From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 1 00:09:50 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:09:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 Message-ID: <200303010009.TAA05339@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > 2. claimer never gets more tricks than he claims I don't understand why you would want this at all. As long as claimer states a _clear line of play_, why not give whatever number of tricks that line produces? I think even David B. will accept that. In general, it is the responsibility of all players to count the tricks (L72A2). Why should things be different if there's a claim? From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 1 00:14:22 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:14:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n Message-ID: <200303010014.TAA05346@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > 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. Not to mention L44C! There can be no doubt that a second revoke is an infraction. > 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. The TD doesn't have to believe villainy at all. If the second revoke produces an extra trick for the revoking side, no matter how, the TD should use L64C and adjust. No need for "could have known" or any other complications; just a simple question of whether a trick was gained or not. Of course "gained" should be judged with respect to the position at the instant prior to the second revoke. This includes the revoke penalty the NOS have coming. Why would you ever want to give a player who revokes twice a better score than one who revokes only once? From glchienfou@hotmail.com Sat Mar 1 05:45:21 2003 From: glchienfou@hotmail.com (john probst) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 05:45:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 Message-ID: >From: "David Kent" >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 >Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:46:34 -0500 > >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. Why? Doesn't everybody (Except Burn who would award two)? This is a totally fatuous TD call. cheers john PS I'll be back to harass you all seriously in a couple of weeks. And I'll be in Siddley from 3rd to 6th for those who want to try to catch me, send me an email. DogPack World Tour ! john probst, maxine etkin mail to john@asimere.com will be forwarded _________________________________________________________________ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://messenger.msn.co.uk From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Mar 1 07:40:12 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 07:40:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bypassing passouts References: <001f01c2df67$226512b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c2dfc5$e2ad6140$7850e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 8:22 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Bypassing passouts > 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. > +=+ Is it stipukated that it is AI for all four players that one hand at least must have been dealt 12+ HCP? Is it compulsory to open a hand of 12+ HCP? ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Mar 1 07:59:02 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 07:59:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: Message-ID: <003e01c2dfc9$778dfdd0$7850e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 5:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > > > >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. Why? Doesn't everybody (Except Burn > who would award two)? > This is a totally fatuous TD call. > > cheers john > +=+ Maybe David would have declarer lead small Spade at the second trick and discard his other Spade on defender's next Club? ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 1 08:19:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 09:19:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c2dfcb$4c6c0d20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Ed > On 2/25/03, Sven Pran wrote: > > >Until this very moment it was including Jacoby 2NT (BTW I haven't > >the faintest idea what that convention is, but that doesn't matter. It > >sounds as if it could be more or less the same I know as Stenberg?) > > >From now on it is: SAYC, but without Jacoby 2NT because partner > >is unfamiliar with that part. > > So our agreement originally was that 2NT is Jacoby because *I* know it's > part of SAYC, even though partner has no knowledge whatsoever of the > convention itself, much less the fact that it's included in SAYC? If you sign an agreement with somebody you have that agreement even if you are unaware of some of the details it may include do you not? Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Mar 1 08:22:45 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 08:22:45 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Bypassing passouts Message-ID: <001b01c2dfcb$e6c94360$6aaf193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 7:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bypassing passouts > > > +=+ Is it stipukated that it is AI for all four players that > one hand at least must have been dealt 12+ HCP? > Is it compulsory to open a hand of 12+ HCP? > ~ G ~ +=+ > +=+ Read 'stipulated'. (Sorry, I hit the wrong ley. :-) ~ G ~ +=+ From jurgenr@t-online.de Sat Mar 1 08:55:41 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 09:55:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi Message-ID: A claim statement can be represented by a decision tree. The branches of the tree correspond to the opponents' alternative actions. The claimer's actions must be unambigously determined by the opponents' play. If this tree has any complexity at all, say 4 or more branches, the formulation of a clear claim statement becomes difficult and it is usually easier to play on than to claim. Suppose we distinguish several different kinds of declarer's claims. The type of claim allowed should be specified in the Conditions of Contest and never ad hoc by a director. For example: 1. A simple claim is described by a trivial decision tree with no branch points. To make such a claim a player states 'I have a simple claim for N tricks' and then unambiguously indicates the order in which he intends to play his cards; for example, he may table his cards one by one in the order of proposed play, indicating a card played from dummy for each trick when this matters. A simple claim thus may include the concession of a number of tricks, provided the conceded tricks are played last. 2. A complex claim is described by a decision tree with no more than one branch point. The claim procedure is identical to (1) except that at one point play may depend upon the action of an opponent. Thus a complex claim may include a losing finesse, a simple squeeze etc, but not, for example, a progressive squeeze. 3. An expert claim is described by a decision tree of arbitrary complexity. An expert claim implies merely that there is a line of play leading to the stated number of tricks, consistent with prior play, and apparent to any competent card player; the opponents agree to accept these claims provided such a line demonstrably exists. The claim statement can be quite cursory but should include a reference to any subtleties that might not be immediately apparent. If the indicated line in case (1) and (2) leads to the loss of a trick that was not accounted for in the claim statement then all subsequent tricks are lost. If the implied line of play in case (3) leads to fewer than the number of tricks claimed, and if the players cannot immediately agree on how many tricks should have been claimed, then the director is called upon to make a decision. The point is that, at different levels of play, the rules must satisfy very different requirements. Playing in a club game, even when the coveted ochre points are at stake, is an activity that differs greatly from competing in a national championship. The reason for much of the disagreement seems to be that different correspondents emphasize different conditions of play. Jürgen From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 1 09:31:19 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:31:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2dfd5$50b36f40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > J=FCrgen Rennenkampff >=20 > A claim statement can be represented by a decision tree. The branches of > the > tree correspond to the opponents' alternative actions. The claimer's > actions > must be unambigously determined by the opponents' play. If this tree has > any > complexity at all, say 4 or more branches, the formulation of a clear > claim > statement becomes difficult and it is usually easier to play on than to > claim. >=20 > Suppose we distinguish several different kinds of declarer's claims. The > type of claim allowed should be specified in the Conditions of Contest and > never ad hoc by a director. For example: >=20 > 1. A simple claim is described by a trivial decision tree with no branch > points. > To make such a claim a player states 'I have a simple claim for N tricks' > and then unambiguously indicates the order in which he intends to play his > cards; for example, he may table his cards one by one in the order of > proposed play, indicating a card played from dummy for each trick when > this > matters. A simple claim thus may include the concession of a number of > tricks, provided the conceded tricks are played last. >=20 > 2. A complex claim is described by a decision tree with no more than one > branch point. The claim procedure is identical to (1) except that at one > point play may depend upon the action of an opponent. Thus a complex claim > may include a losing > finesse, a simple squeeze etc, but not, for example, a progressive > squeeze. >=20 > 3. An expert claim is described by a decision tree of arbitrary > complexity. > An expert claim implies merely that there is a line of play leading to > the > stated number of tricks, consistent with prior play, and apparent to any > competent card player; the opponents agree to accept these claims provided > such a line demonstrably exists. The claim statement can be quite cursory > but should include a reference to any subtleties that might not be > immediately apparent. >=20 > If the indicated line in case (1) and (2) leads to the loss of a trick > that > was not accounted for in the claim statement then all subsequent tricks > are > lost. > If the implied line of play in case (3) leads to fewer than the number of > tricks claimed, and if the players cannot immediately agree on how many > tricks should have been claimed, then the director is called upon to make > a > decision. >=20 > The point is that, at different levels of play, the rules must satisfy > very > different requirements. Playing in a club game, even when the coveted > ochre > points are at stake, is an activity that differs greatly from competing in > a > national championship. The reason for much of the disagreement seems to be > that different correspondents emphasize different conditions of play. >=20 > J=FCrgen A very interesting proposal indeed and it really has some merits. However, the purpose of claiming is to save time, not to demonstrate the ability to look ahead. So any claim where it may take more time to understand and accept the claim than it would have taken simply to play it out (rapidly) should, and in fact is discouraged by the laws. (Negative inference from L74B4) This is one of the reasons why we still in Norway do not attempt to find any "excuse" for awarding the claimer a trick he could lose because of some silly but still possible error on his part. Apparently we are among the more restrictive interpreters of Law 70. Regards Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Mar 1 11:09:35 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:09:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <200303010009.TAA05339@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002a01c2dfe3$0c389440$25b54351@noos.fr> Steve, I didn't attempt writing laws, I offered ideas. To a certain extend stating a clear line of play should equal claiming the number of tricks that line produces (although there might be a contradiction if you state a line of play and a number of tricks). I intended this limitation to prevent claimer from getting more tricks than he claimed for. And to prevent contesting ones own claims. And to relieve TD/AC from analyzing what the heck could have happened without claim. Example 1. Someone claims 9 tricks but because of something very special (like 109 doubleton or so) there is a 10th. Bad luck. He should have said something about the suit when claiming. Example 2: Someone claims the 9 tricks but after seeing opps hand he realizes he could easily/obviously have made one more. Bad luck. For me the stated line 'cashing my winners' should give claimer only his toptricks because it is quite possible (careless) not to see/realise the H6 or whatever becomes good in the process. To get that H6 he should claim 'cashing and if the H are 3-3 then ....' or whatever condition is needed for the H6 to become a winner. Example 3. Defensive claims contested by one's partner. This is a type of claim where I have seen many a bitter dispute before during and after TD/AC intervention. Maybe it is draconian but my propasal prevents this problem completely. But now the main reason. This proposal is intended to replace current 70D and 70E which requires endless discussions and analysis on which we never agree. If you claim 8 tricks with only 7 on top (assuming we judge miscounting winners and not forgetting about an outstanding card) we simply award 7. Whatever the breaks. Whatever is normal, rational or irrational. You cash, you have 7 winners, so 7 it is. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 1:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > 2. claimer never gets more tricks than he claims > > I don't understand why you would want this at all. As long as claimer > states a _clear line of play_, why not give whatever number of tricks > that line produces? I think even David B. will accept that. > > In general, it is the responsibility of all players to count the tricks > (L72A2). Why should things be different if there's a claim? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Mar 1 11:23:54 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:23:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n References: <003b01c2de8f$38090500$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003601c2dfe5$0e78d560$25b54351@noos.fr> Sven, There is a problem. Without claim the TD would not be summoned so nobody would have told W he revoked let alone that he should get rid of his CJ. Anyway the actual players involved know the rules well enough to know they should get rid of that CJ. If only west realises his revoke. In the last two tricks before the claim he could have discarded the CJ. He didn't. Sven: > Remember that in a claim/consession situation > any doubtful point shall be resolved against the > player who claims or concedes. Yes, but you cannot blaim claimer for not knowing that the opponents did revoke (in the actual case nobody suggested claimer was or might be aware of the revoke). So it seems a normal and correct claim cost him a trick (or at least a very good chance at getting that trick). Your comment please. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n + n > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 1 11:41:53 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:41:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 In-Reply-To: <002a01c2dfe3$0c389440$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000201c2dfe7$8e1a1a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> After reading this I am in some doubt of your intentions, so let me just give you a brief summary on how we are advised to handle claims and concessions in Norway: If there is any legal line of play which the claimer may have overlooked because he did not exclude such line of play with his statement, then if that line of play results in fewer tricks to the claimer than he claimed we award him only the number of tricks he will win under that alternative line of play. Note that I wrote "legal", I did not write "reasonable" line of play. The only exception is if the alternative line of play in question is so silly that no player regardless of quality could have chosen that line. But if the claimer concedes one or more tricks that could not be lost by any legal play (the way the cards lie) he is awarded also such tricks if that question is subsequently raised (L71A). > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jaap > van der Neut > Sent: 1. mars 2003 12:10 > To: Steve Willner; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > > Steve, > > I didn't attempt writing laws, I offered ideas. To a certain extend > stating > a clear line of play should equal claiming the number of tricks that line > produces (although there might be a contradiction if you state a line of > play and a number of tricks). I intended this limitation to prevent > claimer > from getting more tricks than he claimed for. And to prevent contesting > ones > own claims. And to relieve TD/AC from analyzing what the heck could have > happened without claim. > > Example 1. Someone claims 9 tricks but because of something very special > (like 109 doubleton or so) there is a 10th. Bad luck. He should have said > something about the suit when claiming. > > Example 2: Someone claims the 9 tricks but after seeing opps hand he > realizes he could easily/obviously have made one more. Bad luck. > > For me the stated line 'cashing my winners' should give claimer only his > toptricks because it is quite possible (careless) not to see/realise the > H6 > or whatever becomes good in the process. To get that H6 he should claim > 'cashing and if the H are 3-3 then ....' or whatever condition is needed > for > the H6 to become a winner. > > Example 3. Defensive claims contested by one's partner. > > This is a type of claim where I have seen many a bitter dispute before > during and after TD/AC intervention. Maybe it is draconian but my propasal > prevents this problem completely. > > But now the main reason. This proposal is intended to replace current 70D > and 70E > which requires endless discussions and analysis on which we never agree. > If > you claim 8 tricks with only 7 on top (assuming we judge miscounting > winners > and not forgetting about an outstanding card) we simply award 7. Whatever > the breaks. Whatever is normal, rational or irrational. You cash, you have > 7 > winners, so 7 it is. > > Jaap > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 1:09 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > > > > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > > 2. claimer never gets more tricks than he claims > > > > I don't understand why you would want this at all. As long as claimer > > states a _clear line of play_, why not give whatever number of tricks > > that line produces? I think even David B. will accept that. > > > > In general, it is the responsibility of all players to count the tricks > > (L72A2). Why should things be different if there's a claim? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Mar 1 11:40:23 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:40:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi References: <000101c2dfd5$50b36f40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005301c2dfe7$5b43bac0$25b54351@noos.fr> Sven: > Apparently we are among > the more restrictive interpreters of Law 70. I don't think so Sven. I consider your idea's mainstream (and sound). In my view extremists are over represented on blml. Extremists on both sides. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 10:31 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi > Jürgen Rennenkampff > > A claim statement can be represented by a decision tree. The branches of > the > tree correspond to the opponents' alternative actions. The claimer's > actions > must be unambigously determined by the opponents' play. If this tree has > any > complexity at all, say 4 or more branches, the formulation of a clear > claim > statement becomes difficult and it is usually easier to play on than to > claim. > > Suppose we distinguish several different kinds of declarer's claims. The > type of claim allowed should be specified in the Conditions of Contest and > never ad hoc by a director. For example: > > 1. A simple claim is described by a trivial decision tree with no branch > points. > To make such a claim a player states 'I have a simple claim for N tricks' > and then unambiguously indicates the order in which he intends to play his > cards; for example, he may table his cards one by one in the order of > proposed play, indicating a card played from dummy for each trick when > this > matters. A simple claim thus may include the concession of a number of > tricks, provided the conceded tricks are played last. > > 2. A complex claim is described by a decision tree with no more than one > branch point. The claim procedure is identical to (1) except that at one > point play may depend upon the action of an opponent. Thus a complex claim > may include a losing > finesse, a simple squeeze etc, but not, for example, a progressive > squeeze. > > 3. An expert claim is described by a decision tree of arbitrary > complexity. > An expert claim implies merely that there is a line of play leading to > the > stated number of tricks, consistent with prior play, and apparent to any > competent card player; the opponents agree to accept these claims provided > such a line demonstrably exists. The claim statement can be quite cursory > but should include a reference to any subtleties that might not be > immediately apparent. > > If the indicated line in case (1) and (2) leads to the loss of a trick > that > was not accounted for in the claim statement then all subsequent tricks > are > lost. > If the implied line of play in case (3) leads to fewer than the number of > tricks claimed, and if the players cannot immediately agree on how many > tricks should have been claimed, then the director is called upon to make > a > decision. > > The point is that, at different levels of play, the rules must satisfy > very > different requirements. Playing in a club game, even when the coveted > ochre > points are at stake, is an activity that differs greatly from competing in > a > national championship. The reason for much of the disagreement seems to be > that different correspondents emphasize different conditions of play. > > Jürgen A very interesting proposal indeed and it really has some merits. However, the purpose of claiming is to save time, not to demonstrate the ability to look ahead. So any claim where it may take more time to understand and accept the claim than it would have taken simply to play it out (rapidly) should, and in fact is discouraged by the laws. (Negative inference from L74B4) This is one of the reasons why we still in Norway do not attempt to find any "excuse" for awarding the claimer a trick he could lose because of some silly but still possible error on his part. Apparently we are among the more restrictive interpreters of Law 70. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 1 11:56:32 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:56:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n In-Reply-To: <003601c2dfe5$0e78d560$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000301c2dfe9$9a4607d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> We must assume that had the board been played out the revoke would eventually have been noticed and the Director been summoned to the table. At this time it would be one of the duties for the Director to inform West the consequence of winning any trick with his CJ. If such a trick had already been won it would be just too bad for W. If the claimer has been misled by revoke in any way because it has not yet been detected the claimer of course has protection from any consequence of that revoke, but this does not include any obligation for West to hold on to the CJ "to the bitter end". As almost always when there are several different irregularities with a single board the Director is given the task of sorting out what consequences shall be ruled related to each of them. And when some rulings must go against EW, other rulings against NS on doubtful points (which is the case here) the Director will really have an opportunity to show his qualities. Sven > Sven, > > There is a problem. Without claim the TD would not be summoned so nobody > would have told W he revoked let alone that he should get rid of his CJ. > Anyway the actual players involved know the rules well enough to know they > should get rid of that CJ. If only west realises his revoke. In the last > two > tricks before the claim he could have discarded the CJ. He didn't. > > Sven: > > Remember that in a claim/consession situation > > any doubtful point shall be resolved against the > > player who claims or concedes. > > Yes, but you cannot blaim claimer for not knowing that the opponents did > revoke (in the actual case nobody suggested claimer was or might be aware > of > the revoke). So it seems a normal and correct claim cost him a trick (or > at > least a very good chance at getting that trick). Your comment please. > > Jaap > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n + n > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Mar 1 12:17:08 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 13:17:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <000201c2dfe7$8e1a1a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005901c2dfec$7c31a760$25b54351@noos.fr> Sven, My intentions are simple rules which work and are easy to understand. But once again. I haven't really thought about the wording so far, so it will be a long cry from being lawyer-proof at this stage. In my proposal nobody has to bother anymore about any line of play (maybe apart from an exceptional case which is not covered by the proposed rules). Be it legal, silly, rational, reasonable or whatever. Because as soon as we start discussing lines of play and their qualifications (like irrational) there will be different opinions. The only thing that can be established without much disagreement is legal lines of play. Although even that can be quite challenging without software support from time to time. I don't really mind the 'legal' exception but I prefer to do without because it is more simple that way. Let's take a recent example. AK AQ - - - xxxx - - South on lead claims the rest. Opponents object and given souths reaction it is clear he miscounted his winners (with 4 cards maybe unlikely but make it an 8 card ending instead) which is a major cause of this type of problems. Nobody suggest he doesn't know about the HK anymore. Now applying 70DE might get us 0 to 4 tricks depending on breaks. Some will invoke the exception clauses in 70D and or 70E because they assert that a) the form of scoring and or b) the number of tricks made so far and or c) info from the bidding and or early play and or d) god knows what, makes taking the finesse (like when needing 3 in teams) OR NOT taking the finesse (like when needing all 4 in teams) 'irrational'. Others will counter this by saying that this is just 'careless'. I tend to support the latter because for claimer to judge that one of the two possible lines is irrational, requires a level of awareness (realizing how many tricks you still need is the absolute minimum) that tends to contradict the misclaim. But it is clear we never agree on this. My proposal (cashing is limited to available top tricks) has two important advantages. 1. Very simple to apply. Ruling is 3 tricks whatever the breaks. 2. This ruling will be seen as fair by both sides. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 12:41 PM Subject: RE: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > After reading this I am in some doubt of your intentions, so let > me just give you a brief summary on how we are advised to handle > claims and concessions in Norway: > If there is any legal line of play which the claimer may have > overlooked because he did not exclude such line of play with > his statement, then if that line of play results in fewer tricks > to the claimer than he claimed we award him only the number of > tricks he will win under that alternative line of play. > Note that I wrote "legal", I did not write "reasonable" line of > play. > The only exception is if the alternative line of play in question > is so silly that no player regardless of quality could have chosen > that line. > But if the claimer concedes one or more tricks that could not be > lost by any legal play (the way the cards lie) he is awarded also > such tricks if that question is subsequently raised (L71A). > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Jaap > > van der Neut > > Sent: 1. mars 2003 12:10 > > To: Steve Willner; blml > > Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > > > > Steve, > > > > I didn't attempt writing laws, I offered ideas. To a certain extend > > stating > > a clear line of play should equal claiming the number of tricks that > line > > produces (although there might be a contradiction if you state a line > of > > play and a number of tricks). I intended this limitation to prevent > > claimer > > from getting more tricks than he claimed for. And to prevent > contesting > > ones > > own claims. And to relieve TD/AC from analyzing what the heck could > have > > happened without claim. > > > > Example 1. Someone claims 9 tricks but because of something very > special > > (like 109 doubleton or so) there is a 10th. Bad luck. He should have > said > > something about the suit when claiming. > > > > Example 2: Someone claims the 9 tricks but after seeing opps hand he > > realizes he could easily/obviously have made one more. Bad luck. > > > > For me the stated line 'cashing my winners' should give claimer only > his > > toptricks because it is quite possible (careless) not to see/realise > the > > H6 > > or whatever becomes good in the process. To get that H6 he should > claim > > 'cashing and if the H are 3-3 then ....' or whatever condition is > needed > > for > > the H6 to become a winner. > > > > Example 3. Defensive claims contested by one's partner. > > > > This is a type of claim where I have seen many a bitter dispute before > > during and after TD/AC intervention. Maybe it is draconian but my > propasal > > prevents this problem completely. > > > > But now the main reason. This proposal is intended to replace current > 70D > > and 70E > > which requires endless discussions and analysis on which we never > agree. > > If > > you claim 8 tricks with only 7 on top (assuming we judge miscounting > > winners > > and not forgetting about an outstanding card) we simply award 7. > Whatever > > the breaks. Whatever is normal, rational or irrational. You cash, you > have > > 7 > > winners, so 7 it is. > > > > Jaap > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Steve Willner" > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 1:09 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > > > > > > > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > > > 2. claimer never gets more tricks than he claims > > > > > > I don't understand why you would want this at all. As long as > claimer > > > states a _clear line of play_, why not give whatever number of > tricks > > > that line produces? I think even David B. will accept that. > > > > > > In general, it is the responsibility of all players to count the > tricks > > > (L72A2). Why should things be different if there's a claim? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 jaapb@noos.fr Sat Mar 1 12:43:59 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 13:43:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n References: <000301c2dfe9$9a4607d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006101c2dff0$3d1003c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Sven: > As almost always when there are several different irregularities with > a single board the Director is given the task of sorting out what > consequences shall be ruled related to each of them. And when some > rulings must go against EW, other rulings against NS on doubtful > points (which is the case here) the Director will really have an > opportunity to show his qualities. Why should rulings go against NS on this board? What did NS do wrong? Do you consider it an irregularity or an infraction to concede the rest in the position below? I don't think so. You cannot ask a claimer to take possible revokes into consideration. The position at the moment of the claim (spots might differ, dummy only has small black cards). AK x - 9 3 5 J 10 QJ xx - - What would you rule ? - Declarer concedes the rest at this point having made 7 tricks. - West has revoked twice with the CJ - EW made the first two tricks (their only two so far) well before the revoke - West could have discarded the CJ on the two previous tricks - (so) It is clear west didn't realize his revoke before the claim. - It is unknown if east realized the revoke at this stage (I guess not because east never claimed so). - It can be assumed EW know the relevant rules even without TD telling them. - It can be assumed that EW have a pretty good idea about each others hands. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 12:56 PM Subject: RE: [blml] claims forever, case n + n > We must assume that had the board been played out the revoke would > eventually have been noticed and the Director been summoned to the > table. At this time it would be one of the duties for the Director > to inform West the consequence of winning any trick with his CJ. > If such a trick had already been won it would be just too bad for W. > If the claimer has been misled by revoke in any way because it has > not yet been detected the claimer of course has protection from any > consequence of that revoke, but this does not include any obligation > for West to hold on to the CJ "to the bitter end". > As almost always when there are several different irregularities with > a single board the Director is given the task of sorting out what > consequences shall be ruled related to each of them. And when some > rulings must go against EW, other rulings against NS on doubtful > points (which is the case here) the Director will really have an > opportunity to show his qualities. > Sven > > Sven, > > > > There is a problem. Without claim the TD would not be summoned so > nobody > > would have told W he revoked let alone that he should get rid of his > CJ. > > Anyway the actual players involved know the rules well enough to know > they > > should get rid of that CJ. If only west realises his revoke. In the > last > > two > > tricks before the claim he could have discarded the CJ. He didn't. > > > > Sven: > > > Remember that in a claim/consession situation > > > any doubtful point shall be resolved against the > > > player who claims or concedes. > > > > Yes, but you cannot blaim claimer for not knowing that the opponents > did > > revoke (in the actual case nobody suggested claimer was or might be > aware > > of > > the revoke). So it seems a normal and correct claim cost him a trick > (or > > at > > least a very good chance at getting that trick). Your comment please. > > > > Jaap > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sven Pran" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:37 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n + n > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > blml mailing list > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 1 13:41:10 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 14:41:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n In-Reply-To: <006101c2dff0$3d1003c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000001c2dff8$38957e80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Jaap van der Neut > Sven: > > As almost always when there are several different irregularities with > > a single board the Director is given the task of sorting out what > > consequences shall be ruled related to each of them. And when some > > rulings must go against EW, other rulings against NS on doubtful > > points (which is the case here) the Director will really have an > > opportunity to show his qualities. > > Why should rulings go against NS on this board? What did NS do wrong? Do > you > consider it an irregularity or an infraction to concede the rest in the > position below? I don't think so. You cannot ask a claimer to take > possible > revokes into consideration. Certainly not. But whenever a ruling is required there is a general principle that any doubtful points shall be resolved against the offender. And in claim or concession cases the claimer/conceder is "the offender" for the purpose of applying this principle. So in your case NS shall be protected from their mistakes caused by the revoke, but not from their mistakes caused by their own incomplete claim statement(only). > > The position at the moment of the claim (spots might differ, dummy only > has > small black cards). > > AK x > - 9 > 3 5 > J 10 > QJ > xx > - > - > > What would you rule ? > - Declarer concedes the rest at this point having made 7 tricks. > - West has revoked twice with the CJ > - EW made the first two tricks (their only two so far) well before the > revoke > - West could have discarded the CJ on the two previous tricks > - (so) It is clear west didn't realize his revoke before the claim. > - It is unknown if east realized the revoke at this stage (I guess not > because east never claimed so). > - It can be assumed EW know the relevant rules even without TD telling > them. > - It can be assumed that EW have a pretty good idea about each others > hands. The claim or concession terminates the play period. At this time EW has every right to be informed on all aspects relevant for the situation. There are three legal lines of play that will give EW all tricks without West winning a trick with his CJ: Low heart to the nine directly (West discarding his CJ), SA, SK (East discarding his C10), D3 to D5 and H5, SA, D3, H9 (West discarding his CJ) and C10. The knowledge of the revoke does not in any way make any difference for the possibility South has to get another trick and is therefore irrelevant. I should rule rest to EW and a one trick revoke penalty. However, if you change South's cards to include a small club then I would allow him to take advantage of the revoke only now known to him and play this club forcing West to win with his CJ and resulting in a two trick revoke penalty. You say that the spots may differ so I must add that if East has no entry in Diamonds (West has the highest diamond left) then South shall similarly be allowed to exit with one of his spades forcing West eventually to win a trick with his CJ for a two trick revoke penalty. Do you see the difference and my reasons for the various ruling alternatives? Regards Sven From axman22@hotmail.com Sat Mar 1 13:59:49 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 07:59:49 -0600 Subject: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi References: <000101c2dfd5$50b36f40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 3:31 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi -s- >A very interesting proposal indeed and it really has some merits. However, the purpose of claiming is to save time, not to demonstrate the ability to look ahead. Well, I should think that a good claim will save time. But that is a benefit of a good claim. The purpose of a claim? To resolve the outcome of the remaining tricks- perfectly. Not to be confused with saving time which, if the sole motivation, invariably results in disputes. regards roger pewick >So any claim where it may take more time to understand and accept the claim than it would have taken simply to play it out (rapidly) should, and in fact is discouraged by the laws. (Negative inference from L74B4) This is one of the reasons why we still in Norway do not attempt to find any "excuse" for awarding the claimer a trick he could lose because of some silly but still possible error on his part. Apparently we are among the more restrictive interpreters of Law 70. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 1 14:07:43 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:07:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2dffb$edf2e8a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Roger Pewick ......... > The purpose of a claim? To resolve the outcome of the remaining tricks- > perfectly. Not to be confused with saving time which, if the sole > motivation, invariably results in disputes. > > regards > roger pewick Sorry, I cannot agree. If the purpose of a claim is to resolve the outcome of the remaining tricks perfectly this purpose is much better served by playing the cards out rather than claiming. Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Mar 1 14:11:22 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:11:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n References: <000001c2dff8$38957e80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000e01c2dffc$71e9de20$25b54351@noos.fr> Sven, 1. Easts diamond is higher then Wests diamond. Sorry about the confusion. 2. South has no clubs. Sven: > Certainly not. But whenever a ruling is required there is a general > principle that any doubtful points shall be resolved against the > offender. > And in claim or concession cases the claimer/conceder is "the > offender" for the purpose of applying this principle. So in your > case NS shall be protected from their mistakes caused by the revoke, > but not from their mistakes caused by their own incomplete claim > statement(only). 1. It is a way to look at it. But I cannot agree because it makes no sense to 'promote' south to 'the offender' when he did nothing wrong. 2. Do you realise this means that is not a good idea to claim anymore unless you claim for the rest. You never know if opponents did revoke and if your claim includes conceding a trick it might cost you. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [blml] claims forever, case n + n > > From: Jaap van der Neut > > Sven: > > > As almost always when there are several different irregularities > with > > > a single board the Director is given the task of sorting out what > > > consequences shall be ruled related to each of them. And when some > > > rulings must go against EW, other rulings against NS on doubtful > > > points (which is the case here) the Director will really have an > > > opportunity to show his qualities. > > > > Why should rulings go against NS on this board? What did NS do wrong? > Do > > you > > consider it an irregularity or an infraction to concede the rest in > the > > position below? I don't think so. You cannot ask a claimer to take> Certainly not. But whenever a ruling is required there is a general > principle that any doubtful points shall be resolved against the > offender. > And in claim or concession cases the claimer/conceder is "the > offender" for the purpose of applying this principle. So in your > case NS shall be protected from their mistakes caused by the revoke, > but not from their mistakes caused by their own incomplete claim > statement(only). > > > possible > > revokes into consideration. > > > > > The position at the moment of the claim (spots might differ, dummy > only > > has > > small black cards). > > > > AK x > > - 9 > > 3 5 > > J 10 > > QJ > > xx > > - > > - > > > > What would you rule ? > > - Declarer concedes the rest at this point having made 7 tricks. > > - West has revoked twice with the CJ > > - EW made the first two tricks (their only two so far) well before the > > revoke > > - West could have discarded the CJ on the two previous tricks > > - (so) It is clear west didn't realize his revoke before the claim. > > - It is unknown if east realized the revoke at this stage (I guess not > > because east never claimed so). > > - It can be assumed EW know the relevant rules even without TD telling > > them. > > - It can be assumed that EW have a pretty good idea about each others > > hands. > > The claim or concession terminates the play period. At this time EW has > every right to be informed on all aspects relevant for the situation. > There are three legal lines of play that will give EW all tricks without > West winning a trick with his CJ: > Low heart to the nine directly (West discarding his CJ), > SA, SK (East discarding his C10), D3 to D5 and H5, > SA, D3, H9 (West discarding his CJ) and C10. > The knowledge of the revoke does not in any way make any difference for > the possibility South has to get another trick and is therefore > irrelevant. > I should rule rest to EW and a one trick revoke penalty. > However, if you change South's cards to include a small club then I > would > allow him to take advantage of the revoke only now known to him and play > this club forcing West to win with his CJ and resulting in a two trick > revoke penalty. > You say that the spots may differ so I must add that if East has no > entry > in Diamonds (West has the highest diamond left) then South shall > similarly > be allowed to exit with one of his spades forcing West eventually to win > a > trick with his CJ for a two trick revoke penalty. > Do you see the difference and my reasons for the various ruling > alternatives? > Regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 1 14:32:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:32:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n In-Reply-To: <000e01c2dffc$71e9de20$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000201c2dfff$66da9210$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Jaap van der Neut > Sven, > > 1. Easts diamond is higher then Wests diamond. Sorry about the confusion. > 2. South has no clubs. No confusion, nothing to apologize. I simply pointed out some alternative possibilities that would alter the picture. > > Sven: > > Certainly not. But whenever a ruling is required there is a general > > principle that any doubtful points shall be resolved against the > > offender. > > And in claim or concession cases the claimer/conceder is "the > > offender" for the purpose of applying this principle. So in your > > case NS shall be protected from their mistakes caused by the revoke, > > but not from their mistakes caused by their own incomplete claim > > statement(only). > > 1. It is a way to look at it. But I cannot agree because it makes no sense > to 'promote' south to 'the offender' when he did nothing wrong. No, South did nothing wrong, but the laws are that any doubtful point(s) shall be ruled against a claimer. (See Law70A) > > 2. Do you realise this means that is not a good idea to claim anymore > unless > you claim for the rest. You never know if opponents did revoke and if your > claim includes conceding a trick it might cost you. Yes, and my personal opinion is that this is a desirable situation. Nobody should ever claim unless they have 100% knowledge on all relevant aspects of the remaining cards and full control over all possible legal lines of play that may be relevant. Regards Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 1 14:59:57 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 09:59:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n Message-ID: <200303011459.JAA11541@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > But whenever a ruling is required there is a general > principle that any doubtful points shall be resolved against the > offender. There is, however, an exception when a revoke is followed by a claim. This was one of the WBFLC minutes. I think it may have been from Maastricht, but I'm not sure. Anyway, in this sort of case, according to the WBFLC, doubtful points are resolved against the revoker. I don't remember whether the minute specifically covers a concession with no claim, but I don't see why the principle would differ. From axman22@hotmail.com Sat Mar 1 15:00:41 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 09:00:41 -0600 Subject: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi References: <000101c2dffb$edf2e8a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 8:07 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi > > Roger Pewick > ......... > > The purpose of a claim? To resolve the outcome of the remaining > tricks- > > perfectly. Not to be confused with saving time which, if the sole > > motivation, invariably results in disputes. > > > > regards > > roger pewick > > Sorry, I cannot agree. If the purpose of a claim is to resolve > the outcome of the remaining tricks perfectly this purpose is > much better served by playing the cards out rather than claiming. > Sven "Nobody should ever claim unless they have 100% knowledge on all relevant aspects of the remaining cards and full control over all possible legal lines of play that may be relevant. Regards Sven" Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 8:32 AM Certainly there are times when having 100% knowledge still leaves the situation muddled and it is best to play on. But, I do not think that it is too far a leap to choose to claim only when one uses their 100% knowledge- in a perfect way. Is it? regards roger pewick From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 1 15:05:40 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:05:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 Message-ID: <200303011505.KAA11591@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > Example 1. Someone claims 9 tricks but because of something very special > (like 109 doubleton or so) there is a 10th. Bad luck. He should have said > something about the suit when claiming. I understand what you are suggesting but cannot imagine why. It seems just a way to discourage claims. In your example, as long as the line of play is clear and inevitably leads to 10 tricks, I can't see any reason to award fewer. > Example 2: Someone claims the 9 tricks but after seeing opps hand he > realizes he could easily/obviously have made one more. Bad luck. If making more tricks requires a changed line of play, then of course we don't give them now, and I don't think anyone is proposing to do so in the future. > Example 3. Defensive claims contested by one's partner. So you don't give the top trump that partner "couldn't" hold but does? Sounds bizarre to me. Defensive claims are rare, but I don't see why anyone would wish to discourage them when the occasion arises. From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Mar 1 17:16:00 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 18:16:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n References: <000201c2dfff$66da9210$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005801c2e016$3fc0d6a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Sven, I rest my case. Jaap: > Do you realise this means that is not a good idea to claim anymore > unless you claim for the rest. You never know if opponents did revoke > and if your claim includes conceding a trick it might cost you. Sven: >Yes, and my personal opinion is that this is a desirable situation. >Nobody should ever claim unless they have 100% knowledge on all relevant >aspects of the remaining cards and full control over all possible legal >lines of play that may be relevant. With you as TD I will not claim anymore unless I have the rest because it is in most cases beyond my abilities to decide whether or not opponents might have revoked. But never ever accuse me (or any other player) of deliberate slow play and the like because we refuse to claim even the most obvious of endings. This way you make claiming 'impossible' (I know too strong a word). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 3:32 PM Subject: RE: [blml] claims forever, case n + n > > From: Jaap van der Neut > > Sven, > > > > 1. Easts diamond is higher then Wests diamond. Sorry about the > confusion. > > 2. South has no clubs. > No confusion, nothing to apologize. I simply pointed out some > alternative possibilities that would alter the picture. > > > > Sven: > > > Certainly not. But whenever a ruling is required there is a general > > > principle that any doubtful points shall be resolved against the > > > offender. > > > And in claim or concession cases the claimer/conceder is "the > > > offender" for the purpose of applying this principle. So in your > > > case NS shall be protected from their mistakes caused by the revoke, > > > but not from their mistakes caused by their own incomplete claim > > > statement(only). > > > > 1. It is a way to look at it. But I cannot agree because it makes no > sense > > to 'promote' south to 'the offender' when he did nothing wrong. > No, South did nothing wrong, but the laws are that any doubtful point(s) > shall be ruled against a claimer. (See Law70A) > > > > 2. Do you realise this means that is not a good idea to claim anymore > > unless > > you claim for the rest. You never know if opponents did revoke and if > your > > claim includes conceding a trick it might cost you. > Yes, and my personal opinion is that this is a desirable situation. > Nobody should ever claim unless they have 100% knowledge on all relevant > aspects of the remaining cards and full control over all possible legal > lines of play that may be relevant. > Regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Mar 1 17:16:05 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 18:16:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n References: <200303011459.JAA11541@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <005901c2e016$4057e680$25b54351@noos.fr> Steve, Where might one find those minutes. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 3:59 PM Subject: RE: [blml] claims forever, case n + n > > From: "Sven Pran" > > But whenever a ruling is required there is a general > > principle that any doubtful points shall be resolved against the > > offender. > > There is, however, an exception when a revoke is followed by a claim. > This was one of the WBFLC minutes. I think it may have been from > Maastricht, but I'm not sure. Anyway, in this sort of case, according > to the WBFLC, doubtful points are resolved against the revoker. > > I don't remember whether the minute specifically covers a concession > with no claim, but I don't see why the principle would differ. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 1 18:49:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 19:49:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n In-Reply-To: <005801c2e016$3fc0d6a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000d01c2e023$5ad6a9d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Jaap van der Neut > Sven, > > I rest my case. > > Jaap: > > Do you realise this means that is not a good idea to claim anymore > > unless you claim for the rest. You never know if opponents did revoke > > and if your claim includes conceding a trick it might cost you. > > Sven: > >Yes, and my personal opinion is that this is a desirable situation. > >Nobody should ever claim unless they have 100% knowledge on all relevant > >aspects of the remaining cards and full control over all possible legal > >lines of play that may be relevant. > > With you as TD I will not claim anymore unless I have the rest because it > is > in most cases beyond my abilities to decide whether or not opponents might > have revoked. But never ever accuse me (or any other player) of deliberate > slow play and the like because we refuse to claim even the most obvious of > endings. This way you make claiming 'impossible' (I know too strong a > word). > > Jaap It is my firm policy never to use Law 74B4 (or any other law) against a player who does not claim regardless of his reason. If at all I shall use Law 74B4 against a player who deliberately delays the game by a play that is slow even to his own standards, but so far I have never met that problem. And frankly, it is my experience that any claim needing explanation(s) beyond "I have only high cards left" usually takes more time than would be needed for playing it out one card at a time. Even with only high cards left I have often found it faster to lead the cards rapidly one by one without awaiting opponents playing to each trick instead of showing all my cards simultaneously. Thanks for interesting exchanges of views. Regards Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Mar 1 19:06:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 19:06 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n In-Reply-To: <005901c2e016$4057e680$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: "Jaap van der Neut" asked: > Where might one find those minutes. In a locked filing cabinet in a disused toilet in the basement with "beware of the tiger" on the door - as always:) In fact some of them can be found at http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/BiB/b7/docdefault.asp But I'm not sure the one below (from Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee held in Bermuda on 12th January 2000) is there and I can't remember where I got it. 3 The committee gave its attention to Law 63A3 and noted that if a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating any margin of doubt against the revoker. The given example is clearly not covered by the minute since in this case the revoke is already established. However I wouldn't criticise a TD who went with the sentiment of the last sentence. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Mar 1 19:06:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 19:06 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > 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? I do not expect, as a player, to tell the TD I was damaged and have him accept it automatically. I tell him what I think I would have done if properly informed, I may even tell him how I think the auction might have developed from there and what score I think I would have received but after that it is his *job* to assess the likelihood/extent of damage - not mine. And anybody who says "I would have done X" is being untruthful. There are so few absolutes in bridge that "I am almost certain I would have done X" is the strongest language I would consider reasonable. > 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. Indeed. But MI deprived me of the opportunity to do that. The MI laws require an adjustment based on what I might have done but didn't. A degree of uncertainty in a purely hypothetical situation is inevitable. Tim From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 1 19:09:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 20:09:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n In-Reply-To: <200303011459.JAA11541@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000e01c2e026$26eed2c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > > From: "Sven Pran" > > But whenever a ruling is required there is a general > > principle that any doubtful points shall be resolved against the > > offender. > > There is, however, an exception when a revoke is followed by a claim. > This was one of the WBFLC minutes. I think it may have been from > Maastricht, but I'm not sure. Anyway, in this sort of case, according > to the WBFLC, doubtful points are resolved against the revoker. > > I don't remember whether the minute specifically covers a concession > with no claim, but I don't see why the principle would differ. Do you happen to remember whether this would apply even in the case the revoke has absolutely no effect on the claim and all doubt arises from an incomplete claim statement? Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 1 19:38:34 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 14:38:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n Message-ID: <200303011938.OAA13687@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Do you happen to remember whether this would apply even in the case the > revoke has absolutely no effect on the claim and all doubt arises from > an incomplete claim statement? Tim has posted the exact minute; it seems my memory is not to be trusted. (No big surprise there, alas.) The text is repeated at the bottom in case people want to refer to it again. On balance, I think the minute refers only to _unestablished_ revokes. Thus it appears to me we don't have clear guidance in the case you give. I also don't think it clear what the rules ought to be. Of course if there is doubt about some part of the claim having nothing to do with the revoke, that much gets resolved against claimer in the normal way. But what if there is doubt about the revoke penalty? On the one hand, I don't like letting revokers get away with a one-trick penalty in cases where they would probably have paid a two-trick penalty if the hand had been played out. On the other hand, I don't like to see a claim deny the revoking side their fair chance to hold the penalty to one trick if they could have managed that. For established revokes, where the minute doesn't apply, it seems to me that under L70A the issue of a one or two trick penalty has to be resolved against the claimer if there is doubt. However, I don't think "doubt" goes so far as to include "any legal line of play." If the TD is convinced that the penalty would have been two tricks absent a claim, he is free to rule that way. But others may disagree; this is certainly not clear! Anybody else for returning to the two-trick revoke penalty? ----- 3 The committee gave its attention to Law 63A3 and noted that if a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating any margin of doubt against the revoker. From jaapb@noos.fr Sat Mar 1 21:51:13 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 22:51:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n References: <200303011938.OAA13687@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003201c2e03c$af020540$25b54351@noos.fr> Steve, 1. The claim is correct and undisputed (surprising if you cede the balance) 2. Claimer didn't know/think about a revoke (at the actual level of play revokes are very rare). Steve: > But what if there is doubt about the revoke penalty? On the one hand, > I don't like letting revokers get away with a one-trick penalty in > cases where they would probably have paid a two-trick penalty if the > hand had been played out. On the other hand, I don't like to see a > claim deny the revoking side their fair chance to hold the penalty to > one trick if they could have managed that. In the Dutch discussion (the TD appealed his own decision) I said excactly the same as you did. For these reasons I proposed a weighted score based on AC's judgement of the probability of the CJ taking a trick. This way the revoke-side doesn't get away with it (and more important claiming remains 'possible') and the claimer cannot take advantage of the situation. Does this make sense? In the actual case the CJ is a heavy favorite to take a trick but this is not really the issue. Something else, I have the impression that whoever wrote the revoke article never thought of this complication. This should be adressed in future laws imho. The best solution seems to scrap the current version of the 2nd trick. I don't see how you can make this 'claim-proof'. And we don't want to stop people from claiming for this reason do we. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 8:38 PM Subject: RE: [blml] claims forever, case n + n > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Do you happen to remember whether this would apply even in the case the > > revoke has absolutely no effect on the claim and all doubt arises from > > an incomplete claim statement? > > Tim has posted the exact minute; it seems my memory is not to be > trusted. (No big surprise there, alas.) The text is repeated at the > bottom in case people want to refer to it again. > > On balance, I think the minute refers only to _unestablished_ revokes. > Thus it appears to me we don't have clear guidance in the case you > give. > > I also don't think it clear what the rules ought to be. Of course if > there is doubt about some part of the claim having nothing to do with > the revoke, that much gets resolved against claimer in the normal way. > But what if there is doubt about the revoke penalty? On the one hand, > I don't like letting revokers get away with a one-trick penalty in > cases where they would probably have paid a two-trick penalty if the > hand had been played out. On the other hand, I don't like to see a > claim deny the revoking side their fair chance to hold the penalty to > one trick if they could have managed that. > > For established revokes, where the minute doesn't apply, it seems to me > that under L70A the issue of a one or two trick penalty has to be > resolved against the claimer if there is doubt. However, I don't think > "doubt" goes so far as to include "any legal line of play." If the TD > is convinced that the penalty would have been two tricks absent a > claim, he is free to rule that way. But others may disagree; this is > certainly not clear! > > Anybody else for returning to the two-trick revoke penalty? > > ----- > > 3 The committee gave its attention to Law 63A3 and noted that if a > defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender disputes > the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the revoke has not been > established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke and then > determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating any margin of > doubt against the revoker. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22@hotmail.com Sun Mar 2 07:02:17 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 01:02:17 -0600 Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 13:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible revisited > Roger wrote: > > 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? > I do not expect, as a player, to tell the TD I was damaged and have him > accept it automatically. I tell him what I think I would have done if > properly informed, You have been given corrected information and you assert you might have done something different. Not willing to take a stand after getting correct information?????? Some years ago I was called to the table after the third pass because it came to light there was a failure to alert. After correcting the information and away from the table I asked the player what she would have done differently [the auction could not be backed up that far]. I might have done 'this'; I might have done 'that'. I asked again; and again. Finally I got 5H. You see, the player wanted the best of this, that, or the actual auction even though she had the information then and there [with three minutes to think it over] to tell me what she would have done. Anyway. Call me back if you need some help. I wasn't called back. > I may even tell him how I think the auction might have > developed from there and what score I think I would have received but > after that it is his *job* to assess the likelihood/extent of damage - not > mine. And anybody who says "I would have done X" is being untruthful. > There are so few absolutes in bridge that "I am almost certain I would > have done X" is the strongest language I would consider reasonable. > > > 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. > Indeed. But MI deprived me of the opportunity to do that. Well, that doesn't mean that at the point the MI is corrected that the player can't assert what he would have done as if it were the first time around- instead of giving a menu of possibilities. regards roger pewick >The MI laws > require an adjustment based on what I might have done but didn't. A > degree of uncertainty in a purely hypothetical situation is inevitable. > > Tim From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Mar 2 09:03:41 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 10:03:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 References: Message-ID: <3E61C8ED.7000307@skynet.be> 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. > Do you really think this player rationally ruffed a trick he was claiming at the same time ? My calling it "showing the SQ" does not alter the facts. I don't believe he intended ruffing the diamond trick. Yet he did. Now I repeat - if you believe this player was acting rationally, then all rulings are back on. But I don't believe this was a rational action. So I don't conclude that this player now thinks the H6 is high, as some apparently do. > 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. > But what is the difference between "accidentally dropped" and "accidentally played because claimer thought defender had returned a heart"? > > -- > 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 hermandw@skynet.be Sun Mar 2 09:25:33 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 10:25:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <000201c2dfe7$8e1a1a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> <005901c2dfec$7c31a760$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E61CE0D.2070906@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Sven, > > > Let's take a recent example. > > AK > AQ > - > - > > - > xxxx > - > - > > South on lead claims the rest. Opponents object and given souths reaction it > is clear he miscounted his winners (with 4 cards maybe unlikely but make it > an 8 card ending instead) which is a major cause of this type of problems. > Nobody suggest he doesn't know about the HK anymore. Now applying 70DE might > get us 0 to 4 tricks depending on breaks. > Indeed. > Some will invoke the exception clauses in 70D and or 70E because they assert > that > a) the form of scoring > and or b) the number of tricks made so far > and or c) info from the bidding and or early play > and or d) god knows what, > makes taking the finesse (like when needing 3 in teams) OR NOT taking the > finesse (like when needing all 4 in teams) 'irrational'. > Indeed. > Others will counter this by saying that this is just 'careless'. I tend to > support the latter because for claimer to judge that one of the two possible > lines is irrational, requires a level of awareness (realizing how many > tricks you still need is the absolute minimum) that tends to contradict the > misclaim. But it is clear we never agree on this. > Indeed. My point is that it can be either. In the real world, this problem cannot come up. But it could be the crystallisation of some other problem. As in the original. L70E, like it or not, contains the word "irrational". But we can only judge this when we know what goes on in declarer's mind. If he knows, or thinks he knows, the HAQ are high, then it is not irrational to play either to the first trick, resulting in a claim adjudication of 0 or 1 trick (assuming opponents have other winners, not just spades). On the other hand, if this is a situation he was not intending to be in at the moment of his claim, and if we judge that he cannot fail to notice this at the crucial moment, then indeed playing ace and queen first must be considered an irrational line. We must then decide whether or not finessing is a normal line. If declarer really needs all four tricks (in actual play - not because he mistakenly claimed them!) then we rule that the finesse is a normal line. > My proposal (cashing is limited to available top tricks) has two important > advantages. > 1. Very simple to apply. Ruling is 3 tricks whatever the breaks. > 2. This ruling will be seen as fair by both sides. > That would not be the case if it is at all possible that claimer will take the finesse. 0 tricks would then be the correct adjudication. So you see, Jaap, however much you want "simple" rules, those are simply not possible. And just notice, Jaap, than in certain instances of this case, I would rule less tricks than you! > Jaap > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 12:41 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 > > > >>After reading this I am in some doubt of your intentions, so let >>me just give you a brief summary on how we are advised to handle >>claims and concessions in Norway: >>If there is any legal line of play which the claimer may have >>overlooked because he did not exclude such line of play with >>his statement, then if that line of play results in fewer tricks >>to the claimer than he claimed we award him only the number of >>tricks he will win under that alternative line of play. >>Note that I wrote "legal", I did not write "reasonable" line of >>play. >>The only exception is if the alternative line of play in question >>is so silly that no player regardless of quality could have chosen >>that line. >>But if the claimer concedes one or more tricks that could not be >>lost by any legal play (the way the cards lie) he is awarded also >>such tricks if that question is subsequently raised (L71A). >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >>> >>Jaap >> >>>van der Neut >>>Sent: 1. mars 2003 12:10 >>>To: Steve Willner; blml >>>Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 >>> >>>Steve, >>> >>>I didn't attempt writing laws, I offered ideas. To a certain extend >>>stating >>>a clear line of play should equal claiming the number of tricks that >>> >>line >> >>>produces (although there might be a contradiction if you state a line >>> >>of >> >>>play and a number of tricks). I intended this limitation to prevent >>>claimer >>>from getting more tricks than he claimed for. And to prevent >>> >>contesting >> >>>ones >>>own claims. And to relieve TD/AC from analyzing what the heck could >>> >>have >> >>>happened without claim. >>> >>>Example 1. Someone claims 9 tricks but because of something very >>> >>special >> >>>(like 109 doubleton or so) there is a 10th. Bad luck. He should have >>> >>said >> >>>something about the suit when claiming. >>> >>>Example 2: Someone claims the 9 tricks but after seeing opps hand he >>>realizes he could easily/obviously have made one more. Bad luck. >>> >>>For me the stated line 'cashing my winners' should give claimer only >>> >>his >> >>>toptricks because it is quite possible (careless) not to see/realise >>> >>the >> >>>H6 >>>or whatever becomes good in the process. To get that H6 he should >>> >>claim >> >>>'cashing and if the H are 3-3 then ....' or whatever condition is >>> >>needed >> >>>for >>>the H6 to become a winner. >>> >>>Example 3. Defensive claims contested by one's partner. >>> >>>This is a type of claim where I have seen many a bitter dispute before >>>during and after TD/AC intervention. Maybe it is draconian but my >>> >>propasal >> >>>prevents this problem completely. >>> >>>But now the main reason. This proposal is intended to replace current >>> >>70D >> >>>and 70E >>>which requires endless discussions and analysis on which we never >>> >>agree. >> >>>If >>>you claim 8 tricks with only 7 on top (assuming we judge miscounting >>>winners >>>and not forgetting about an outstanding card) we simply award 7. >>> >>Whatever >> >>>the breaks. Whatever is normal, rational or irrational. You cash, you >>> >>have >> >>>7 >>>winners, so 7 it is. >>> >>>Jaap >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Steve Willner" >>>To: >>>Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 1:09 AM >>>Subject: Re: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 >>> >>> >>> >>>>>From: "Jaap van der Neut" >>>>>2. claimer never gets more tricks than he claims >>>>> >>>>I don't understand why you would want this at all. As long as >>>> >>claimer >> >>>>states a _clear line of play_, why not give whatever number of >>>> >>tricks >> >>>>that line produces? I think even David B. will accept that. >>>> >>>>In general, it is the responsibility of all players to count the >>>> >>tricks >> >>>>(L72A2). Why should things be different if there's a claim? >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>blml mailing list >>>>blml@rtflb.org >>>>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>blml mailing list >>>blml@rtflb.org >>>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Mar 2 00:18:13 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 00:18:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi References: <000101c2dffb$edf2e8a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000e01c2e09e$30fc2240$b04ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 2:07 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi > > Roger Pewick > ......... > > The purpose of a claim? To resolve the outcome > > of the remaining tricks perfectly. > Sven: > Sorry, I cannot agree. If the purpose of a claim is to > resolve the outcome of the remaining tricks perfectly > this purpose is much better served by playing the > cards out rather than claiming. > +=+ Purpose? I would say that claiming is a resource or convenience provided in the Laws by which play may be curtailed. Insofar as a claim has any purpose it is to foreshorten the play. Claiming is a tool and the problems associated with claims are the outcome of the players' bungled mismanagement of the tool. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Mar 2 09:35:50 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 10:35:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <200302211459.JAA25601@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3E61D076.4040906@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >>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." > Perfect analysis. > 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? > I would. This hesitation is not only "authorized", but also present. One should be granted a rectifiation on the basis of authorized, present information that would also be present in the hypothetical replay. What Ton is talking of is authorized information that would not be present in the replay. Someone explaining a bid means hearts when it in fact means spades. In the replay, the opponent hears it explained as spades, but not also as hearts. > 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. > No, it is something we need to clear up under present laws and then decide whether or not we want those laws changed. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Mar 2 09:38:47 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 10:38:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 References: <3E61C8ED.7000307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c2e09f$870a0d40$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman: > But what is the difference between "accidentally dropped" and > "accidentally played because claimer thought defender had returned a > heart"? You never stop do you. "accidentally dropped" means some 'mechanical' error. I also sometimes drop some cards. As declarer this doesn't constitute playing that or those cards. See 48A. "accidentally played" (as used above) has nothing to do with an accident. This type of thing happen 1. when you are sure they will play a certain suit (here diamonds) and your anticipation/conviction is too strong/quick for you to realize they did something else OR 2. you are too lazy or whatever to look at the played card carefully enough to see which suit it is. But whatever the reason this does constitute playing the card. Now in Herman logic this might be no difference, for me and maybe some others not playing a card is quite different from playing a card. Herman: > Do you really think this player rationally ruffed a trick he was > claiming at the same time ? I do think he thought he was ruffing a heart (the table TD should have established that kind of info). Which is silly, careless and all that. Maybe even irrational (if we agree on what that means) . It doesn't matter. He did so BEFORE the claim. There is no law that gives the TD the right to intervene in the play because the TD thinks a player makes an irrational play. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 > 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. > > > > > Do you really think this player rationally ruffed a trick he was > claiming at the same time ? > My calling it "showing the SQ" does not alter the facts. I don't > believe he intended ruffing the diamond trick. Yet he did. > Now I repeat - if you believe this player was acting rationally, then > all rulings are back on. But I don't believe this was a rational > action. So I don't conclude that this player now thinks the H6 is > high, as some apparently do. > > > > 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. > > > > > But what is the difference between "accidentally dropped" and > "accidentally played because claimer thought defender had returned a > heart"? > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Mar 2 10:22:18 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:22:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] 8 tables 10 rounds Message-ID: <3E61DB5A.7020904@skynet.be> I need the starting position for a reduced howell or an expanded mitchell for 16 pairs in 10 rounds (6 stationary pairs). The famous Swedish book has one of each, but neither of them suits my purpose (I need one of the remaining two sets of boards to go to a table with a stationary pair). Does anyone have starting positions other than those in the Swedish book? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Mar 2 11:33:31 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 12:33:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 References: <3E61C8ED.7000307@skynet.be> <000a01c2e09f$870a0d40$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E61EC0B.2060604@skynet.be> Jaap, please, please, please, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman: > >>But what is the difference between "accidentally dropped" and >>"accidentally played because claimer thought defender had returned a >>heart"? >> > > > You never stop do you. > > "accidentally dropped" means some 'mechanical' error. I also sometimes drop > some cards. As declarer this doesn't constitute playing that or those cards. > See 48A. OK, but I am not suggesting he can take it back. > > "accidentally played" (as used above) has nothing to do with an accident. > This type of thing happen 1. when you are sure they will play a certain suit > (here diamonds) and your anticipation/conviction is too strong/quick for you > to realize they did something else OR 2. you are too lazy or whatever to > look at the played card carefully enough to see which suit it is. But > whatever the reason this does constitute playing the card. > I agree ! > Now in Herman logic this might be no difference, for me and maybe some > others not playing a card is quite different from playing a card. > OK so maybe it makes a difference as to whether ot not he can take it back. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about whether it indicates he thinks the CQ or H6 are good. In that sense, it makes no difference whatsoever. It is not evidence to that fact, and there are a number of clues that suggest that he does know the lie of the cards (his mentioning the DJ as one of the tricks he was intending to make is a good clue). > > Herman: > >>Do you really think this player rationally ruffed a trick he was >>claiming at the same time ? >> > > I do think he thought he was ruffing a heart (the table TD should have > established that kind of info). Which is silly, careless and all that. Maybe > even irrational (if we agree on what that means) . It doesn't matter. He did > so BEFORE the claim. There is no law that gives the TD the right to > intervene in the play because the TD thinks a player makes an irrational > play. > But I am not saying that the TD should interfere in the winning of this trick. This trick has been won by the SQ, and declarer is in hand. He never intended to be in hand. In fact, according his claim, he should have won this trick with the DJ. So the claim statement is already null and void. And we need to decide which lines are, from this point on, normal. And we have no claim statement to guide us in that. Now do you believe that this declarer thinks the H6 is good ? I don't. > > Jaap > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 10:03 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 > > > >>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. >>> >>> >> >>Do you really think this player rationally ruffed a trick he was >>claiming at the same time ? >>My calling it "showing the SQ" does not alter the facts. I don't >>believe he intended ruffing the diamond trick. Yet he did. >>Now I repeat - if you believe this player was acting rationally, then >>all rulings are back on. But I don't believe this was a rational >>action. So I don't conclude that this player now thinks the H6 is >>high, as some apparently do. >> >> >> >>>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. >>> >>> >> >>But what is the difference between "accidentally dropped" and >>"accidentally played because claimer thought defender had returned a >>heart"? >> >> >> >>>-- >>>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 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Sun Mar 2 11:59:36 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 12:59:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 References: <3E61C8ED.7000307@skynet.be> <000a01c2e09f$870a0d40$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E61EC0B.2060604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201c2e0b3$33d59b80$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman: > OK so maybe it makes a difference as to whether ot not he can take it > back. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about whether it > indicates he thinks the CQ or H6 are good. In that sense, it makes no > difference whatsoever. It is not evidence to that fact, and there are > a number of clues that suggest that he does know the lie of the cards > (his mentioning the DJ as one of the tricks he was intending to make > is a good clue). > At most of these info we can only guess. Claimers reaction to opps objection and a couple of questions by table TD tend to give a lot of info. None is available. In real life people tend to know whether CK is still out. In real life players (given a certain level) at this stage tend to have an idea (and sometimes a pretty good idea) who has the CK. But now the 'soft info', how many clubs are still there, the H6, hand count, count in general. This depends on player level and what happened exactly in hearts and at which stage he could ignore the hearts for trick taking purposes, etc. I don't know and you don't know. As I said before, it is 'irrational' to discuss these kind of endings without bidding and early play (and often the most important, the impression of the table TD). By the way. His mentioning of DJ as trick is for not an indication he knows the lay of the cards. It means he knows DJ is a winner (which is not a big deal most of the time). Having enough winners at a certain stage almost always means people stop counting. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 > Jaap, please, please, please, > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Herman: > > > >>But what is the difference between "accidentally dropped" and > >>"accidentally played because claimer thought defender had returned a > >>heart"? > >> > > > > > > You never stop do you. > > > > "accidentally dropped" means some 'mechanical' error. I also sometimes drop > > some cards. As declarer this doesn't constitute playing that or those cards. > > See 48A. > > > OK, but I am not suggesting he can take it back. > > > > > > "accidentally played" (as used above) has nothing to do with an accident. > > This type of thing happen 1. when you are sure they will play a certain suit > > (here diamonds) and your anticipation/conviction is too strong/quick for you > > to realize they did something else OR 2. you are too lazy or whatever to > > look at the played card carefully enough to see which suit it is. But > > whatever the reason this does constitute playing the card. > > > > > I agree ! > > > > Now in Herman logic this might be no difference, for me and maybe some > > others not playing a card is quite different from playing a card. > > > > > OK so maybe it makes a difference as to whether ot not he can take it > back. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about whether it > indicates he thinks the CQ or H6 are good. In that sense, it makes no > difference whatsoever. It is not evidence to that fact, and there are > a number of clues that suggest that he does know the lie of the cards > (his mentioning the DJ as one of the tricks he was intending to make > is a good clue). > > > > > > Herman: > > > >>Do you really think this player rationally ruffed a trick he was > >>claiming at the same time ? > >> > > > > I do think he thought he was ruffing a heart (the table TD should have > > established that kind of info). Which is silly, careless and all that. Maybe > > even irrational (if we agree on what that means) . It doesn't matter. He did > > so BEFORE the claim. There is no law that gives the TD the right to > > intervene in the play because the TD thinks a player makes an irrational > > play. > > > > > But I am not saying that the TD should interfere in the winning of > this trick. This trick has been won by the SQ, and declarer is in > hand. He never intended to be in hand. In fact, according his claim, > he should have won this trick with the DJ. So the claim statement is > already null and void. > And we need to decide which lines are, from this point on, normal. > And we have no claim statement to guide us in that. > > Now do you believe that this declarer thinks the H6 is good ? > I don't. > > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 10:03 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: claims forever, case n 1 > > > > > > > >>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. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>Do you really think this player rationally ruffed a trick he was > >>claiming at the same time ? > >>My calling it "showing the SQ" does not alter the facts. I don't > >>believe he intended ruffing the diamond trick. Yet he did. > >>Now I repeat - if you believe this player was acting rationally, then > >>all rulings are back on. But I don't believe this was a rational > >>action. So I don't conclude that this player now thinks the H6 is > >>high, as some apparently do. > >> > >> > >> > >>>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. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>But what is the difference between "accidentally dropped" and > >>"accidentally played because claimer thought defender had returned a > >>heart"? > >> > >> > >> > >>>-- > >>>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 > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>blml mailing list > >>blml@rtflb.org > >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22@hotmail.com Sun Mar 2 13:14:44 2003 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 07:14:44 -0600 Subject: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi References: <000101c2dffb$edf2e8a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000e01c2e09e$30fc2240$b04ee150@endicott> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 18:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Perverse and foolish oft I strayed" > [H. W. Baker, 1868] > ============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 2:07 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi > > > > > Roger Pewick > > ......... > > > The purpose of a claim? To resolve the outcome > > > of the remaining tricks perfectly. > > > Sven: > > Sorry, I cannot agree. If the purpose of a claim is to > > resolve the outcome of the remaining tricks perfectly > > this purpose is much better served by playing the > > cards out rather than claiming. > > > +=+ Purpose? I would say that claiming is a resource > or convenience provided in the Laws by which play > may be curtailed. Insofar as a claim has any purpose > it is to foreshorten the play. > Claiming is a tool and the problems associated > with claims are the outcome of the players' bungled > mismanagement of the tool. > ~ G ~ +=+ Et tu? It is the suggestion that play be curtailed by which a claim is recognized to have happened. From Andrzej Kolinski" Message-ID: <000b01c2e0bf$0abc8ea0$be039ad8@default> The _famous_ Polish instruction booklet has the following setup for 8 tables Howell (11 rounds). Hope it may help you. TABLE NS WE 1 16* 1 2 4 15* 3 14* 11 4 10 13* 5 9 8 6 5 7 7 12* 3 8 2 6 (* = stationary) _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Andrzej Kolinski andrzejk@idirect.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: blml Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 5:22 AM Subject: [blml] 8 tables 10 rounds | I need the starting position for a reduced howell or an expanded | mitchell for 16 pairs in 10 rounds (6 stationary pairs). The famous | Swedish book has one of each, but neither of them suits my purpose (I | need one of the remaining two sets of boards to go to a table with a | stationary pair). | | Does anyone have starting positions other than those in the Swedish book? | | -- | 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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Mar 1 14:50:56 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:50:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n 2 References: <003e01c2dfc9$778dfdd0$7850e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000201c2e0f2$edf5c690$02fef1c3@LNV> > > >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. Why? Doesn't everybody (Except Burn > > who would award two)? > > This is a totally fatuous TD call. > > > > cheers john > > > +=+ Maybe David would have declarer lead > small Spade at the second trick and discard > his other Spade on defender's next Club? > ~ G ~ +=+ > What 'may be'? You didn't understand much of the recent discussions, did you? David will let declarer discard his SA. And to be honest, once deciding that declarer should play his S2 in trick 10 I would let him discard that SA also. ton From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 2 21:55:19 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 16:55:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi In-Reply-To: <000101c2dfd5$50b36f40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 3/1/03, Sven Pran wrote: >A very interesting proposal indeed and it really has some merits. Some, perhaps. But the implicit requirement that players should understand what a decision tree is, and how to construct and use one, and to do so at the table, is not one of them. >However, the purpose of claiming is to save time, not to demonstrate >the ability to look ahead. So any claim where it may take more time to >understand and accept the claim than it would have taken simply to >play it out (rapidly) should, and in fact is discouraged by the laws. >(Negative inference from L74B4). Um. Here, you expect players to be able to judge the ability to follow a line of play of opponents whom they may have just met. I am not sure there is any justification for that requirement in the laws, 74B4 included. >This is one of the reasons why we still in Norway do not attempt to >find any "excuse" for awarding the claimer a trick he could lose >because of some silly but still possible error on his part. Apparently >we are among the more restrictive interpreters of Law 70. Norwegian methods do have the advantage of simplicity. I think I like them, but frankly my mind is awhirl trying to get a handle on all these arguments. I may start another thread. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 2 21:39:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 16:39:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: On 3/1/03, Sven Pran wrote: >If you sign an agreement with somebody you have that agreement even if >you are unaware of some of the details it may include do you not? Does the law of contracts really have anything to do with this discussion? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Mar 2 23:53:17 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:53:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] What system do you play? Message-ID: <4A256CDD.00814C1A.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 ~ +=+ Richard Hills wrote: >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 John (MadDog) Probst wrote: RHO - "OK, I reserve my rights; 'Double'" ... and now it gets interesting, as the TD will unscramble until MY pard has called, and I can have a meta-quasi-agreement about withdrawing the double. I think we should work on this :) btw since I'm using hotmail in some godforsaken corner of friggin' Oz this is direct to you and if you want to put it back to blml, then fine. DogPack World Tour ! john probst, maxine etkin mail to john@asimere.com will be forwarded From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Mar 2 16:46:11 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 16:46:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] (blml) Ivory Tower References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030225155444.00aa6680@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002101c2e10e$d465fa80$4549e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Hans-Olof Hallén" ; Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] (blml) Ivory Tower < Even *knowing* somebody opened doesn't help you. < +=+ But to know there must be at least twelve HCP in at least one of the four hands of the board can assist at times the play of the cards. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 2 22:46:31 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 17:46:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n In-Reply-To: <200303011938.OAA13687@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 3/1/03, Steve Willner wrote: >On balance, I think the minute refers only to _unestablished_ revokes. Agreed. >Thus it appears to me we don't have clear guidance in the case you >give. Um. The case Sven gave did not say whether the revoke was established. In fact, my inference is that it is not, because that is the interesting case. If the revoke is established, we *do* have clear guidance. The play of the revoke card (and subsequent plays) cannot be corrected - that play stands, and the revoke is adjudicated according to the applicable laws. If the TD judges that he cannot subsequently adjudicate the *claim* equitably, he has Law 64C available. >I also don't think it clear what the rules ought to be. For my purposes, that is irrelevant. I am concerned with what they *are*. :-) >Of course if there is doubt about some part of the claim having >nothing to do with the revoke, that much gets resolved against claimer >in the normal way. Does it? As I said in another post, that is probably what the LC intended, but it is not what the minute *says*. >But what if there is doubt about the revoke penalty? On the one hand, >I don't like letting revokers get away with a one-trick penalty in >cases where they would probably have paid a two-trick penalty if the >hand had been played out. On the other hand, I don't like to see a >claim deny the revoking side their fair chance to hold the penalty to >one trick if they could have managed that. You have a line of play. If, by that line of play, the conditions for a two trick penalty are met, then a two trick penalty it is. If they are not met, one trick. If it is unclear whether the conditions are met, then I suppose the TD has to use his best judgement. I think even after application of the claims laws, Law 64C is still available. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 2 22:24:44 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 17:24:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n In-Reply-To: <005901c2e016$4057e680$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: On 3/1/03, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Where might one find those minutes. On David Stevenson's Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 2 22:22:03 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 17:22:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n In-Reply-To: <200303011459.JAA11541@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 3/1/03, Steve Willner wrote: >There is, however, an exception when a revoke is followed by a claim. >This was one of the WBFLC minutes. I think it may have been from >Maastricht, but I'm not sure. Anyway, in this sort of case, according >to the WBFLC, doubtful points are resolved against the revoker. > >I don't remember whether the minute specifically covers a concession >with no claim, but I don't see why the principle would differ. >> Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee >> held in Bermuda on 12th January 2000. [snip] >>3 The committee gave its attention to Law 63A3 and noted that if a >>defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender >>disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the revoke has >>not been established. The Director must allow correction of the >>revoke and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, >>adjudicating any margin of doubt against the revoker. It seems the governing principle is that the revoke is not established because "there is no acquiescence". According to Law 69A "Acquiescence occurs when a contestant assents to an opponent's claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on a subsequent board, or before the round ends." I would think it highly unlikely that a defender would not acquiesce to declarer's concession of the remaining tricks (absent the case where a highly ethical player is aware of the revoke). Nor would a declarer, unaware of the revoke, likely object to a defender's concession - though his partner might (Law 68B). If there is acquiescence, of course, then the revoke is established, and the TD must deal with that as well as with the concession. In that case, however, the condition specified in the minute does not apply. No matter - when the revoke is established, Law 64C applies. Of course, if there is no acquiescence, then the condition in the minute is met, and I agree with Steve - the principle should apply to concessions as well as claims. I wonder if the LC would concur? :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 2 22:30:52 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 17:30:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] claims forever, case n + n In-Reply-To: <000e01c2e026$26eed2c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 3/1/03, Sven Pran wrote: >Do you happen to remember whether this would apply even in the case the >revoke has absolutely no effect on the claim and all doubt arises from >an incomplete claim statement? The text of the minute has been posted already, but just for completeness: >>3 The committee gave its attention to Law 63A3 and noted that if a >>defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender >>disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the revoke has >>not been established. The Director must allow correction of the >>revoke and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, >>adjudicating any margin of doubt against the revoker. Hm. Note "*any* margin of doubt". [Emphasis mine]. I do not think it was the committee's intent that this minute would apply in the case you cite, but that isn't what it says. From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Mar 2 23:51:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 23:51 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Horrible revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > > You have been given corrected information and you assert you might have > done something different. Not willing to take a stand after getting > correct information?????? Assuming the MI is corrected after the auction (which of course it won't be if I am declarer) then one player on my side gets a chance to change their final bid and (assuming that isn't appropriate) then the TD tells us to call him back at the end of the hand if I believe I have been damaged. No further questions until then, no taking me away from the table and asking me to hypothesise in the middle of the hand. Is that not the normal process? > > Indeed. But MI deprived me of the opportunity to do that. > > Well, that doesn't mean that at the point the MI is corrected that the > player can't assert what he would have done as if it were the first time > around- instead of giving a menu of possibilities. It doesn't mean he can't, but personally I expect players to tell the truth. If, with AI, he would have had a close decision between two reasonable choices then that is what he should say. Would that I could find an effective approach to bidding where such close choices were eliminated - sadly I can't. Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 3 00:59:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:59:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] To ask or not ask? Message-ID: <4A256CDE.00038EBD.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Ed Reppert wrote: >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. Score adjustment is *not* automatic under ABF Alert Regs, which require South to often protect themself with an enquiry. (The WBF has a similar "protect yourself" clause in their Alert Regs.) >Question: is there not an element of intent >in the meaning of "communicate" in this law? If South always intends to double 3D if West's answer to South's enquiry is "splinter", then South is not intending to communicate UI which is different from the immediately subsequent AI. Does South's enquiry in this second case contain: a) no infraction of Law 73A1 - zero UI? b) a temporary infraction of Law 73A1 - UI from the query, which is then immediately overwritten by AI from the double? c) always an infraction of Law 73A1 - UI parallel with identical AI? As TD, my ruling would be option a), no infraction by South in this case. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 3 04:08:54 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:08:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke evoked Message-ID: <4A256CDE.0014DB23.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In "claims forever, case n+n", Steve Willner wrote: >The TD doesn't have to believe villainy at all. If >the second revoke produces an extra trick for the >revoking side, no matter how, the TD should use >L64C and adjust. No need for "could have known" or >any other complications; just a simple question of >whether a trick was gained or not. > >Of course "gained" should be judged with respect >to the position at the instant prior to the second >revoke. This includes the revoke penalty the NOS >have coming. > >Why would you ever want to give a player who revokes >twice a better score than one who revokes only once? Neither Ton nor I want to. However, I believe that Law 64C is an inadequate remedy. My reading (and presumably Ton's reading) of Law 64C is that "the revoke penalty the NOS have coming" is not included in the assignment of an adjusted score. An assigned adjusted score is in the place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity. (Law 12C2) No result is yet actually obtained at the point after the first revoke but before the second revoke. Therefore, I believe that any Law 64C AssAS would have to be based on the removal of both revokes. This leaves the TD forced to go for "could have known" complications, if the TD wishes to rule against a double revoker in this rare situation where the second revoke retrieves one of the penalty tricks that the first revoke evoked. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 3 04:32:35 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:32:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bypassing passouts Message-ID: <4A256CDE.001706A5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I asked: >>Can the *different method* mentioned under Law 6E4 >>legally be a non-random method, as McManus implies? Robert E. Harris counter-asked: >Is this not a clear-cut violation of Law 6A? I counter-counter-ask: Does the Law 6E4 *different method* mean that Law 6E4 is a specific exception to Law 6A? (It is difficult to imagine the second sentence of Law 6A applying to a computer-dealt deal.) As well as one Aussie club rigging computer deals to bypass passouts, more Aussie clubs have rigged their computer deals to ensure that all four players get the same high card point total in a session. So therefore, which has primacy, Law 6D2 or Law 6E4? Does the prohibition of a *sorted deck* take primacy over a *different method* being permitted, or vice versa? Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 3 04:31:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 05:31:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bypassing passouts In-Reply-To: <4A256CDE.001706A5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000001c2e13d$b28c77c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > As well as one Aussie club rigging computer deals to > bypass passouts, more Aussie clubs have rigged their > computer deals to ensure that all four players get > the same high card point total in a session. Not bothering to discuss Law 6 I must only point out that this is a serious error when dealing the cards. By keeping records of the previous boards in the session I shall now be able to tell exactly the strength of my partner's as well as each of my opponent's hands on the last board. Can it be true that presumed serious clubs are unaware of such errors? Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 3 04:44:04 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 05:44:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2e13f$8510b890$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On 3/1/03, Sven Pran wrote: > > >If you sign an agreement with somebody you have that agreement even if > >you are unaware of some of the details it may include do you not? > > Does the law of contracts really have anything to do with this > discussion? Well, how do you define the term "agreement"? I don't need the law of contracts to assume that if I agree with my partner to play the system described in Goren's "Bridge in a nutshell" I cannot afterwards say for instance: "Oh, I thought a 2D response to a 1NT opening bid was transfer to hearts, I always use it that way" Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 3 06:32:54 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:32:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law of contracts bridge (was Horrible?) Message-ID: <4A256CDE.00220AF9.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >Well, how do you define the term "agreement"? >I don't need the law of contracts to assume that >if I agree with my partner to play the system >described in Goren's "Bridge in a nutshell" I >cannot afterwards say for instance: "Oh, I >thought a 2D response to a 1NT opening bid was >transfer to hearts, I always use it that way" > >Sven If "Bridge in a nutshell" defined a 2D response to 1NT was natural, and one member of the partnership believed that a 2D response to 1NT was natural *but* the other member of the partnership believed that "Bridge in a nutshell" defined a 2D response to 1NT as a transfer, *then* the partnership does not have an agreement. What Goren actually wrote is irrelevant - the law of contracts maxim is "ignorance is no excuse", but the law of bridge maxim is "ignorance means no agreement". Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 3 06:12:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:12:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law of contracts bridge (was Horrible?) In-Reply-To: <4A256CDE.00220AF9.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000201c2e14b$cf923ea0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Subject: RE: [blml] Law of contracts bridge (was Horrible?) > >Well, how do you define the term "agreement"? > >I don't need the law of contracts to assume that > >if I agree with my partner to play the system > >described in Goren's "Bridge in a nutshell" I > >cannot afterwards say for instance: "Oh, I > >thought a 2D response to a 1NT opening bid was > >transfer to hearts, I always use it that way" > > > >Sven > > If "Bridge in a nutshell" defined a 2D response > to 1NT was natural, and one member of the > partnership believed that a 2D response to 1NT > was natural *but* the other member of the > partnership believed that "Bridge in a nutshell" > defined a 2D response to 1NT as a transfer, > *then* the partnership does not have an > agreement. What Goren actually wrote is > irrelevant - the law of contracts maxim is > "ignorance is no excuse", but the law of bridge > maxim is "ignorance means no agreement". Excuse me ????? The partnership has agreed to call according to "Bridge in a nutshell", but one of the partners is unaware of the complete contents of this book. So now you say that they do not have an agreement? On what basis do you say this (Precise reference to a duplicate contract bridge law or official comment please!). If you ask the players in question they will both answer: "Sure we have an agreement, it is the famous book by Charles Goren". Do you accuse them of lying because one of them remembers the book incorrectly? And why is what Goren wrote in that book irrelevant? Do you consider it irrelevant what I have written in my CC? If not please tell me the principal difference between the system description in a book written by Goren and the system description in a CC written by me. Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Mar 3 07:28:59 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:28:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law of contracts bridge (was Horrible?) References: <4A256CDE.00220AF9.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000201c2e156$fb5899c0$c042e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 6:32 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law of contracts bridge (was Horrible?) > > > >Well, how do you define the term "agreement"? > >I don't need the law of contracts to assume that > >if I agree with my partner to play the system > >described in Goren's "Bridge in a nutshell" I > >cannot afterwards say for instance: "Oh, I > >thought a 2D response to a 1NT opening bid was > >transfer to hearts, I always use it that way" > > > >Sven > > If "Bridge in a nutshell" defined a 2D response > to 1NT was natural, and one member of the > partnership believed that a 2D response to 1NT > was natural *but* the other member of the > partnership believed that "Bridge in a nutshell" > defined a 2D response to 1NT as a transfer, > *then* the partnership does not have an > agreement. What Goren actually wrote is > irrelevant - the law of contracts maxim is > "ignorance is no excuse", but the law of bridge > maxim is "ignorance means no agreement". > > Best wishes > > Richard > +=+ And to disclose an agreed meaning that is not agreed is MI. +=+ From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 3 08:07:19 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:07:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law of contracts bridge (was Horrible?) In-Reply-To: <000201c2e156$fb5899c0$c042e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000001c2e15b$ed36a490$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott > > >Well, how do you define the term "agreement"? > > >I don't need the law of contracts to assume that > > >if I agree with my partner to play the system > > >described in Goren's "Bridge in a nutshell" I > > >cannot afterwards say for instance: "Oh, I > > >thought a 2D response to a 1NT opening bid was > > >transfer to hearts, I always use it that way" > > > > > >Sven > > > > If "Bridge in a nutshell" defined a 2D response > > to 1NT was natural, and one member of the > > partnership believed that a 2D response to 1NT > > was natural *but* the other member of the > > partnership believed that "Bridge in a nutshell" > > defined a 2D response to 1NT as a transfer, > > *then* the partnership does not have an > > agreement. What Goren actually wrote is > > irrelevant - the law of contracts maxim is > > "ignorance is no excuse", but the law of bridge > > maxim is "ignorance means no agreement". > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard > > > +=+ And to disclose an agreed meaning that is not > agreed is MI. +=+ So please consider when my partner and I have "agreed" to call according to "Bridge in a Nutshell" without any exceptions. I happen to know that book from cover to cover (not to say that I use it myself in the real life). I open with 1NT, my partner bids 2D which I on request explains as weak and signoff (being demonstrably correct, just look it up). My partner at the correct opportunity informs opponents that in his opinion it is a transfer call for hearts. Are you now going to rule mistaken bid by partner or misinformation by me? A similar situation exists whenever a partnership has "agreed" on a certain convention but one of them occasionally forgets this agreement. The agreement itself cannot be disputed, it has been written down, it can be witnessed by the entire membership of the club etc. etc. Do you rule mistaken call or misinformation if the player in question does not admit his lousy memory? Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 3 13:38:31 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 14:38:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bypassing passouts In-Reply-To: <4A256CDB.00138DC7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030303143735.00abf450@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:54 28/02/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au 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. AG : you mean that Aussies never pass a 12-point hand ? Come on, Al, teach them ! From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 3 13:51:16 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 14:51:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030303144152.00a20df0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:55 1/03/2003 +0100, J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: >A claim statement can be represented by a decision tree. The branches of= the >tree correspond to the opponents' alternative actions. The claimer's= actions >must be unambigously determined by the opponents' play. If this tree has= any >complexity at all, say 4 or more branches, the formulation of a clear claim >statement becomes difficult and it is usually easier to play on than to >claim. > >Suppose we distinguish several different kinds of declarer's claims. The >type of claim allowed should be specified in the Conditions of Contest and >never ad hoc by a director. For example: > >1. A simple claim is described by a trivial decision tree with no branch >points. >To make such a claim a player states 'I have a simple claim for N tricks' >and then unambiguously indicates the order in which he intends to play his >cards; for example, he may table his cards one by one in the order of >proposed play, indicating a card played from dummy for each trick when this >matters. A simple claim thus may include the concession of a number of >tricks, provided the conceded tricks are played last. > >2. A complex claim is described by a decision tree with no more than one >branch point. The claim procedure is identical to (1) except that at one >point play may depend upon the action of an opponent. Thus a complex claim >may include a losing >finesse, a simple squeeze etc, but not, for example, a progressive squeeze. > >3. An expert claim is described by a decision tree of arbitrary complexity. >An expert claim implies merely that there is a line of play leading to the >stated number of tricks, consistent with prior play, and apparent to any >competent card player; the opponents agree to accept these claims provided >such a line demonstrably exists. The claim statement can be quite cursory >but should include a reference to any subtleties that might not be >immediately apparent. > >If the indicated line in case (1) and (2) leads to the loss of a trick that >was not accounted for in the claim statement then all subsequent tricks are >lost. AG : your taxonomy will be useful, but the above sentence is tragic. It=20 means that you'll lose all remaining tricks even when all possible lines,=20 including absurd ones, will give you them. xxx xx - - xxx AQJ AK xx - - - - Kxx xx - - I've forgotten that the SK is still out, and claim (type 1). The TD decides= =20 (rightly) that I may be deemed to play AK/H, SA, SQ, and lose to the King.= =20 However, South has only a spade to return. Or I might be deemed to play=20 spades first. Once again, south can only give me the remainder of the= tricks. In the present state of things, I'm awarded 4 tricks, and quite logically=20 so (also if the SK is onside). You want me to lose a second trick. May I=20 ask you why ? (the answer would be different if South was 2-3 in the majors) Best regards, Alain. =20 From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 3 13:53:25 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 14:53:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi In-Reply-To: References: <000101c2dfd5$50b36f40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030303145203.00abc250@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:59 1/03/2003 -0600, Sven wrote: > >So any claim where it may take more time to >understand and accept the claim than it would have taken simply to play >it out (rapidly) should, and in fact is discouraged by the laws. >(Negative inference from L74B4) >This is one of the reasons why we still in Norway do not attempt to find >any "excuse" for awarding the claimer a trick he could lose because of >some silly but still possible error on his part. Apparently we are among >the more restrictive interpreters of Law 70. AG : no qualms with that, but Jurgen want to disallow to the (imperfect) claimer tricks that he might not lose. I don't like this. From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 3 13:54:34 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:54:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030303145203.00abc250@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000301c2e18c$6c2b6710$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner > At 07:59 1/03/2003 -0600, Sven wrote: > > > >So any claim where it may take more time to > >understand and accept the claim than it would have taken simply to play > >it out (rapidly) should, and in fact is discouraged by the laws. > >(Negative inference from L74B4) > >This is one of the reasons why we still in Norway do not attempt to find > >any "excuse" for awarding the claimer a trick he could lose because of > >some silly but still possible error on his part. Apparently we are among > >the more restrictive interpreters of Law 70. > > > AG : no qualms with that, but Jurgen want to disallow to the (imperfect) > claimer tricks that he might not lose. I don't like this. Don't like it? I don't accept it: Law 71A by analogue. Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 3 15:45:04 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:45:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] revoke evoked Message-ID: <200303031545.KAA19797@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > My reading (and presumably Ton's reading) of Law 64C > is that "the revoke penalty the NOS have coming" is > not included in the assignment of an adjusted score. I don't see why. Neither does the Code of Practice, which defines damage with respect to the expected result immediately prior to any infraction. It's true that if you adjust a score to an entirely different contract, you won't normally include a revoke. However, where you are adjusting _because_ of a revoke (L64C), I don't see why you wouldn't take an earlier revoke into account. As you can see, this procedure gives a very sensible and desirable outcome, while your alternative does not. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 3 17:53:32 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:53:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] To ask or not ask? Message-ID: On 3/3/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote, in reply to me: >>Question: is there not an element of intent >>in the meaning of "communicate" in this law? >If South always intends to double 3D if West's >answer to South's enquiry is "splinter", then >South is not intending to communicate UI which >is different from the immediately subsequent AI. I take it then that your answer to my question is "yes". :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 3 17:48:01 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:48:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] To ask or not ask? In-Reply-To: <4A256CDE.00038EBD.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: [Copied for info and comment if desired to Mike Flader (rulings@acbl.org)] On 3/3/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Score adjustment is *not* automatic under ABF >Alert Regs, which require South to often protect >themself with an enquiry. (The WBF has a >similar "protect yourself" clause in their Alert >Regs.) Heh. I found this in the ACBL General Conditions of Contest: >>Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their >>opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be >>expected to protect themselves. So I suppose the ACBL also requires some players to "protect themselves". The problems I have with this are (a) I suppose that the TD must ask "did you know it should have been alerted?" and if the player says "no" this regulation does not apply, while if he says "yes" it does. What if he says "I wasn't sure"?* (b) It doesn't say *how* players are supposed to protect themselves. In the ABF, it appears they're supposed to act as if the call *had* been alerted - ie, ask questions specifically about that call. But this ACBL regulation doesn't specify, which I suppose means we're left with Law 20, which makes it illegal to pinpoint a specific call, and requires a request for explanation of the entire auction. (c) As a very minor additional nit, the regulation doesn't address the possibility that a player knows the call is alertable because he looked at their convention card - or does that fall under "experience or expertise"? :-) * The point of this is that the regulation doesn't say that the TD should, or may, make a judgement call that a player is "good enough" that he should have known and protected himself - though I would not be at all surprised to see it done that way. As an additional question, how do we educate players that the general rule is specified in Law 20 - ie, that questions about individual calls are verboten - and that the procedure of asking about a specific *alerted* call is an exception to the Law 20 requirement? And btw, under what law is the exception allowed, again? :-) From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Mar 3 18:48:47 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:48:47 -0600 Subject: [blml] Bypassing passouts In-Reply-To: <4A256CDE.001706A5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256CDE.001706A5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >I asked: > >>>Can the *different method* mentioned under Law 6E4 >>>legally be a non-random method, as McManus implies? > >Robert E. Harris counter-asked: > >>Is this not a clear-cut violation of Law 6A? > >I counter-counter-ask: > >Does the Law 6E4 *different method* mean that Law 6E4 >is a specific exception to Law 6A? (It is difficult >to imagine the second sentence of Law 6A applying to >a computer-dealt deal.) > >As well as one Aussie club rigging computer deals to >bypass passouts, more Aussie clubs have rigged their >computer deals to ensure that all four players get >the same high card point total in a session. > >So therefore, which has primacy, Law 6D2 or Law 6E4? >Does the prohibition of a *sorted deck* take primacy >over a *different method* being permitted, or vice >versa? > >Best wishes > >Richard > A couple of times a year the ACBL has an instant match-point game, using hands selected (?) from tournaments held years ago. I suspect the hands are not just those played in a single late round of the Blue Ribbon Pairs, say. If they are indeed selected, then they are not thoroughly shuffled in any real sense, and anyway, they have been played in a previous session, so they violate Law 6D2, at least I think they do. (I go right along playing in these events when I could march around with a picket sign at the entrance.) REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 3 18:44:15 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:44:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law of contracts bridge (was Horrible?) In-Reply-To: <000201c2e156$fb5899c0$c042e150@endicott> Message-ID: On 3/3/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ And to disclose an agreed meaning that is not >agreed is MI. +=+ Perhaps "to assert as agreed a meaning that has not in fact been agreed is MI". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 3 18:41:49 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:41:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <000101c2e13f$8510b890$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 3/3/03, Sven Pran wrote: >Well, how do you define the term "agreement"? Well, Merriam-Webster Online says "the act of agreeing", and then defines "agree" as "to concur in". And "concur" as "to act together to a common end or single effect". >I don't need the law of contracts to assume that if I agree with my >partner to play the system described in Goren's "Bridge in a nutshell" >I cannot afterwards say for instance: "Oh, I thought a 2D response to >a 1NT opening bid was transfer to hearts, I always use it that way" Then why did you bring it (the law of contracts) up? :-) And don't claim I'm the one who did - the post in which I specifically mentioned it was a reply to a post in which you did bring it up - albeit implicitly rather than explicitly. I take your point, though, I think - a player who agrees to play a particular system, but does not check with his partner to ensure that their understandings of that system are the same, has still agreed to play that system. But it would seem to me that in the case you cite above, what has happened is misbid (assuming the player speaking bid 2D) rather than misinformation. OTOH, if his partner bid 2D, and he alerted (or, in the ACBL, announced "transfer") it's misinformation. Are we on the same wavelength? From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 3 19:42:19 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:42:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2e1bd$00f6fb90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On 3/3/03, Sven Pran wrote: > > >Well, how do you define the term "agreement"? > > Well, Merriam-Webster Online says "the act of agreeing", and then > defines "agree" as "to concur in". And "concur" as "to act together to a > common end or single effect". > > >I don't need the law of contracts to assume that if I agree with my > >partner to play the system described in Goren's "Bridge in a nutshell" > >I cannot afterwards say for instance: "Oh, I thought a 2D response to > >a 1NT opening bid was transfer to hearts, I always use it that way" > > Then why did you bring it (the law of contracts) up? :-) And don't claim > I'm the one who did - the post in which I specifically mentioned it was > a reply to a post in which you did bring it up - albeit implicitly > rather than explicitly. My words in that note were exactly (fetched from my own archive of received blml notes): "If you sign an agreement with somebody you have that agreement even if you are unaware of some of the details it may include do you not?" Not any word mentioning contracts or law of contracts here, explicitly or implicitly. To which you wrote: "Does the law of contracts really have anything to do with this discussion?" So I suggest we leave the question on who brought ..... just there. > > I take your point, though, I think - a player who agrees to play a > particular system, but does not check with his partner to ensure that > their understandings of that system are the same, has still agreed to > play that system. But it would seem to me that in the case you cite > above, what has happened is misbid (assuming the player speaking bid 2D) > rather than misinformation. OTOH, if his partner bid 2D, and he alerted > (or, in the ACBL, announced "transfer") it's misinformation. Are we on > the same wavelength? Yes, as far as I can see - exactly. And let me ask: I understand something called SAYC ("Standard American Yellow Card" is it?) is widely known and used in the US. If you meet a casual partner and you agree to play SAYC (which indeed was the "agreement" that started all this): Do you then work yourself through the complete SAYC system with your partner to make certain you both have the same understanding on everything specified in SAYC? Every time you meet a new partner with whom you agree on SAYC? If you claim "yes" then I regret to say I don't believe you, at least not if SAYC is what I believe it is. Regards Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Mar 3 21:53:41 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:53:41 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Ed Reppert wrote: > On 3/1/03, Sven Pran wrote: > > >If you sign an agreement with somebody you have that agreement even if > >you are unaware of some of the details it may include do you not? > > Does the law of contracts really have anything to do with this > discussion? Yes! Well, sort of. This is something that comes up quite often in online bridge, actually. Consider the following auction: You LHO Pard RHO 1D 3S X Pass 4H Pass Pass Pass If you announce you play standard, all will be well: most everyone knows that partner's double is likely negative but a few pairs play it as penalty, and either he will annouce its meaning in a private chat to your opps or they will ask if they want to know. If, however, you announce your system as SAYC with no additional comment, you will get a near-automatic misinformation adjustment against you from me if your opponents missed a paying sacrifice in 4S. "SAYC with __, __, and __" for a system explanation is fine, or even SAYC with all of the deviations from SAYC explained when they come up... but if all you say is "SAYC", your opponents, who know that the yellow card specifies negative doubles to 2S, have every right to assume that double is penalty, and no reason to ask about it (as they might do if you just said SA.) GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 3 22:39:52 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:39:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: <000101c2e1bd$00f6fb90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 3/3/03, Sven Pran wrote: >Yes, as far as I can see - exactly. Okay, good. >And let me ask: I understand something called SAYC ("Standard American >Yellow Card" is it?) is widely known and used in the US. Um. SAYC was an attempt to define a complete system which would be use in events in which everyone would be required to play precisely that system, as defined on the pre-printed yellow card and in the accompanying system booklet. This was some years ago; I don't know exactly when, as I was not playing in the ACBL then. Later, the system was adopted (possibly with some modifications) by Okbridge as an acceptable "standard" system for online play. Today, I don't think many people know about or use the system *unless* they play online. I could be mistaken of course, but that's my impression. >If you meet a casual partner and you agree to play SAYC (which indeed >was the "agreement" that started all this): > >Do you then work yourself through the complete SAYC system with your >partner to make certain you both have the same understanding on >everything specified in SAYC? > >Every time you meet a new partner with whom you agree on SAYC? > >If you claim "yes" then I regret to say I don't believe you, at least >not if SAYC is what I believe it is. Well, in the first place, I have met *one* partner in the last several years who started our system discussion with "I play SAYC". I then said "Okay, then you play Jacoby 2NT, right?" She responded "What's Jacoby 2NT?" :-) In view of that experience, if I *do* run across a new partner who wants to play SAYC, then yes, I will ask further questions to confirm our understanding is the same. Now, if you still want to call me a liar, you go right ahead. As a side note, that meeting was over a year ago, I am still playing with that partner, and we are still not playing Jacoby 2NT. So, in fact, we aren't playing SAYC either, and never have. From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 3 23:09:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:09:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c2e1da$022ae180$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ......... > >Do you then work yourself through the complete SAYC system with your > >partner to make certain you both have the same understanding on > >everything specified in SAYC? > > > >Every time you meet a new partner with whom you agree on SAYC? > > > >If you claim "yes" then I regret to say I don't believe you, at least > >not if SAYC is what I believe it is. > > Well, in the first place, I have met *one* partner in the last several > years who started our system discussion with "I play SAYC". I then said > "Okay, then you play Jacoby 2NT, right?" She responded "What's Jacoby > 2NT?" :-) In view of that experience, if I *do* run across a new partner > who wants to play SAYC, then yes, I will ask further questions to > confirm our understanding is the same. Now, if you still want to call me > a liar, you go right ahead. No, after that explanation on SAYC, and your experience with it I trust you will never dare agree upon SAYC without verifying that your partner knows all the implications! (For one thing: SAYC apparently isn't what I thought). Is there some other system instead of SAYC that could serve for my argument? What I am looking for is a system that "everybody" would consider so well known and defined that just naming it is sufficient - until one day they suddenly discover that not everybody have the same understanding on everything in the system. And now I feel like repeating my questions on rehearsing the "agreed" upon system with a casual partner. Do they or don't they? I still feel like claiming most players don't, they want to go ahead with the game? Regards Sven From bbickford@charter.net Tue Mar 4 01:24:37 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:24:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <000201c2e1da$022ae180$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <044301c2e1ec$d25d0c40$6c177244@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" > Is there some other system instead of SAYC that could serve for my > argument? What I am looking for is a system that "everybody" would > consider so well known and defined that just naming it is sufficient - > until one day they suddenly discover that not everybody have the same > understanding on everything in the system. > > And now I feel like repeating my questions on rehearsing the "agreed" > upon system with a casual partner. Do they or don't they? I still feel > like claiming most players don't, they want to go ahead with the game? > > Regards Sven I believe that the initial version of SAYC from maybe 30 years ago did not include Jacoby 2NT (had it even been devised???). I would doubt you could find any system in any country which would qualify under your conditions. I am sure, for example, that many people would agree to play Goren, but never open a 4 card major. Any system requires extensive investigation before two players can really be playing the same system. Everybody makes some modification(s) which they then convince themselves is standard!! Cheers........................................../Bill Bickford From jurgenr@t-online.de Tue Mar 4 13:50:55 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:50:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi Message-ID: >If the indicated line in case (1) and (2) leads to the loss of a trick that >was not accounted for in the claim statement then all subsequent tricks are >lost. AG : your taxonomy will be useful, but the above sentence is tragic. means that you'll lose all remaining tricks even when all possible lines, including absurd ones, will give you them. ======================================================================== The argument in favor of such a rule is simplicity. Simplicity is the mother of all virtues. However, it makes no sense to debate such details unless there is agreement on the underlying principle, namely that in some cases different rules for different contests can resolve some of the muddle. Claims at the Wednesday game of the Women's Literary Union simply are not - and should not be - the same kind of thing as claims at the Bermuda Bowl. What I find astonishing is the notion that the TD should ever take into account the level of competence of a player. First, because it can lead to apparent favoritism; second, because the TD is thus required to perform miracles of analysis; third, because the TD may well not know the player. Of course, such suggestions immediately put into question the hallowed 'principle of equity', which is the fundamental weakness of these laws. Jürgen From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Mar 4 13:51:02 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:51:02 GMT Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation Message-ID: <3e64af46.186a.0@esatclear.ie> LAW 49 - EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER=92S CARDS Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a defender=92s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, (penalty) each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to Law 68 when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress I was declaring in 6D. The opening lead HA is ruffed and the DA is played from the table at trick 2. Rho follows but Lho discards the S10. It does not hit the table. My estimate is that it was held at about a 30 - 40 degree angle. She takes it back and discards the H3. I say I've seen the 1st card. We call the Td. He asks did RHO see the card. She says no but admits it was black in clour. The Td rules no infraction. Now There happened to be a spectator present who was sitting behind dummy to the the left (on Lho's side). Both Dummy and the spectator would have been able to name the card. IMO - I think the TD should have verified that 4 out of the 5 people at the table were able to indentify the card. While Rho was not able to identify the card value, Rho was able to state it was a club or spade. This IMO is pretty hairline stuff. Law 49 surely leaves itself open to a "oh I blinked and didn't see pd's card" type scenario or dare I say a blatant lie (not refering to this case as I believe RHO to be a truthful individual). Surely the reference to its "Face" should be better defined and changed to any information at all regarding the card played ?? Lastly - take the scenario that the Td is called and Dummy states at the table what card was in LHO's hand. Clearly he shouldn't. What now ?? K. -- http://www.iol.ie From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 4 16:03:29 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:03:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Horrible? Message-ID: <200303041603.LAA26039@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Bill Bickford" > I believe that the initial version of SAYC from maybe 30 years ago did not > include Jacoby 2NT I didn't realize SAYC had ever been revised since its initial release. I am sure it included Jacoby, but we all know what my memory is worth. If anyone remembers the initial release date, I can check the ACBL Bulletin. > (had it even been devised???). Oh, Bill, you must be so young. I'd guess Jacoby 2NT is vintage 1940's, but does anyone know for sure? From Martin@SPASE.NL Tue Mar 4 16:21:21 2003 From: Martin@SPASE.NL (Martin Sinot) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:21:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation Message-ID: <90A058367F88D61198670050045469150401C4@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> > -----Original Message----- > From: Karel [mailto:karel@esatclear.ie] > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 14:51 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation > > > > LAW 49 - EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER'S CARDS > Except in the normal course of play or application of law, > when a defender's > card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see > its face, or when > a defender names a card as being in his hand, (penalty) each > such card becomes > a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to Law 68 when > a defender has > made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress > > > I was declaring in 6D. The opening lead HA is ruffed and the > DA is played from > the table at trick 2. Rho follows but Lho discards the S10. > It does not hit > the table. My estimate is that it was held at about a 30 - > 40 degree angle. > She takes it back and discards the H3. I say I've seen the > 1st card. We call > the Td. He asks did RHO see the card. She says no but > admits it was black > in clour. The Td rules no infraction. ?!? RHO clearly saw the card and there was no infraction? > Now There happened to be a spectator present who was sitting > behind dummy to > the the left (on Lho's side). Both Dummy and the spectator > would have been > able to name the card. > > > IMO - I think the TD should have verified that 4 out of the 5 > people at the > table were able to indentify the card. While Rho was not > able to identify the > card value, Rho was able to state it was a club or spade. > This IMO is pretty > hairline stuff. > > Law 49 surely leaves itself open to a "oh I blinked and > didn't see pd's card" > type scenario or dare I say a blatant lie (not refering to > this case as I believe > RHO to be a truthful individual). Surely the reference to > its "Face" should > be better defined and changed to any information at all > regarding the card played > ?? Asking RHO whether she saw the card does not work. You have no way to ascertain the truth of that statement. But more important, it is the wrong question. It is not important whether anybody at or around the table actually saw the card. TD must check whether RHO "could possibly see the face of the card". That can be done by letting LHO repeat the movement, using some open card as an example. This can be verified by the opponents, and from that movement it is not too difficult to judge whether RHO could have seen it. This effectively shuts out blinking, not paying attention and the like from RHO. > > Lastly - take the scenario that the Td is called and Dummy > states at the table > what card was in LHO's hand. Clearly he shouldn't. What now ?? See above. You can still verify whether RHO could have seen the card. Only now you will have to explain L16 to the table, and possible give a PP to dummy. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From adam@irvine.com Tue Mar 4 16:28:18 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:28:18 -0800 Subject: [blml] Horrible? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Mar 2003 11:03:29 EST." <200303041603.LAA26039@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200303041628.IAA19774@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Bill Bickford" > > I believe that the initial version of SAYC from maybe 30 years ago did not > > include Jacoby 2NT > > I didn't realize SAYC had ever been revised since its initial release. > I am sure it included Jacoby, but we all know what my memory is worth. > If anyone remembers the initial release date, I can check the ACBL > Bulletin. The "ACBL Standard Yellow Card System Booklet" that I downloaded many years ago says "Revised September, 1988". The initial version can't have been much before that. I'm trying to remember when the first (and only) Yellow Card event was held at an NABC, but my memory is coming up short; it must have been right around that time, though. -- Adam From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 4 16:52:48 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:52:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation Message-ID: <200303041652.LAA26147@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Martin Sinot > That can be done by letting LHO repeat the movement, > using some open card as an example. This can be verified by > the opponents, and from that movement it is not too difficult > to judge whether RHO could have seen it. This effectively > shuts out blinking, not paying attention and the like > from RHO. Kaplan once wrote something to the effect "In the entire history of bridge, no defender has ever seen his partner's card." As Martin says, the right question is whether he could have seen the face of the card, given the position the card was in. > > Lastly - take the scenario that the Td is called and Dummy > > states at the table > > what card was in LHO's hand. Clearly he shouldn't. What now ?? > > See above. You can still verify whether RHO could have seen > the card. Only now you will have to explain L16 to the table, > and possible give a PP to dummy. I understand the PP, but I am not sure I understand how you are applying L16. If dummy wants to tell the defenders something, that seems OK to me. But if you meant declarer, I think you are right. If declarer did not see the card himself, dummy has no business telling him what it is. From bbickford@charter.net Tue Mar 4 16:52:47 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:52:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horrible? References: <200303041628.IAA19774@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <066401c2e26e$7c487b00$6c177244@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Horrible? > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > From: "Bill Bickford" > > > I believe that the initial version of SAYC from maybe 30 years ago did not > > > include Jacoby 2NT > > > > I didn't realize SAYC had ever been revised since its initial release. > > I am sure it included Jacoby, but we all know what my memory is worth. > > If anyone remembers the initial release date, I can check the ACBL > > Bulletin. > > The "ACBL Standard Yellow Card System Booklet" that I downloaded many > years ago says "