to be dealt to different hands would have an effect on the randomness. Sven: It will, although a single group will hardly produce any noticeable effect. But if you have several such groups - yes. "If the map doesn't match the landscape a wise rule is to trust the landscape". regards Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Feb 27 08:58:19 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:58:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: > No Richard, > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > Yes and no. Even when there is no MI, sometimes you > > know that the opponents are having a misunderstanding > > because one of them has just made a non-systemic call. > > > > For example, the opponents have agreed to play the > > Simple Stayman convention. > > > > LHO RHO > > 1NT 2C > > 3C > > > > Now you are "entitled", not merely "authorised", to the > > knowledge that a wheel has fallen off. > > >Herman: > > No Richard, you are entitled to know that the 3C response does not > exist in the system opponents are playing. You are allowed to make > deductions from that, and in this case I would rule that you would > undoubtably reach the conclusion that a wheel might have fallen off. > But that is not the same as saying that you are entitled to that > knowledge. Goodness Herman, Steve didn't say 'entitled' but ' "entitled" '. So he knew very well what he was saying. Loosing the battle and needing the distraction, aren't you? Spare me your answer, distraction again. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Feb 27 09:05:28 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:05:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: > > Richard wrote: > > > "Professor, your wife met an alligator, > > Its jaws opened wide, then it ate her!" > > The Professor could not help but smile, > > "You mean, of course, a crocodile." > > Now, I may not know diddley-squat about the rules of bridge. But about > the poetry of Ogden Nash, I am prepared to bet that I know > far more than > the rest of you put together (even Kojak, if he's still listening). > Richard's lines above were actually not a bad shot at the work of the > master: > > I give you now Professor Twist, > A conscientious scientist. > Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles!" > And sent him off to distant jungles. > Camped on a tropic riverside, > One day he missed his loving bride. > She had, the guide informed him later, > Been eaten by an alligator. > Professor Twist could not but smile. > "You mean," he said, "a crocodile." > > Still, his point is well taken. Alligators are less dangerous > than hand > grenades. My point? Well, if it were not consistently obscured by a > wealth of irrelevant detail... > The world nowadays is much too complex, so 'we' need to concentrate on details to survive this day, and who sees tomorrow? When Grattan tries to find this in his files, he probably will not find it, though it is the truth and could have been said by anybody. ton > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Feb 27 10:01:27 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:01:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n Message-ID: > > I believe simply that a man who claims should tell the > assembled company > what tricks he is going to win with which cards. I do not think that > this is a whole lot to ask. If he isn't going to win the > tricks he says > he is going to win with the cards he says are going to win > them, I think > he should lose some tricks; if, on occasion, he loses more tricks than > he might have done had he not claimed, so be it. > > David Burn > London, England To be honest, I do think that I am more or less aware of the opinion on claims most of our distinguished contributors do have. Even David starts repeating himself though he tries to hide it by using new words and poems now and then. And let me confess that I will not be influenced by freshly written known arguments on this subject for a while. I know, stubbornness, shortsighted, whatever, but it remains a fact. So let me give you something else with a claim, which is a discussion in the Dutch national appeal committee since the TD in charge wasn't sure and gave the problem to us to solve. 843 AQ 109 AQ8742 AK765 10 104 9732 AKJ5 8763 J9 10653 QJ92 KJ865 Q42 K Don't tell me about 51 or 53 cards, or the deuce of clubs twice, this is what we got. South declares 3NT (is this English?). Lead DA, then DK and DJ for the Q. CK and entering dummy with HA. Now it comes, playing the CA west revokes (S5). CQ in trick 7 (west S6), overtaking HQ in trick 8 and cashing HJ in trick 9. No luck and conceding the rest. So far the claim part. Now south discovers that west has revoked and the question is what result to establish, the problem being that west might have won a trick with the CJ had play been continued. I know, we discussed this several times, but remember I want to get you away from case n +1 and n + 2. Attention for Laurie Kelso: could be as nice article for the Australian TD Bulletin: Give North the C10 in stead of C4 (2). If West discovers his revoke when declarer plays CQ the laws tell him to play the J, but the laws do not encourage this attitude looking at the consequences. If he plays the CJ declarer will make 6 club tricks plus a penalty trick. If he doesn't declarer will not get that penalty trick, since we have to apply 64C then. Let us agree that 10 reactions will be the maximum (OK, 11). ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Feb 27 10:13:05 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:13:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: Herman: > I've come back to this message of Ton's to try and explain a > difference. > If at table A, apart from listening to opponents, the player also > remembers having read their CC, and from that he deduces the > misunderstanding, that might account for the better result, no? NO, since at both tables these players are entitled, yes entitled !!!! to know the meaning, agreement whatever, of the concerning call. If you apply your idea there hardly ever wil be any redress anymore after misexplanation. You had received more had you read the CC, sorry sir. You are as inconsistent as my wive's stomach last days. ton From svenpran@online.no Thu Feb 27 10:36:15 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:36:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n References: Message-ID: <007001c2de4c$0e145710$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Kooijman, A ......... > So let me give you something else with a claim, which is a discussion in the > Dutch national appeal committee since the TD in charge wasn't sure and gave > the problem to us to solve. > > 843 > AQ > 109 > AQ8742 > AK765 10 > 104 9732 > AKJ5 8763 > J9 10653 > QJ92 > KJ865 > Q42 > K > > Don't tell me about 51 or 53 cards, or the deuce of clubs twice, this is > what we got. > > South declares 3NT (is this English?). Lead DA, then DK and DJ for the Q. > CK and entering dummy with HA. Now it comes, playing the CA west revokes > (S5). CQ in trick 7 (west S6), overtaking HQ in trick 8 and cashing HJ in > trick 9. No luck and conceding the rest. So far the claim part. > Now south discovers that west has revoked and the question is what result to > establish, the problem being that west might have won a trick with the CJ > had play been continued. Had I been TD I would (almost without hesitation) awarded the defence DA, DK, SA, SK, D8 and 10C less one trick revoke penalty for one down. However, as West has clung to his JC he cannot avoid winning the trick in clubs, and the final result is then (after a mandatory two trick revoke compensation) that the contract is made. Have I overlooked some problem here? regards Sven From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Thu Feb 27 10:58:35 2003 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:58:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 Message-ID: >From: "David Burn" : >and a trained bomb disposal unit to blow up any English >dictionaries that may be lying around the place, lest anyone should look >up the words "normal" and "irrational" in them. Why would you need a bomb disposal unit to do that? You'd need a bomber. Norman (wallowing in pedantry and irrelevance). _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 27 11:38:08 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:38:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226152854.00a86340@pop.starpower.net> <004301c2de02$7d301840$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> <3E5DC240.3080507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002001c2de54$b385ba60$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > Yet that particular school solves hundreds of thousands of contested > claims every year, with about four of them making it to blml and > generating interesting discussions that might lead to one thing: > better understanding of that particular school. > David, don't argue with success. The claims laws work. Millions of > players are happy with them. This is quite the most pitiful argument I have ever heard. "That particular school" does not "solve" anything. If it did, there would be zero complaints, and there would be nothing to discuss on this list or anywhere else. The Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and All school hands out a lot of wrong rulings that people are not "happy" with at all, but cannot dispute, because as far as they know there is no alternative. Millions of players are "happy" with Law 25B also, in the sense that no one has complained about it other than on BLML. Should we not argue with that? The claim laws, like the laws of bridge in general, do not "work". That is why we have appeals committees, that is why we have BLML, that is why articles appear in the bridge press every so often discussing, for instance, the Great Reisinger Cockup. If the laws "worked", there would be none of this, just as there is none of it in other sports. > Your belief is commendable, but we have by now grasped it. Please stop > hammering us with it and let the Kooijman-DeWael-whomever school go on > with fine tuning their understanding of the word "normal". Do you not see that if a word needs "fine tuning", then it has no place in the rules of a game? The rules of a game should consist of words whose meaning is not disputed and that can be translated from one language to another without error. > We would like to go on with OUR laws, David, not yours. Yes, Herman, I know you would. You, like DWS, would like to continue a vast number of pointless debates in which you can make up terms like "entitled information" and think that you are doing some good. You are not. By perpetuating a set of rules full of ambiguity, purely in order that you can sit around discussing how to resolve the ambiguities that you have needlessly created, you are doing "millions of players" a vast disservice. That you do not know this makes me despair, and for as long as I care about bridge, I will do my utmost not to let you go on with "your" laws. They are mine as well, and they are no good. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 27 11:46:05 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:46:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5.2.0.9.0.20030226162826.00a93490@pop.starpower.net> <3E5DC12D.4000602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002601c2de55$d02ea720$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > All this proves is that it is difficult to rule on claims without > knowing what is going on in claimer's mind, specifically what is going > wrong with it. No, it does not. All it proves is that it is difficult for you to rule on claims, because you insist on knowing what is going on in claimer's mind. But this, like "entitled information", is something you have created from pure fresh air. There is no legal, moral, or sensible basis for it. It is trivial to rule on claims if you confine yourself to calculating what tricks someone would make if the cards were played in accordance with a statement, and have a deterministic procedure which applies to cards not covered by the statement. Anyone can do it. No claim ruling would ever be contested if people did it. And yet... David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 27 12:00:13 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:00:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5.2.0.9.0.20030226162826.00a93490@pop.starpower.net> <3E5DC12D.4000602@skynet.be> <002601c2de55$d02ea720$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E5DFDCD.7000808@skynet.be> No David, all this proves is that Burnian claims laws may be easier to rule with than the real ones. We are talking about real claim laws, not Burnian ones. So please refrain from repeating this over and over and over again. You have made your point. David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>All this proves is that it is difficult to rule on claims without >>knowing what is going on in claimer's mind, specifically what is going >>wrong with it. >> > > No, it does not. All it proves is that it is difficult for you to rule > on claims, because you insist on knowing what is going on in claimer's > mind. But this, like "entitled information", is something you have > created from pure fresh air. There is no legal, moral, or sensible basis > for it. > > It is trivial to rule on claims if you confine yourself to calculating > what tricks someone would make if the cards were played in accordance > with a statement, and have a deterministic procedure which applies to > cards not covered by the statement. Anyone can do it. No claim ruling > would ever be contested if people did it. And yet... > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Feb 27 12:08:58 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:08:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5.2.0.9.0.20030226162826.00a93490@pop.starpower.net> <3E5DC12D.4000602@skynet.be> <002601c2de55$d02ea720$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> <3E5DFDCD.7000808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003e01c2de59$020c2080$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > We are talking about real claim laws, not Burnian ones. > > So please refrain from repeating this over and over and over again. > > You have made your point. Evidently, I have not. For there is nothing in the words of the rules that prevents claims from being adjudicated exactly as I would have them adjudicated. The only obstruction is in the minds of people. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 27 12:11:09 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:11:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: Message-ID: <3E5E005D.8010807@skynet.be> Sorry Ton, but you are trying to get the last word by snipping and then commenting on single sentences. That is not fair, and it won't work. Kooijman, A. wrote: > Herman: > > >>I've come back to this message of Ton's to try and explain a >>difference. >> > > > >>If at table A, apart from listening to opponents, the player also >>remembers having read their CC, and from that he deduces the >>misunderstanding, that might account for the better result, no? >> > > > NO, since at both tables these players are entitled, yes entitled !!!! to > know the meaning, agreement whatever, of the concerning call. > Yes indeed - and at table A, players have more knowledge, knowledge whidh is authorized for them. Knowledge table B does not have. The fact that table A receives a better score than table B is simply because table A has more info, authorized info. That is no argument for that missing information to be entitled for table B. > If you apply your idea there hardly ever wil be any redress anymore after > misexplanation. You had received more had you read the CC, sorry sir. > You are as inconsistent as my wive's stomach last days. > Why? No, Ton. At table A, there is MI. At that table, opponent also reads the CC, and he knows about the misunderstanding. He takes this into account and gets a good result. At table B, there is the same MI. At that table, opponent does not read the CC, leading to a bad result. Now B has right to redress and we shall change his score to the one he would have got had he received the correct information. Not at all "hardly any redress anymore". A still has a better result than B. So what ? I don't see this as enough reason for us to start changing all our rulings. I am fully certain that I have never, ever, come accross a ruling that goes: "Yes B, if you had received both the right and the wrong explanation, you would have doubled". Sorry Ton, never. I repeat - have you looked at Tenerife 7 already ? > > > ton > > > > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 27 12:41:35 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:41:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5.2.0.9.0.20030226162826.00a93490@pop.starpower.net> <3E5DC12D.4000602@skynet.be> <002601c2de55$d02ea720$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> <3E5DFDCD.7000808@skynet.be> <003e01c2de59$020c2080$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E5E077F.3060800@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>We are talking about real claim laws, not Burnian ones. >> >>So please refrain from repeating this over and over and over again. >> >>You have made your point. >> > > Evidently, I have not. For there is nothing in the words of the rules > that prevents claims from being adjudicated exactly as I would have them > adjudicated. The only obstruction is in the minds of people. > Yes there is. The word "normal". Which you insist should be "legal". Stop it. > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 27 13:27:45 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:27:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] KO match: how would you rule? In-Reply-To: <4A256CD9.007DF6E5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030227141216.00ab6d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:16 27/02/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Ted Ying wrote: > > >Actually, both sides agreed there had > >been a very significant break in tempo > >(closer to 15 seconds than 10). > >[big snip] > >Given that UI has been confirmed by >both sides, and given that a slow >penalty double demonstrably suggests >its removal, I agree with Eric Landau >that the deposit should be retained if >an appeal occurs. > >I have yet to find an exception to the >iron law, "it is always a logical >alternative to pass a high-level >penalty double". AG : I can offer the following, from a pairs tournament not long ago. AQ10xxx Kxxx --- Qxxx J A10xx KJ109xx x both vul (IIRC), West deals 1S X 3C* 3H 4C 4H ...X p 5C TD! * limit 4-card raise My double followed a 5- or 6-second tempo, which is an eternity in my methods :-) North summoned the TD (which he has all rights to do, of course), and West said to him that she knew about the tempo rules and bid 4S in full knowledge. The case is interesting for several reasons : a) it seems to be answering yur quest for an exception b) perhaps, if West is to bend backwards, must she bid 4S rather than 5C ; but as the 5C bid is quite automatic after a signoff by East, and East's double is some form of signoff, West thought there was no problem. OMMV. An interesting feature is that East's pass over 4H would have been encouraging (under commitment theory), so that 4S and double have the same discouraging value. Perhaps 4S would have been a better call, but with an obvious club lead ... c) once again, the specter of UI from partner's pulling craned his neck into the sequence. Partner's ethics are perfect, and I knew that she would have a very extreme hand to do so. In that case, my relative absence of lost values in hearts (compared to the bidding sequence) virtually guarantees a 6S bid. I decided to bid "only" 5D, because that is the obvious bid after a 4S signoff and partner's 5C. This led to 6S. To be fair, this kind of problems of self-inflicted UI are very difficult to solve at the table. But one thing is sure : you can't ask partner to pass my double of 4H when she has a hand that makes 5S a near-certainty. Best regards, Alain. From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Feb 27 13:26:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > > >>Our grounds for adjustment must surely be "Had a correct explanation > been received at the time of the infraction might the player have chosen > a different action?". > > I believe that a condition for claiming damage from MI it is necessary > for the player to assert he would have done THIS to the exclusion of > anything else. I do think that if the THIS is something a bit dubious > there might be a judgment that it is not a valid thing to assert [iow, > no damage]. But generally, thereafter there is a judgment to be made > about where the assertion takes the outcome. > > Which is to say 'I might have done this; or I might have done that; or I > might have done something else' only goes to judging if there could have > been damage; but goes nowhere as to judging if there was damage. The > first situation is a worthless exercise and the second goes to the heart > of the matter. In which case I will never be judged to be damaged! I would never "assert" anything. I would simply tell a TD that I think it "likely", or "very probable" or "possible" that I would have taken a particular action, and why. I expect the TD (in consultation) to decide if the likelihood of me having acted is enough to warrant assessing damage. Thus if a TD decides there is a 40% chance I would have acted, such action leading to an almost inevitable +620 I would expect a score of +620/-620 to be assigned. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Feb 27 13:26:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n In-Reply-To: <007001c2de4c$0e145710$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > Had I been TD I would (almost without hesitation) awarded the defence > DA, DK, SA, SK, D8 and 10C less one trick revoke penalty for one down. > > However, as West has clung to his JC he cannot avoid winning the trick > in clubs, and the final result is then (after a mandatory two trick > revoke > compensation) that the contract is made. > > Have I overlooked some problem here? The only minor problem is that play could go (absent concession) small H from declarer, CJ discard, rest to defence. A one trick revoke. However since we are guided to resolve doubtful points against the revoker I think we just ignore this (or similar) possibilities and assess a 2 trick revoke - unless, I guess, we assume it would be irrational for West to keep the CJ. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Feb 27 13:26:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Herman: > > > I've come back to this message of Ton's to try and explain a > > difference. > > > > > If at table A, apart from listening to opponents, the player also > > remembers having read their CC, and from that he deduces the > > misunderstanding, that might account for the better result, no? > > > NO, since at both tables these players are entitled, yes entitled !!!! > to know the meaning, agreement whatever, of the concerning call. Indeed they are. A point with which, as far as I know, nobody is arguing. Where your view differs to that of Herman and myself is that you seem to believe they are entitled to this information *in addition* to the misexplanation they have already received. Herman and I believe in adjusting based on them receiving the correct information *instead of* the misexplanation. I think that Herman and I believe as we do because L12c2 contains the phrase "..result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred..". Thus we base our adjustments on what was likely had there been *no* MI - thus the NOS would have received *only* the correct explanation. I'm sorry you find this approach unreasonable. > If you apply your idea there hardly ever wil be any redress anymore > after misexplanation. You had received more had you read the CC, sorry > sir. I do not believe anybody is saying "we aren't adjusting because the correct information was on the CC". We are just saying that we are adjusting to the best score likely had the bid been correctly alerted and the player had enquired/consulted the (accurate) CC. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Feb 27 13:42:22 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:42:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] KO match: how would you rule? In-Reply-To: <200302262230.h1QMUwt24846@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: <4A256CD9.007DF6E5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227083822.00a92500@pop.starpower.net> At 05:30 PM 2/26/03, Ted wrote: >Actually, I'm not sure the double is definitely penalty in their >system and the pass would not necessarily be a forcing pass. >I forwarded a question to East about their system (actually, if >the pass by West would have been forcing) and received the >following answer: > >"By our methods [East] misbid (4H). My 2H was only forcing 1 round >and thus >she should have bid 3H (= minimum hand which I can pass) if she chooses to >support Hearts. 4H shows extra values. Thus a pass of 5D by me denies >extra strength/distribution (I would bid on) and implies lack of defensive >values and a double suggests I don't have extra strength/distribution and >that I do have defensive values. We do not have a definitive agreement to >play forcing passes excect in stong opening bid (2NT, 2C, etc.) situations >so we don't have the ability to Pass-and-Pull to suggest a slam. > >So the problem is compounded by the question of whether we had a system >problem (1S-2H is game forcing if there is no interference and >fast-arrival >applies) where she didn't realize my bid was no longer forcing or she bid >too quickly and realized later that she had shown extra values and I was >counting on this and she compensated by making the bid she expected to >minimize our maximum loss." > >Does this make the decision murkier for anyone? Note, this is a >long-term experienced partnership of expert-level players. No. Any "experienced... expert-level" player would be able to produce some such rationale for bidding 5H. It doesn't matter: he had UI; he had LA(s); his choice was suggested by the UI; damage ensued. Q.E.D. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Feb 27 13:44:53 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:44:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: . > > I do not believe anybody is saying "we aren't adjusting because the > correct information was on the CC". Indeed, even I didn't. We are just saying that we are > adjusting to the best score likely had the bid been correctly > alerted and > the player had enquired/consulted the (accurate) CC. > > Tim I understand what you are saying and tried to give my opinion before, so I will not repeat that. And I agree that the laws are not very clear on this subject, but your interpretation leads to unacceptable consequences. It is a pity that my arguments, which I tried to explain using the two table situation, are ignored. Herman than just tells us that a player looking in the CC on his own initiative may be awarded with a better score than one asking the TD for an adjustment, after having received the same misexplanation. That, sorry to Kojak, sounds really ridiculous to me. ton From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 27 14:35:48 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:35:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226152854.00a86340@pop.starpower.net> <004301c2de02$7d301840$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> <3E5DC240.3080507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <012901c2de6d$86a420e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman > David, don't argue with success. The claims laws work. Millions of > players are happy with them. You are completely out of touch with reality. The claim laws work? Of course they do. They are the laws so we have to make do whether we like it or not. But I have never met anyone who was happy with the current claim laws apart from a certain Belgian Fool (give or take a dozen more). Herman: > We would like to go on with OUR laws, David, not yours. We equals Herman (and probably a few others) and our almost equals mine in this sentence, I guess. I do think myself that most bridge players and most TD's would prefer clearer and simpler claim laws and laws in general. Which are not necessarly the laws proposed by David (that is probably not). Although I would not be suprised if a majority of the players would prefer Burn laws to DeWael laws if that was the only choice. Want to take a poll if you don't trust my judgement ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > David Burn wrote: > > > > > Well, that is not a reason. You see, in actual misclaim positions, > > people do not have AKQJ32 facing 654, or four aces and a two. What they > > have is a miscellaneous collection of aces, jacks, smallish trumps, > > cards in non-trump suits that they think are winners, and the like. > > > > Now, the Burn school of claim adjudication treats them all as fairly (or > > as unfairly) as each other; moreover, it does this in such a way that > > the worst tournament director in the world can give the same ruling as > > the best, and it will be understood by everybody from the best player in > > the world to the worst. > > > > This cannot be said of, for example, the Landau-Kooijman-de-Wael-Old > > Uncle Tom Cobbley and All school of claim adjudication, which requires: > > a battery of psychiatrists to work out the extent of the derangement of > > a particular lunatic at any given moment in time; a plethora of > > double-dummy analysts to work out what might have happened had this > > lunatic come to his senses at any one of a number of given moments in > > time; and a trained bomb disposal unit to blow up any English > > dictionaries that may be lying around the place, lest anyone should look > > up the words "normal" and "irrational" in them. > > > > > Yet that particular school solves hundreds of thousands of contested > claims every year, with about four of them making it to blml and > generating interesting discussions that might lead to one thing: > better understanding of that particular school. > > David, don't argue with success. The claims laws work. Millions of > players are happy with them. > > > > I believe simply that a man who claims should tell the assembled company > > what tricks he is going to win with which cards. I do not think that > > this is a whole lot to ask. If he isn't going to win the tricks he says > > he is going to win with the cards he says are going to win them, I think > > he should lose some tricks; if, on occasion, he loses more tricks than > > he might have done had he not claimed, so be it. > > > > > Your belief is commendable, but we have by now grasped it. Please stop > hammering us with it and let the Kooijman-DeWael-whomever school go on > with fine tuning their understanding of the word "normal". > > We would like to go on with OUR laws, David, not yours. > > > > 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 kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Feb 27 14:59:59 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:59:59 -0800 Subject: [blml] KO match: 4-level not same as 5-level PLUS a question from me References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030227141216.00ab6d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > > >Ted Ying wrote: snip snip > >I have yet to find an exception to the > >iron law, "it is always a logical > >alternative to pass a high-level > >penalty double". > > AG : I can offer the following, from a pairs tournament not long ago. > > AQ10xxx Kxxx > --- Qxxx > J A10xx > KJ109xx x > > both vul (IIRC), West deals > > 1S X 3C* 3H > 4C 4H ...X p > 5C TD! > > * limit 4-card raise > > My double followed a 5- or 6-second tempo, which is an eternity in my methods :-) > North summoned the TD (which he has all rights to do, of course), and West said to him that she knew about the tempo rules and bid 4S in full knowledge. > The case is interesting for several reasons : > a) it seems to be answering yur quest for an exception K: The 4-level is a TOTALLY different kettle of fish from the 5-level. This example IMHO is not in a comparable situation so the quest for exception should definitely continue (if that is what is needed to come to a conclusion, I thought Ted's ruling was good). Furthermore, break in tempo in AG's example was slight where in Ted's case it was significant. > b) perhaps, if West is to bend backwards, must she bid 4S rather than 5C ; > but as the 5C bid is quite automatic after a signoff by East, and East's > double is some form of signoff, West thought there was no problem. OMMV. An > interesting feature is that East's pass over 4H would have been encouraging > (under commitment theory), so that 4S and double have the same discouraging > value. Perhaps 4S would have been a better call, but with an obvious club > lead ... K: EW are in gameforcing situation after opener bids 4C (thus accepting the limit raise; bypassing opportunity to double 3H to show interest in defending with good balanced hand; showing possible slam interest and another suit by not simply bidding 4S). >From a lowly player perspective --and this means me -- the reasons for not passing partner's OPTIONAL dbl (not penalty) are clear: 1) The known ten card trump fit in spades, obey "The Law" - the other law you know... 2)We are on not on the 5-level 3) Slam is possible 4) Shortness in opponent's suit. No matter if the break in tempo was 5 minutes before partner doubled, there is zero logic in PASS. IMHO the only logical action is to continue bidding, whatever the next bid by West may be. May I ask the the regular commentators to this blml one more question: Are you interested in player views such as mine? Or would you prefer I restrict my interest here in just reading the posts? Sometimes the urge to express opinion is too great...such as above. Best regards Kaima (aka D R Davis) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 27 15:48:19 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:48:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] KO match: 4-level not same as 5-level PLUS a question from me In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030227141216.00ab6d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030227163913.02f14d80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 06:59 27/02/2003 -0800, kaima wrote: > > > > >Ted Ying wrote: > snip snip > > >I have yet to find an exception to the > > >iron law, "it is always a logical > > >alternative to pass a high-level > > >penalty double". > > > > AG : I can offer the following, from a pairs tournament not long ago. > > > AQ10xxx Kxxx > > --- Qxxx > > J A10xx > > KJ109xx x > > > > both vul (IIRC), West deals > > > > 1S X 3C* 3H > > 4C 4H ...X p > > 5C TD! > > > > * limit 4-card raise > > > > My double followed a 5- or 6-second tempo, which is an eternity in my >methods :-) > > North summoned the TD (which he has all rights to do, of course), and West >said to him that she knew about the tempo rules and bid 4S in full >knowledge. > > The case is interesting for several reasons : > > a) it seems to be answering yur quest for an exception > >K: The 4-level is a TOTALLY different kettle of fish from the 5-level. AG : in this fishy example, I think that if the bidding were : 1S X 3C 4H 5C 5H ...X p ? 5S (at least) would be automatic, thus admitted under LA rules. >This example IMHO is not in a comparable situation so the quest for >exception should definitely continue (if that is what is needed to come to >a conclusion, I thought Ted's ruling was good). Furthermore, break in >tempo in AG's example was slight where in Ted's case it was significant. AG : you don't know me :-# When I need 5-6 seconds to make my mind up, partner has recieved significant UI, and is under all obligations that it creates. But, for the remainder, you're right : pulling a slow double at the 5-level is always suspect, except in some uncommon cases when it isn't. Come to think of it, any action is suspect except in cases when it isn't. Some of our esteemed contributors seem to think that their pet theory always applies. IMOBO, there are excptional cases against nearly any theory. Even the theory that says that 5-level doubles shall not be pulled. (remark that I couldn't say "against any theory" or it would have created a formidable item of circular logic) Best regards, Alain. From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Feb 27 14:05:29 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:05:29 -0600 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible revisited > Roger wrote: > > > > >>Our grounds for adjustment must surely be "Had a correct explanation > > been received at the time of the infraction might the player have chosen > > a different action?". > > > > I believe that a condition for claiming damage from MI it is necessary > > for the player to assert he would have done THIS to the exclusion of > > anything else. I do think that if the THIS is something a bit dubious > > there might be a judgment that it is not a valid thing to assert [iow, > > no damage]. But generally, thereafter there is a judgment to be made > > about where the assertion takes the outcome. > > > > Which is to say 'I might have done this; or I might have done that; or I > > might have done something else' only goes to judging if there could have > > been damage; but goes nowhere as to judging if there was damage. The > > first situation is a worthless exercise and the second goes to the heart > > of the matter. > In which case I will never be judged to be damaged! The last time I looked it was not a crime to be judged never damaged. In fact, to the bridge god it would be nirvana. > I would never > "assert" anything. I would simply tell a TD that I think it "likely", or > "very probable" or "possible" that I would have taken a particular > action, and why. I expect the TD (in consultation) to decide if the > likelihood of me having acted is enough to warrant assessing damage. > Thus if a TD decides there is a 40% chance I would have acted, such action > leading to an almost inevitable +620 I would expect a score of +620/-620 > to be assigned. Of course what you are accustomed to is for the TD to do the work of figuring out that you could be damaged by such and such and 'therefore' because you could, then you were. Now, since the TD does all the work is it not right for him to get the score and you to get no score? In real life, when there was no MI to guide you astray how do you get your result? You get your result by choosing one action when it is your turn. This action is not the one out of two or three or four, whichever is proved after the fact to be the most favorable. It is the one chosen to the exclusion of all others. And none of those actions are decided by a third party like a TD. But, if you do not choose an action things grind to a halt. regards roger pewick > Tim From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 27 14:57:23 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:57:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5.2.0.9.0.20030226162826.00a93490@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <016d01c2de70$8a500a80$25b54351@noos.fr> Eric, Of course you have a point. In examples we overuse Aces and twos compared to reality. Still in my experience this isn't the real problem. Most of the time (almost always) it can be established what went wrong when claiming (99% miscounting winners or forgetting about an important card). Opponents normally don't understand/accept a misclaim and 9 times out of 10 claimers first reaction to that makes perfectly clear what went wrong. Of course there are cases he can/will use opps reactions but we always have that meta rule that anything we are not sure about goes against claimer. In this case I want (the table TD) to establish whether the guy claimed his contract (extremly likely) or the rest of the tricks (see 70B). For me showing your hand doesn't necessary equal claiming the rest (if so where can I find this in the rules). At high level we very often show our hands without much of a statement which tends to mean 'all bridge problems of this hand are solved, lets play the next board' rather than 'I have the rest'. Anyway I would never have thought of challenging this claim. It is lawyering, not bridge. Now if we establish the guy really claimed for the rest it is another story. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > At 10:46 AM 2/26/03, David wrote: > > >Declarer is in 3NT having taken 5 tricks. West leads the CQ and South > >shows his hand with no statement. How many tricks do you award declarer? > > > > 43 > > 2 > > 2 > > 2 > >KQ 65 > >- 3 > >- 3 > >QJT 3 > > A2 > > A > > A > > A > > Four. Because I consider it irrational for declarer, even if he has > completely lost track of everything, not to realize that his opponents > cannot possibly hold cards that beat his aces. > > Change the position to... > > 43 > 2 > 2 > 2 > KQ 65 > - 3 > - 3 > QJ10 3 > A2 > K > K > A > > ...and he gets two. > > > 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 agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 27 16:10:55 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:10:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 In-Reply-To: <012901c2de6d$86a420e0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226152854.00a86340@pop.starpower.net> <004301c2de02$7d301840$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> <3E5DC240.3080507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030227170219.02f0bd20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:35 27/02/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >We equals Herman (and probably a few others) and our almost equals mine in >this sentence, I guess. I do think myself that most bridge players and most >TD's would prefer clearer and simpler claim laws and laws in general. Which >are not necessarly the laws proposed by David (that is probably not). >Although I would not be suprised if a majority of the players would prefer >Burn laws to DeWael laws if that was the only choice. Want to take a poll if >you don't trust my judgement ? AG : couldn't there ba a tenny-weeny little possibility (or greater) that a majority (or at least plurality) of players would prefer laws that lie somewhere in-between DB's style and HDw's style ? That is, laws that resemble the actual ones, with some specific cases explicited ? Isn't it barely possible that, rather than decide "if it claims, shout it" or "if it claims, avoid him any errors" [don't answer too angrily ; I know those are exaggerations] one might decide "if it claims, decide against him as severely as possible within the set of all plays makable by a non-mad bridge player (assuming such a person exists)" ? Of course, to get a consensus on this, some persons should realize that firing eachother's theories isn't the right way. A consultation would indeed be the right way, but not as only choices the gun and the lax rope. You wrote "if it was the only choice". It shouldn't be. Best regards, Alain. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Feb 27 15:58:56 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:58:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n Message-ID: <200302271558.KAA29038@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > Give North the C10 in stead of C4 (2). If West discovers his revoke when > declarer plays CQ the laws tell him to play the J, but the laws do not > encourage this attitude looking at the consequences. If he plays the CJ > declarer will make 6 club tricks plus a penalty trick. If he doesn't > declarer will not get that penalty trick, since we have to apply 64C then. I don't see the problem. Here again, we can follow the general approach for two infractions. L64C applies to the second revoke ("including those not subject to penalty") just as much as the first one. So figure out four results: 1) the table result: both revokes with penalty for first revoke 2) the first revoke happened but not the second (penalty for first revoke) 3) the second revoke happened but not the first (penalty for second revoke, which is now the first and only) 4) neither revoke happened Give the NOS the best of all these. I can see an argument for excluding 3) from the above list,* but certainly 2) has to be considered. Else as Ton says, there would be a strong disincentive for a player to follow suit after revoking once. Maybe the new Laws should give an explicit procedure for dealing with multiple infractions. ----- *The argument in this case is pretty strong! If there hadn't been a first revoke, West would not have a club left to play to the next round of the suit, so the "second revoke" could not happen. From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Feb 27 17:31:44 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:31:44 -0600 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? References: <000a01c2da13$807b6740$7b9327d9@pbncomputer> <001101c2da3c$9a681300$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <009701c2da96$cd52cb20$ac4327d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What system do you play? > Marvin wrote: > > > No. You are entitled to know the partnership agreement, if any. > > Absent that, you are entitled to know only what a call means > > to the caller's partner. If > > he gets it wrong, that is misinformation. You are not entitled to > > know what goes on in the caller's mind. > > But this is a regulation, not a rule, and is in any case false when > screens are involved (or when the director sends a player away from > the table so that the other player may explain his own call). > > The question remains, and has not been answered: if West thinks a call > shows X, while East thinks it shows Y, what is the meaning of the call? I believe that I have been considering such a question for some time. So far my conclusion has been that meaning of the call includes inference/ judgment in addition to what has been promised in accordance with agreement. According to L75C when you disclose [by explanation] you are to impart partnership agreements- but there is no compulsion to include inferences/judgment. However, elsewhere the law speaks of not taking an action- if meaning and partnership understandings have not been disclosed. Well, as I noted above meanings and understandings arise from judgment and inference [in relation to agreements and other factors such as known cards]. Which is to say that there is a labyrinth of language which twists the player into knots should he [coff, try to] do all that it says. What I think that David Burn is getting at when he asks what the definition of 'meaning' encompasses is that it includes things beyond partnership agreement; and perhaps to try to do what the law calls for it will be found not very satisfactory. regards roger pewick > David Burn > London, England From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Feb 28 02:42:37 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 02:42:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: <5422657.1046272562549.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <005101c2ded3$376d9770$3454e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:16 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Horrible revisited > > Indeed they must. But an explanation of what? The > rest of you benighted souls think that it is the "agreement" > that must be explained; Ton and I think that it is the > "meaning" that must be explained. We think this because > Law 40 says that it is so. If there is more than one > "meaning" at the time the call is made, then both must > be "explained" - or at any rate, the presumption must > always be that the questioner received both explanations. > +=+ This benighted soul is of the opinion that the meaning to be explained is the one described in Law 75C. The meaning of a call is what the partnership has agreed it shall mean, explicitly or implicitly. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 28 10:52:41 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:52:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 In-Reply-To: <000701c2de81$d63f1100$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226152854.00a86340@pop.starpower.net> <004301c2de02$7d301840$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> <3E5DC240.3080507@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030227170219.02f0bd20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030228114520.00aae350@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:01 27/02/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Once again, what is wrong with my proposed rules. >1. we don't consider irrational play by claimer >2. claimer never gets more tricks than he claims >3. claimer never gets more tricks than he has at the moment of the claim >4. forgotten cards do maximum damage >5. conceding to a claim doesn't cost you your rights AG : items 1,2,4 and 5 are good. I would, however, prefer as #2 :"claimer never gets more tricks after the claim than he claims", eg if he already has 6 but has miscounted as 5, and his line for "8 tricks" gives him three more in any case, give him three more. Item #3 should be rephrased, because it could be understood as "don't give him any tricks except those he has already made". >Explanation: >1. Basically the same as the current 70, claimer can be careless, we don't >assume he has counted very well, etc, but he still plays his suits top-down, >etc, and yes I tend to assume (without contra indication) he still has some >idea about cards like Kings being in or out. > >2. Simple and easy, this way claimer (and his partner) can never appeal his >own claims, this way nobody has to analyse the hand the moment opps concede >to the claim, if he could/would have made more tricks: bad luck. > >3. Almost all claims are intended as cashing winners, if claimer is a winner >short so be it. This avoids TD's analysing all kind of possible line of >plays. This avoids also the problem that certain lines might give claimer >less tricks than his available toptricks. And that creates very strange >results because claiming 'the rest' comes much closer to 'cashing my tricks' >than to 'just in case I am one short I will .......'. Brief, my rule will >always give claimer his tricks at the expense of never getting one more on >favourable breaks. Which imho is what most players think is reasonable and >what tends to create 'normal' results. You avoid ruling 8 tricks with 9 >tricks on top which is possible under 70E (barring the endless discussion >what exactly means irrational). > >4. This is also quite simple. If declarer claims the rest and there is still >a card out, he is supposed to cash his winners in the least favourable (non >irrational) order. I see no reason for exceptions for the trump suit. That >is just unnecessary complications. > >5. Sometimes you discover only when comparing scores or seeing the hand >records that a claim was wrong. I think that opps (within the correction >period etc) should be able to call the TD with the same rights as had they >done so at the table (of course establishing facts is more difficult and >this is at the expense of the conceding site). Opponents didn't ask to be >claimed against, the responsibility for correctness lies with claimer, so I >do think conceding a claim should not cost you your rights. AG : apart from the remarks above, this seems a very good set of principles. How much ground it covers is an unknown, because item #4 still needs the notion of "irrational", but surely they go in the rigth way. Best regards, Alain. >Jaap > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; "Herman De Wael" >; "blml" >Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:10 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > > > > At 15:35 27/02/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > >We equals Herman (and probably a few others) and our almost equals mine >in > > >this sentence, I guess. I do think myself that most bridge players and >most > > >TD's would prefer clearer and simpler claim laws and laws in general. >Which > > >are not necessarly the laws proposed by David (that is probably not). > > >Although I would not be suprised if a majority of the players would >prefer > > >Burn laws to DeWael laws if that was the only choice. Want to take a poll >if > > >you don't trust my judgement ? > > > > AG : couldn't there ba a tenny-weeny little possibility (or greater) that >a > > majority (or at least plurality) of players would prefer laws that lie > > somewhere in-between DB's style and HDw's style ? That is, laws that > > resemble the actual ones, with some specific cases explicited ? > > Isn't it barely possible that, rather than decide "if it claims, shout it" > > or "if it claims, avoid him any errors" [don't answer too angrily ; I know > > those are exaggerations] one might decide "if it claims, decide against >him > > as severely as possible within the set of all plays makable by a non-mad > > bridge player (assuming such a person exists)" ? > > > > Of course, to get a consensus on this, some persons should realize that > > firing eachother's theories isn't the right way. A consultation would > > indeed be the right way, but not as only choices the gun and the lax rope. > > > > You wrote "if it was the only choice". It shouldn't be. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alain. > > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Feb 28 03:54:32 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:54:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bypassing passouts Message-ID: <4A256CDB.00138DC7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Law 22A prohibits redealing of passed out deals. An Aussie bridge club has found a cunning way of bypassing illegality. The club simply uses computer-dealt hands, with an instruction to the computer that at least one hand on each deal must have 12+ hcp. Voila! Zero passed out deals. This scenario was discussed in the February 2003 issue of Australian Bridge. One of Australia's CTDs, Matthew McManus, wrote: >Pre-dealt boards cause difficulties if we try to >apply the Laws, because the Laws make no provision >for computer dealt hands. "Fiddling the cards" [snip] >probably not real bridge in the strict sense of the >word, but we can't say that it is not lawful. [snip] Can the *different method* mentioned under Law 6E4 legally be a non-random method, as McManus implies? Best wishes Richard From Steve Wright Fri Feb 28 00:36:32 2003 From: Steve Wright (Steve Wright) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:36:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: <4A256CD9.00810E6E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256CD9.00810E6E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In message <4A256CD9.00810E6E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au>, richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > >Jurgen simulated manual shuffling: > >[snip] > >>You can see that the deviation from the >>theoretical values disappears very quickly >>and is very unlikely to be apparent to a >>casual observer after 2 shuffles. The >>simulated shuffles are very good reliable >>riffles, probably better than manual riffles. > >[snip] > >GIGO. My at-the-table experience of Aussie >players doing manual shuffling is that they >usually do *not* use the riffle shuffle, but >instead use the less effective overhand (or >"poker") shuffle a desultory number of times. > >As a probable consequence, my at-the-table >Aussie experience has been that manually >shuffled hands are flatter than computer- >dealt hands. > >Best wishes > >Richard We had a problem with flat hands at a club where manual shuffling is in operation. As we only play once a week at that club and have two sets of boards in operation, I take home the set we just played to score them. The other set is taken home by a member who gives them a good shuffle whilst he watches the TV in the evenings. The hands are then shuffled as normal by the players the following week. A sample of 1000 hands since this procedure was instituted has resulted in distributions close to the theoretical. -- Steve Wright County Bridge Club, Leicester, England From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Feb 27 21:03:12 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:03:12 +1300 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: <000f01c2ddb2$074b5590$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000301c2dea3$a86bae60$15e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Thursday, 27 February 2003 5:14 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) > > And what do you think is the probability of finding the same > two cards (no > matter which) in the same hand at least > 17 out of 24 boards? I made a quick calculation, not sure > against making > errors, but it did not surprise me finding > that this should happen on the average once in every 37 sets > of 24 boards. > (Frankly I had expected it to occur > even more frequent). I don't think this is in the right ball park. I calculate the probability of any two cards being common to 17 hands as 1.60292E-18 There are 24 choose 17 combinations of 17 particular hands in a set of 24 deals - this is quite a big number 346104 but not nearly big enough to compensate for the small probability. Wayne From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 27 15:24:50 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:24:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: Message-ID: <3E5E2DC2.2080905@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > I understand what you are saying and tried to give my opinion before, so I > will not repeat that. And I agree that the laws are not very clear on this > subject, but your interpretation leads to unacceptable consequences. > It is a pity that my arguments, which I tried to explain using the two table > situation, are ignored. Herman than just tells us that a player looking in > the CC on his own initiative may be awarded with a better score than one > asking the TD for an adjustment, after having received the same > misexplanation. I do believe we have each explained to the full our points of view, and I do believe each understands the other point of view. What I find strange is that I believe my point of view to be the one that has been in use for the past fifteen years. So it is not so much the adamant nature of the opposing side that is surprising (I'm getting used to that) but rather the personality involved. I do understand what you are saying Ton! I just don't see how you can keep believing this after all the cases we have seen together. Which is why again I urge you to reconsider your apparent reluctance to read my post on Tenerife 7 and give your opinion. > That, sorry to Kojak, sounds really ridiculous to me. > Well, two can play at that game. > 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Feb 28 00:14:10 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:14:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n Message-ID: <4A256CDA.00833745.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Ton wrote: [snip] >Attention for Laurie Kelso: could be a nice >article for the Australian TD Bulletin: > >Give North the C10 in stead of C4 (2). If West >discovers his revoke when declarer plays CQ the >laws tell him to play the J, but the laws do not >encourage this attitude looking at the >consequences. If he plays the CJ declarer will >make 6 club tricks plus a penalty trick. If he >doesn't declarer will not get that penalty trick, >since we have to apply 64C then. Law 72B3 states that West has no obligation to draw attention to West's inadvertent revoke. However, that Law is modified by Law 72B4, which states that West cannot conceal inadvertency with a deliberate second revoke on the CQ. Conclusion: In Ton's hypothetical, only a villain pretending that their second deliberate revoke in clubs was actually a second inadvertent revoke would gain a one-trick bonus as a result of Law 64C. If the TD believes probable villainy, the TD can apply equity by ruling that the failure to play the CJ on the CQ was subject to the "could have known" provision of Law 72B1. Best wishes Richard From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 27 14:25:04 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:25:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n References: <007001c2de4c$0e145710$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <010b01c2de6c$06327700$25b54351@noos.fr> Sven, What you missed is that the defence can (easily) avoid making CJ9 if they realise in time they have to. Although the double revoke suggests differently, the defenders are quite good players who are capable of crossing in diamonds to discard wests clubs on easts hearts. But they will only do so if they know they have to. Boils down to: do they realise the revoke in time or not. I said myself in the Dutch discussion that obviously the laws are flawed. If the revoke article insists using a future event (a certain card taking a trick) the article should specify what to do in case of a claim. But it is probably better not to use future events at all. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n + n > From: "Kooijman, A > ......... > > So let me give you something else with a claim, which is a discussion in > the > > Dutch national appeal committee since the TD in charge wasn't sure and > gave > > the problem to us to solve. > > > > 843 > > AQ > > 109 > > AQ8742 > > AK765 10 > > 104 9732 > > AKJ5 8763 > > J9 10653 > > QJ92 > > KJ865 > > Q42 > > K > > > > Don't tell me about 51 or 53 cards, or the deuce of clubs twice, this is > > what we got. > > > > South declares 3NT (is this English?). Lead DA, then DK and DJ for the Q. > > CK and entering dummy with HA. Now it comes, playing the CA west revokes > > (S5). CQ in trick 7 (west S6), overtaking HQ in trick 8 and cashing HJ in > > trick 9. No luck and conceding the rest. So far the claim part. > > Now south discovers that west has revoked and the question is what result > to > > establish, the problem being that west might have won a trick with the CJ > > had play been continued. > > Had I been TD I would (almost without hesitation) awarded the defence > DA, DK, SA, SK, D8 and 10C less one trick revoke penalty for one down. > > However, as West has clung to his JC he cannot avoid winning the trick > in clubs, and the final result is then (after a mandatory two trick revoke > compensation) that the contract is made. > > Have I overlooked some problem here? > > regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Feb 27 17:01:13 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:01:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226152854.00a86340@pop.starpower.net> <004301c2de02$7d301840$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> <3E5DC240.3080507@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030227170219.02f0bd20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000701c2de81$d63f1100$25b54351@noos.fr> Guess what Alain, I agree with you. Of course it shouldn't be the only choice. 1. Laws should be simple and easy to understand (not only by TD's but also by players). 2. Laws (in the sense of political choices) should be acceptable to a (great) majority. 3. Nothing is more frustrating for players than TD/AC's deciding one way today, another way tommorow. Or more likely one way with John as AC and another way with Jack as AC. For this reason I think you should give players some leeway when it comes to stating their claims. If their is any confusion they should get a change to clarify (not to correct of course) their statement. Since claiming is so different at high and low level I can imagine that in close cases peers of the claimer will judge what his claim meant and or if it is acceptable (the way we claim amongst each other in the Dutch 1st league might be unacceptable in another environment). But once it is clear what is actually claimed and this claim contains an error I would like strict algorithims to resolve. Strict means, simple, the same for everybody, every TD arrives at the same decision, it doesn't mean 'shoot it'. Of course there will always be a couple of cases where the algoritm doesn't work. Bad luck, we do it the old fashioned way. On AC I have had to decide so many cases where the law simply didn't give a clear answer. Once again, what is wrong with my proposed rules. 1. we don't consider irrational play by claimer 2. claimer never gets more tricks than he claims 3. claimer never gets more tricks than he has at the moment of the claim 4. forgotten cards do maximum damage 5. conceding to a claim doesn't cost you your rights Explanation: 1. Basically the same as the current 70, claimer can be careless, we don't assume he has counted very well, etc, but he still plays his suits top-down, etc, and yes I tend to assume (without contra indication) he still has some idea about cards like Kings being in or out. 2. Simple and easy, this way claimer (and his partner) can never appeal his own claims, this way nobody has to analyse the hand the moment opps concede to the claim, if he could/would have made more tricks: bad luck. 3. Almost all claims are intended as cashing winners, if claimer is a winner short so be it. This avoids TD's analysing all kind of possible line of plays. This avoids also the problem that certain lines might give claimer less tricks than his available toptricks. And that creates very strange results because claiming 'the rest' comes much closer to 'cashing my tricks' than to 'just in case I am one short I will .......'. Brief, my rule will always give claimer his tricks at the expense of never getting one more on favourable breaks. Which imho is what most players think is reasonable and what tends to create 'normal' results. You avoid ruling 8 tricks with 9 tricks on top which is possible under 70E (barring the endless discussion what exactly means irrational). 4. This is also quite simple. If declarer claims the rest and there is still a card out, he is supposed to cash his winners in the least favourable (non irrational) order. I see no reason for exceptions for the trump suit. That is just unnecessary complications. 5. Sometimes you discover only when comparing scores or seeing the hand records that a claim was wrong. I think that opps (within the correction period etc) should be able to call the TD with the same rights as had they done so at the table (of course establishing facts is more difficult and this is at the expense of the conceding site). Opponents didn't ask to be claimed against, the responsibility for correctness lies with claimer, so I do think conceding a claim should not cost you your rights. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > At 15:35 27/02/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > >We equals Herman (and probably a few others) and our almost equals mine in > >this sentence, I guess. I do think myself that most bridge players and most > >TD's would prefer clearer and simpler claim laws and laws in general. Which > >are not necessarly the laws proposed by David (that is probably not). > >Although I would not be suprised if a majority of the players would prefer > >Burn laws to DeWael laws if that was the only choice. Want to take a poll if > >you don't trust my judgement ? > > AG : couldn't there ba a tenny-weeny little possibility (or greater) that a > majority (or at least plurality) of players would prefer laws that lie > somewhere in-between DB's style and HDw's style ? That is, laws that > resemble the actual ones, with some specific cases explicited ? > Isn't it barely possible that, rather than decide "if it claims, shout it" > or "if it claims, avoid him any errors" [don't answer too angrily ; I know > those are exaggerations] one might decide "if it claims, decide against him > as severely as possible within the set of all plays makable by a non-mad > bridge player (assuming such a person exists)" ? > > Of course, to get a consensus on this, some persons should realize that > firing eachother's theories isn't the right way. A consultation would > indeed be the right way, but not as only choices the gun and the lax rope. > > You wrote "if it was the only choice". It shouldn't be. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Feb 27 21:50:30 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:50:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jurgen wrote: (snip of my remarks) >A careful investigation of the question whether manually dealt hands are >significantly flatter than hands dealt by a correct computer program - >i.e. by a program that generates every possible hand with equal >probability - shows the following. > >A deck stacked as if played (either in the manner of duplicate or rubber >play - it doesn't matter which) and then dealt without shuffling, riffled >once, twice, ... 5 times, leads to the following probabilities for the most >frequent patterns (each sample 100'000 deals): > >Pattern | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | a priori >4432 | 0.363 | 0.227 | 0.222 | 0.220 | 0.219 | 0.218 | 0.216 >5332 | 0.140 | 0.155 | 0.157 | 0.156 | 0.156 | 0.155 | 0.155 >5431 | 0.018 | 0.128 | 0.128 | 0.127 | 0.130 | 0.129 | 0.129 >5422 | 0.042 | 0.104 | 0.106 | 0.106 | 0.104 | 0.106 | 0.106 >4333 | 0.415 | 0.112 | 0.108 | 0.108 | 0.107 | 0.106 | 0.105 >Chi-sq |0.0E+00|7.7E-32|1.1E-07|1.2E-05| 0.540 | 0.240 | > >The last row gives the probability that the chi-squared goodness >of fit criterion calculated from the observed values >(over all patterns) is exceeded by the corresponding value >of the theoretical distribution. > >You can see that the deviation from the theoretical values >disappears very quickly and is very unlikely to be apparent >to a casual observer after 2 shuffles. The simulated shuffles >are very good reliable riffles, probably better than manual riffles. > >Similar effects are seen when suit splits and suit length are >considered. For example, for the length of the longest suit one >finds: > >L | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | a priori >4 | 0.786 | 0.368 | 0.359 | 0.358 | 0.356 | 0.353 | 0.351 >5 | 0.202 | 0.439 | 0.444 | 0.440 | 0.441 | 0.443 | 0.443 >6 | 0.011 | 0.155 | 0.159 | 0.163 | 0.164 | 0.163 | 0.165 >7 | 0.000 | 0.033 | 0.033 | 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.035 | 0.035 >Ch| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.012 | 0.325 | > >The conclusion is that the belief that computer hands and >manually dealt hands differ significantly appears to be >an illusion. > >Around 1990 Persi Diaconis and others published some results on >card shuffling, and these were widely quoted as showing that >it takes 7 shuffles to randomize a deck. Obviously such a >statement depends upon the particular measure of randomness that >was used. Here it seems that sensible statistical criteria for >randomness of the deal are usually met after 5 riffles. > I found the summary of my study. 3462 hands. The results are not very different from random deals, but there are some that I think are likely to be meaningful. 1. 103 hands with voids, 177 expected. 995 hands with singleton as short suit, 1058 expected. This tends to support those who regard computer-generated hands as being somewhat "unnatural" compared with hand dealing. A player getting computer hands can expect to see a void about 1.27 times per session of 25 boards versus 0.74 per session of human dealt hands. This is one of the things people notice, "Too many voids!" 2. Longest suit 4 cards, 1281 cases for human dealt hands versus 1215 expected for computer hands. I try to repeat the form of Jurgen's tables here: (a priori from Jurgen) Pattern As Found a proiori 1 2 3 (Jurgen) 4432 0.233 0.216 0.227 0.222 0.220 5332 0.167 0.155 0.155 0.157 0.156 5431 0.121 0.129 0.128 0.128 0.127 5422 0.102 0.106 0.104 0.106 0.106 4333 0.108 0.105 0.112 0.108 0.108 Longest suit L as found a priori 1 2 3 (Jurgen) 4 0.370 0.351 0.368 0.359 0.358 5 0.433 0.443 0.439 0.444 0.440 6 0.156 0.165 0.155 0.159 0.163 7 0.035 0.035 0.033 0.033 0.034 It looks like my records are close to Jurgen's one shuffle results. I wonder whether Jurgen's zero shuffle arrangements are really close to the stacked hands from duplicate boards as left at the end of a session. (I'm not going to pursue that question by actual observation.) Borel and Cheron (in Alec Traub's translation of the second edition) remark that the effect of insufficient shuffling will be hands that are too flat. They suggest 5 to 10 shuffles to get reasonably close to random hands, depending on how effective a technique is used. I think that human shuffled deals are in fact somewhat too flat, on the average. This might explain the advice to play for the 3-3 split of 6 outstanding cards that appears in Watson's The Play of the Hand. I will send my complete actual counts of all 3462 hands to anyone who asks. HarrisR@missouri.edu REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Feb 27 16:10:15 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:10:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: <200302271610.LAA29054@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > For example, the opponents have agreed to play the > Simple Stayman convention. > > LHO RHO > 1NT 2C > 3C > > Now you are "entitled", not merely "authorised", to the > knowledge that a wheel has fallen off. I am not sure what you mean by "knowledge that a wheel has fallen off." Suppose you are on the same side of the screen as RHO, who explains 3C as "doesn't exist in our system," and this is correct and complete for their partnership. (They are a new partnership and have no relevant experience.) You are "entitled" to this much, and you may infer more at your own risk. Similarly, if you are on the other side of the screen, you are "entitled" to the same explanation. In contrast, if there are no screens or if you are LHO's screenmate, you might very well have found out what LHO is thinking. You are "authorized" to use that information, but I fail to see why you are "entitled" to it. What Law has been violated if you are not given the information? Do we really disagree here? Ton, how about you? Would you adjust the score if both explanations were as above? From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Feb 27 16:23:06 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:23:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] To ask or not ask? Message-ID: <200302271623.LAA29069@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Laurie Kelso > "When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but are likely to > have been aware of probable alternative meanings of a call), their claim > will be unsuccessful if they could have enquired as to the meaning of the > call before damage occurred (unless they can demonstarte the inability to > enquire because, in so doing, they would have conveyed unauthorised > information, and/or given opponents information to which they were not > entitled)." Your original message had a clear showing that the player would have conveyed UI by asking: for a common meaning of the unalerted bid, he would have had to pass after asking. Thus the exception in parentheses applies, and you should not deny redress under the "will be unsuccessful" provision. This seems obvious. What am I missing? I actually quite like the ABF rule. All the exception requires is that asking would "convey UI;" there is no additional requirement that the UI even potentially lead to damage. Players should not be, and are not by the ABF rule, required to work out whether damage might result. If asking could convey something about your hand, either to partner or to opponents, you are not required to ask. Good! From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 27 16:44:15 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:44:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 In-Reply-To: <016d01c2de70$8a500a80$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5503759.1046260189978.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <007a01c2dda7$a6b5bb80$5bad53d4@Default> <5.2.0.9.0.20030226162826.00a93490@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030227173232.02f0b1a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:57 27/02/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Eric, > >Of course you have a point. In examples we overuse Aces and twos compared to >reality. Still in my experience this isn't the real problem. Most of the >time (almost always) it can be established what went wrong when claiming >(99% miscounting winners or forgetting about an important card). Opponents >normally don't understand/accept a misclaim and 9 times out of 10 claimers >first reaction to that makes perfectly clear what went wrong. Of course >there are cases he can/will use opps reactions but we always have that meta >rule that anything we are not sure about goes against claimer. > >In this case I want (the table TD) to establish whether the guy claimed his >contract (extremly likely) or the rest of the tricks (see 70B). For me >showing your hand doesn't necessary equal claiming the rest (if so where can >I find this in the rules). At high level we very often show our hands >without much of a statement which tends to mean 'all bridge problems of this >hand are solved, lets play the next board' rather than 'I have the rest'. >Anyway I would never have thought of challenging this claim. It is >lawyering, not bridge. AG : the question you raise here is : a) "is there any default value of the number of tricks claimed when claimer doesn't say it ? In particular, is that value *all* ?" Linked to this is b) "when the number of tricks claimed and the line are obviously incompatible (usually, declarer misplaced his played cards and thought he already had more - or less - tricks), which takes precedence ?" Your position on this case implies that the answer to a) is negative. I'm ready to accept it, but it would be really helpful to have this written somewhere. As would an answer to b). Imagine claimer in this very deal shows his hand and says "ten tricks. I've four aces still to make". In all honesty, I haven't read anywhere whether we should consider this as a claim for 10 tricks (in which case we could make him play the small spade before the red aces) or a flawed claim for 9 tricks (which we will give him). I would appreciate answers from other contributors to this question. If the answer is *9*, please mention where the permit to change the number of tricks claimed stops (ie what happens in less obvious cases). Also, I wouldn't say that claiming is the equivalent of saying 'all problems of the deal are solved'. If this were the case, conditional claims (just made or +1 according to whether some finesse works) would not be allowed, and I think it's a bad idea. Best regards, Alain. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Feb 27 22:56:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:56:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <4A256CDA.007C1B6C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >That is how I read L75D2 also. >There is no explicit penalty for >violating it, only an "anti-penalty". >If you do not offer a timely >correction, you lose the opportunity >to mitigate the potential damage >done by the original infraction, but >if the original infraction caused >no damage (so there was nothing to >mitigate), you are not penalized >(via redress to the opponents) for >your violation of L75D2 per se. > >Eric Landau I disagree. I would rewrite Eric's words "are not penalized" to "may not necessarily be score adjusted". I remind Eric that an infraction of Law 75D2 per se is still an infraction of Law, and therefore can be score adjusted by the catch- all provisions of Law 12A1. I do, however, admit that it is extremely unlikely that an original MI fails to cause damage, but a subsequent failure to correct that MI in a timely fashion does cause damage. Where Eric and I seem to differ is that what I judge as an extremely unlikely score adjustment, Eric judges as impossible (alias an anti- penalty). Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Feb 27 16:34:43 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:34:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226152854.00a86340@pop.starpower.net> <004301c2de02$7d301840$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> <3E5DC240.3080507@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030227170219.02f0bd20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E5E3E23.70008@skynet.be> Actually Alain, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 15:35 27/02/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > AG : couldn't there ba a tenny-weeny little possibility (or greater) > that a majority (or at least plurality) of players would prefer laws > that lie somewhere in-between DB's style and HDw's style ? That is, laws > that resemble the actual ones, with some specific cases explicited ? > Isn't it barely possible that, rather than decide "if it claims, shout > it" or "if it claims, avoid him any errors" [don't answer too angrily ; > I know those are exaggerations] one might decide "if it claims, decide > against him as severely as possible within the set of all plays makable > by a non-mad bridge player (assuming such a person exists)" ? > Isn't that exactly what the laws say ? I don't see anything wrong with this sentence. I don't like being branded as one side of an argument. I am merely expressing what the laws say. As severely as possible within the set of all normal plays. Really there is no discussion here. Only madmen like David and Jaap who want to rule extra-severely. Most of these threads started with someone asking what is to be considered "normal" on a particular case. Those threads were interesting. They tried to fine-tune where the line of "normal" should lie. Almost all of those threads have been taken over by David B, shouting off about his Burnian claim laws, which would not see the problems that he perceives. His solution, rather than to have a sensible discussion about 3 or 4 tricks, is to award zero tricks. Let's get back to sensible discussions about 3 or 4 tricks. I believe there are many directors out there who are more interested in guidance about the actual laws than in discussion about the merits of Burnian claim laws. > Of course, to get a consensus on this, some persons should realize that > firing eachother's theories isn't the right way. A consultation would > indeed be the right way, but not as only choices the gun and the lax rope. > > You wrote "if it was the only choice". It shouldn't be. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Feb 27 22:20:23 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:20:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 In-Reply-To: <002001c2de54$b385ba60$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226152854.00a86340@pop.starpower.net> <004301c2de02$7d301840$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> <3E5DC240.3080507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227171206.00aa0470@pop.starpower.net> At 06:38 AM 2/27/03, David wrote: >The claim laws, like the laws of bridge in general, do not "work". That >is why we have appeals committees, that is why we have BLML, that is why >articles appear in the bridge press every so often discussing, for >instance, the Great Reisinger Cockup. If the laws "worked", there would >be none of this, just as there is none of it in other sports. Although I am adding nothing to the debate, I just can't let this go by. The last clause above is perhaps the most egregious misperception of reality I have encountered in seven years of reading BLML. French figure skating judge, anyone? Last play of Giants at Tampa Bay in this year's NFL divisional playoff, anyone? Both the subject of many headlines, and so many others like them. How quickly we forget. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Feb 27 16:32:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:32 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I understand what you are saying and tried to give my opinion before, > so I will not repeat that. And I agree that the laws are not very clear > on this subject, but your interpretation leads to unacceptable > consequences. What unacceptable consequences? > It is a pity that my arguments, which I tried to explain using the two > table situation, are ignored. Herman than just tells us that a player > looking in the CC on his own initiative may be awarded with a better > score than one asking the TD for an adjustment, after having received > the same misexplanation. Neither Herman nor I have said that. We have said that a player, "looking in the CC on his own initiative" might achieve, *at the table*, a better score than we would consider giving in an adjustment. Indeed when first you gave the "two table" example we were considering an adjustment only at table B. I gave an example: Kxx,xx,AKxx,AKxx non-vul vs vul. Opps bid (1N)-P-(2H)-?. 2H is explained as a transfer to to spades when it is, by agreement, natural. This leads to +50, a poor score. The player calls for the TD and says "Had I known they were playing natural I would have doubled for take-out, in fact if I had known they were having a misunderstanding I would have bid 3H". Now a take-out X would, we think likely, have led to a good score of +140. A 3H bid would (and indeed at table A did) lead to a score of +300. I do not understand, what, in law, requires us to assign a score of +300, nor, in terms of general equity, do I see why an obligation to award a score of +300 is desirable. Player A took a risk at the table and earned his top. Player B receives an adjustment that compensates for the damage from the MI (and gets the benefit of +140 rather than the +110 that might also have resulted from a correct explanation). Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Feb 27 23:16:17 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:16:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n Message-ID: <4A256CDA.007DEA7C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [snip] >assess a 2 trick revoke - unless, I guess, we >assume it would be irrational for West to >keep the CJ. > >Tim I would rather make the mirror ruling that it would be irrational for the revoker to discard the CJ, a card that they think they do not hold. Therefore, I also assess a two trick revoke. Best wishes Richard From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Feb 27 22:09:05 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:09:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227165822.00a99ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:13 AM 2/27/03, Kooijman wrote: >Herman: > > > If at table A, apart from listening to opponents, the player also > > remembers having read their CC, and from that he deduces the > > misunderstanding, that might account for the better result, no? > >NO, since at both tables these players are entitled, yes entitled !!!! to >know the meaning, agreement whatever, of the concerning call. > >If you apply your idea there hardly ever wil be any redress anymore after >misexplanation. You had received more had you read the CC, sorry sir. >You are as inconsistent as my wive's stomach last days. I think Ton may have misunderstood what Herman was saying. If you are told some incorrect meaning of a call, and it differs from the agreed meaning, you have been given MI. In the normal case, if you assume that the incorrect meaning is the agreed meaning, act accordingly, and are thereby damaged, you get redress. This has nothing to do with whether or not you have read the opponents' CC, or have prior knowledge of their agreements from any other source. But if you do happen to know the agreed meaning (as by reading the CC), and the meaning of which you have been informed is different, you may be able to deduce from this that the opponents are having a bidding misunderstanding, and take advantage of this deduction (as by doubling a bad contract reached as a result of the misunderstanding). In what I have characterized as the "normal" case, you don't know this, and should be compensated only as though you had been correctly informed, not as though you had been misinformed but did know it. IOW, the result of your failure to read the opponents' CC doesn't affect your right to redress for the MI, but that doesn't mean that you have any right to additional redress for the extra "damage" that resulted from the fact that you didn't read the CC. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Thu Feb 27 18:37:01 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:37:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n References: Message-ID: <003b01c2de8f$38090500$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n + n > > > > Had I been TD I would (almost without hesitation) awarded the defence > > DA, DK, SA, SK, D8 and 10C less one trick revoke penalty for one down. > > > > However, as West has clung to his JC he cannot avoid winning the trick > > in clubs, and the final result is then (after a mandatory two trick > > revoke > > compensation) that the contract is made. > > > > Have I overlooked some problem here? > > The only minor problem is that play could go (absent concession) small H > from declarer, CJ discard, rest to defence. A one trick revoke. However > since we are guided to resolve doubtful points against the revoker I think > we just ignore this (or similar) possibilities and assess a 2 trick > revoke - unless, I guess, we assume it would be irrational for West to > keep the CJ. > > Tim Yes, I see your point, so please be aware of the following from a discussion at an assembly of Norwegian Directors last year: When the Director is summoned and told a case his instructions to the players shall include any specific information to the offender (here: revoker) on how he can minimize the penalty for his offense, in this case that he may avoid a two-trick penalty by ascertaining that any trick to his side in the revoke suit is won by offender's partner. So here West is entitled to the information that he had better get rid of the JC (if possible) before winning a trick with that card. Failure by TD to give such information to an offender shall be subject to redress under Law 82C. For the purpose of resolving the claim South will either exit with a small heart, permitting West to get rid of his JC immediately, or with a spade permitting West to play his 5D to East who will cash his heart and also in this case permit West to get rid of his JC. In either case a one trick revoke penalty. Remember that in a claim/consession situation any doubtful point shall be resolved against the player who claims or concedes. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Feb 27 21:49:46 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:49:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: References: <200302252121.QAA17506@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227164429.00a8c100@pop.starpower.net> At 05:07 AM 2/27/03, Karel wrote: >I play in Ireland - The SO has rules about what needs to be alerted >etc ... >fine. Now I go abroad. 1st off I presumably have to locate and read the >SO's rules. Just as an aside - I wonder how many pairs actually do >this ?? >I would venture very few, I amongst them. > >We start bidding and an auction occurs which isn't covered by the SO >(hardly >surprising). I fall back on my Irish SO rules - it is not >alertable. So I >don't alert. The opponent's countries Bridge body/SO states this sequence >is alertable if it doesn't mean x,y or z. They call the TD and ..... > >No one is wrong, but the opponents have been damaged. Both pairs are not >working from the same rules or perspective - and never will !!Surely >alerting a bid, even though it takes time, is better than assuming people >will be aware of the definitions and rules laid down by the EBU, ACBL, >WBF, >the SO - whoever. > >In the end this leads to making no assumptions and alerting all bids which >may "possibly" require an alert. Seems fair to me. The feeling I get on >BLM is that people are opposed to this. For example - They quote laws >x,y & >z which state a bid is natural if blah blah blah. How many of our players >ever heard of these laws ?? Are we now in effect saying that players >need >to know their laws before they can sit down and play bridge ?? I say you >should be forced to alert, alert and alert some more - where's the harm. It is in the perception of the 99.99% of duplicate players (at least in the ACBL) who will never play a single hand of duplicate outside the jurisdiction of their own NCBO, and who already object to the plethora and complexity of their own NCBO's alert requirements. They do not wish to be forced to alert (or listen to their opponents alert) any number of bids which they would characterize as ones that "everybody knows what they mean" to cater to the once-in-a-lifetime appearance of a foreign player at their club who might not. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Feb 28 07:43:41 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:43:41 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Horrible revisited Message-ID: <001a01c2defd$4c176910$8024e150@endicott> > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "All nature is but art, unknown to thee, > All chance, direction, which thou canst not see, > All discord, harmony, not understood, > All partial evil, universal good." > ['Essay on Man', Alexander Pope] > ============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:16 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Horrible revisited > > > > > > Indeed they must. But an explanation of what? The > > rest of you benighted souls think that it is the "agreement" > > that must be explained; Ton and I think that it is the > > "meaning" that must be explained. We think this because > > Law 40 says that it is so. If there is more than one > > "meaning" at the time the call is made, then both must > > be "explained" - or at any rate, the presumption must > > always be that the questioner received both explanations. > > > +=+ This benighted soul is of the opinion that the meaning > to be explained is the one described in Law 75C. The > meaning of a call is what the partnership has agreed it > shall mean, explicitly or implicitly. > ~ G ~ > +=+ > > From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Feb 28 09:15:14 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:15:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226152854.00a86340@pop.starpower.net> <004301c2de02$7d301840$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> <3E5DC240.3080507@skynet.be> <002001c2de54$b385ba60$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <002201c2df0a$19b40390$9454e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > > > We would like to go on with OUR laws, David, > > not yours. > > Yes, Herman, I know you would. You, like DWS, > would like to continue a vast number of pointless > debates in which you can make up terms like > "entitled information" and think that you are doing > some good. You are not. By perpetuating a set of > rules full of ambiguity, purely in order that you can > sit around discussing how to resolve the ambiguities > that you have needlessly created, you are doing > "millions of players" a vast disservice. That you do > not know this makes me despair, and for as long > as I care about bridge, I will do my utmost not to > let you go on with "your" laws. They are mine as > well, and they are no good. > +=+ I do not really believe there is anyone who subscribes to this list who does not care deeply about the Laws. It is disturbing that the laws are set down in language that leads to more than one interpretation of their meaning - where the laws provide SOs or the TD with options the fact that there is choice is part of the meaning of the law, but where the laws offer only a single path of rectification there should be no misunderstanding as to what the laws actually say, even if this includes a requirement to make a bridge judgement. It is the scope for two pairs of eyes to read the same words and to receive different messages that is frustrating - it arises in part from the fact that for some readers the language is not their first language, in part from the inferential style that EK favoured, and in part from fixations that have developed in readers out of the bridge environment in which they have grown up (which can have been fashioned by the varying decisions of various 'authorities' from time to time, sometimes - dare I say? - perhaps misconceived). We have what we have and we have to get on with it. It is not desirable in my opinion to have more than one authority claiming to be the arbiter of the interpretation of the laws, yet we have this, too. The which is the underlying reason for the injunction to which the drafting subcommittee must respond, that the wording of the future laws shall not be capable of more than one interpretation unless perversely conceived. ( Mind you, blml subscribers and others do tend to attribute perversity to those who understand the laws differently from themselves, so we have this difficulty from the outset. :-). ~ G ~ +=+ From HarrisR@missouri.edu Fri Feb 28 20:19:32 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:19:32 -0600 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: <001701c2de39$d4f25a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c2ddfa$5b6c6c70$8a2e56d2@Desktop> <001701c2de39$d4f25a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: So much for my last post on this subject. Not three hours later I was playing in a five table Howell, 27 boards. I held six hands with a void, four 4432 hands, one 433 hand, five hands with longest suit six cards, and seventeen hands with longest suit five cards. though this does not mess up my statistics very much, it is a caution about drawing conclusions on limited data. (The worst of it was, not one of the most vocal complainers about computer hands was present to enjoy this (human-dealt) set of hands.) I think I'll try to get more data. After all, if this is the sort of data that improves as the square root of number of cases, I only need another 10359 hands to make the statistics twice as good, and at the rate of 50 hands a week, 30 weeks a year, that's only another six years and eleven months. Don't hold your breath. -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From svenpran@online.no Fri Feb 28 20:22:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 21:22:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bypassing passouts In-Reply-To: <4A256CDB.00138DC7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001f01c2df67$226512b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Law 22A prohibits redealing of passed out deals. An Aussie bridge club has found a cunning way of bypassing illegality. The club simply uses computer-dealt hands, with an instruction to the computer that at least one hand on each deal must have 12+ hcp. Voila! Zero passed out deals. This scenario was discussed in the February 2003 issue of Australian Bridge. One of Australia's CTDs, Matthew McManus, wrote: >Pre-dealt boards cause difficulties if we try to >apply the Laws, because the Laws make no provision >for computer dealt hands. "Fiddling the cards" [snip] >probably not real bridge in the strict sense of the >word, but we can't say that it is not lawful. [snip] Can the *different method* mentioned under Law 6E4 legally be a non-random method, as McManus implies? IMO the answer is yes, provided such fact has been duly announced for the event. If the event is eligible for master points or similar "prizes" I take it for granted that the honoring organization(s) must have agreed to this deviation from random dealt hands. Sven From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Fri Feb 28 20:40:31 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:40:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] KO match: 4-level not same as 5-level PLUS a question from me In-Reply-To: from "kaima" at Feb 27, 2003 06:59:59 AM Message-ID: <200302282040.h1SKeVP28091@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Kaima, This forum is a discussion forum. This is not restricted to WBF committee members, national directors (of any NCBO), or even directors. I know for a fact that several of the regular contributers have not directed in several years (although they are directors). IMHO, there is just as much to be gotten from contributions from players as from high ranking "officials" and the purpose is to discuss bridge laws, and possibly to pass on information to those high ranking officials before the next time they make amendments to our laws. -Ted Ying. > From: "kaima" > Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:59:59 -0800 > > May I ask the the regular commentators to this blml one more question: > Are you interested in player views such as mine? Or would you prefer I > restrict my interest here in just reading the posts? Sometimes the urge to > express opinion is too great...such as above. > Best regards > Kaima (aka D R Davis) > From henk@ripe.net Fri Feb 28 20:41:54 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 21:41:54 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] URGENT: Yesterdays DDoS attack against RTFLB (fwd) Message-ID: Hi, Yesterday afternoon from approximately 14:00 (UTC) toybox.amsterdamned.org, the machine hosting the blml mailing lists, was the victim of a DDoS attack. In order to stop the attack, a blackhole route for traffic to toybox.amsterdamned.org was inserted. This stopped the attack. The mailinglist was shut down during the attack. It has just been restarted. If you sent mail to the list between yesterday 14:00 UTC and today 19:00 UTC, then there are 2 possibilities; - It was queued somewhere. In that case, it will be forwarded to the list in the next couple of hours. - It was lost. In that case, you'll have to resend it. In order to avoid overloading the machine, please do NOT RESEND any mail until tomorrow morning. If your contribution hasn't made it to the list then, feel free to resend. Thanks, 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 HarrisR@missouri.edu Fri Feb 28 21:03:02 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:03:02 -0600 Subject: [blml] Bypassing passouts In-Reply-To: <4A256CDB.00138DC7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256CDB.00138DC7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: >Law 22A prohibits redealing of passed out deals. An >Aussie bridge club has found a cunning way of >bypassing illegality. > >The club simply uses computer-dealt hands, with an >instruction to the computer that at least one hand on >each deal must have 12+ hcp. Voila! Zero passed out >deals. > >This scenario was discussed in the February 2003 >issue of Australian Bridge. One of Australia's CTDs, >Matthew McManus, wrote: > >>Pre-dealt boards cause difficulties if we try to >>apply the Laws, because the Laws make no provision >>for computer dealt hands. "Fiddling the cards" > >[snip] > >>probably not real bridge in the strict sense of the >>word, but we can't say that it is not lawful. > >[snip] > >Can the *different method* mentioned under Law 6E4 >legally be a non-random method, as McManus implies? Is this not a clear-cut violation of Law 6A? Of course, the whole discussion of the differences (if any) between computer hands and hand-suffled hands is based on the less than thorough shuffle that is usually given by hand. So, for example, every hand I played last night (aside from the three I shuffled) was probably dealt in violation of Law 6A. -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From svenpran@online.no Fri Feb 28 21:18:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:18:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bypassing passouts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002001c2df6e$fa0dcc00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Richard Hills wrote: ........ > Of course, the whole discussion of the differences (if any) between > computer hands and hand-suffled hands is based on the less than > thorough shuffle that is usually given by hand. So, for example, > every hand I played last night (aside from the three I shuffled) was > probably dealt in violation of Law 6A. What constitutes "thoroughly shuffled" in Law 6A is a matter of judgment. But I don't believe your deals from last night can be considered dealt in violation of Law 6A, there was apparently no systematic filtering of the hands. Sven From henk@amsterdamned.org Fri Feb 28 23:00:01 2003 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 00:00:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Feb 28 23:27:28 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 00:27:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226152854.00a86340@pop.starpower.net> <004301c2de02$7d301840$cf9e23d9@pbncomputer> <3E5DC240.3080507@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030227170219.02f0bd20@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030228114520.00aae350@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001701c2df80$f7882d60$25b54351@noos.fr> Alain, Thanks for the answer. I really don't pretemd to know all the answers. I just propose a concept which needs improvement. I am sure there are errors and things I forget or didn'r get straight. But I am convinced that my base is right. Simple and strict. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > At 18:01 27/02/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > >Once again, what is wrong with my proposed rules. > >1. we don't consider irrational play by claimer > >2. claimer never gets more tricks than he claims > >3. claimer never gets more tricks than he has at the moment of the claim > >4. forgotten cards do maximum damage > >5. conceding to a claim doesn't cost you your rights > > AG : items 1,2,4 and 5 are good. > I would, however, prefer as #2 :"claimer never gets more tricks after the > claim than he claims", eg if he already has 6 but has miscounted as 5, and > his line for "8 tricks" gives him three more in any case, give him three more. > Item #3 should be rephrased, because it could be understood as "don't give > him any tricks except those he has already made". > > > >Explanation: > >1. Basically the same as the current 70, claimer can be careless, we don't > >assume he has counted very well, etc, but he still plays his suits top-down, > >etc, and yes I tend to assume (without contra indication) he still has some > >idea about cards like Kings being in or out. > > > >2. Simple and easy, this way claimer (and his partner) can never appeal his > >own claims, this way nobody has to analyse the hand the moment opps concede > >to the claim, if he could/would have made more tricks: bad luck. > > > >3. Almost all claims are intended as cashing winners, if claimer is a winner > >short so be it. This avoids TD's analysing all kind of possible line of > >plays. This avoids also the problem that certain lines might give claimer > >less tricks than his available toptricks. And that creates very strange > >results because claiming 'the rest' comes much closer to 'cashing my tricks' > >than to 'just in case I am one short I will .......'. Brief, my rule will > >always give claimer his tricks at the expense of never getting one more on > >favourable breaks. Which imho is what most players think is reasonable and > >what tends to create 'normal' results. You avoid ruling 8 tricks with 9 > >tricks on top which is possible under 70E (barring the endless discussion > >what exactly means irrational). > > > >4. This is also quite simple. If declarer claims the rest and there is still > >a card out, he is supposed to cash his winners in the least favourable (non > >irrational) order. I see no reason for exceptions for the trump suit. That > >is just unnecessary complications. > > > >5. Sometimes you discover only when comparing scores or seeing the hand > >records that a claim was wrong. I think that opps (within the correction > >period etc) should be able to call the TD with the same rights as had they > >done so at the table (of course establishing facts is more difficult and > >this is at the expense of the conceding site). Opponents didn't ask to be > >claimed against, the responsibility for correctness lies with claimer, so I > >do think conceding a claim should not cost you your rights. > > AG : apart from the remarks above, this seems a very good set of > principles. How much ground it covers is an unknown, because item #4 still > needs the notion of "irrational", but surely they go in the rigth way. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > > >Jaap > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > >To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; "Herman De Wael" > >; "blml" > >Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:10 PM > >Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > > > > > > > At 15:35 27/02/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > > > >We equals Herman (and probably a few others) and our almost equals mine > >in > > > >this sentence, I guess. I do think myself that most bridge players and > >most > > > >TD's would prefer clearer and simpler claim laws and laws in general. > >Which > > > >are not necessarly the laws proposed by David (that is probably not). > > > >Although I would not be suprised if a majority of the players would > >prefer > > > >Burn laws to DeWael laws if that was the only choice. Want to take a poll > >if > > > >you don't trust my judgement ? > > > > > > AG : couldn't there ba a tenny-weeny little possibility (or greater) that > >a > > > majority (or at least plurality) of players would prefer laws that lie > > > somewhere in-between DB's style and HDw's style ? That is, laws that > > > resemble the actual ones, with some specific cases explicited ? > > > Isn't it barely possible that, rather than decide "if it claims, shout it" > > > or "if it claims, avoid him any errors" [don't answer too angrily ; I know > > > those are exaggerations] one might decide "if it claims, decide against > >him > > > as severely as possible within the set of all plays makable by a non-mad > > > bridge player (assuming such a person exists)" ? > > > > > > Of course, to get a consensus on this, some persons should realize that > > > firing eachother's theories isn't the right way. A consultation would > > > indeed be the right way, but not as only choices the gun and the lax rope. > > > > > > You wrote "if it was the only choice". It shouldn't be. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Alain. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Feb 28 00:16:08 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:16:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] test - please disregard Message-ID: From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 27 22:55:21 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:55:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] To ask or not ask? In-Reply-To: <4A256CD9.001DEDF2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On 2/26/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >South could have asked the superficially legal >question, "Could I have an explanation of the >auction?", but South would be infracting Law 73B1 >if West gave the Bergen answer, and South then had >to Pass. This argument applies *whatever* the explanation, for if West explains "splinter" and South doubles, well, if South illegally communicated with North by asking the question in the first case, he did so in the second as well. Note I said "if". I'm not convinced. But even if South would not be breaking L73B1, given his understanding, he should not ask, for if he does not, then clearly there was MI, and if NS are damaged, score adjustment should be automatic. Question: is there not an element of intent in the meaning of "communicate" in this law? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 27 22:17:00 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:17:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: <006801c2dcad$a455e220$7425e150@endicott> Message-ID: On 2/25/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: > "additional to what is normal and general" says >the WBF Code of Practice - and it varies, of course, >according to the ambience in which one is playing. Hm. It appears I was mistaken. Guess I'll have to read the COP again. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 27 22:40:18 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:40:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2/25/03, Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: >Why should the opps be forced to be familar with your system ?? "Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table." - ACBL Alert Regulation. That does not, of course, answer your question, unless the answer is "because the SO says so."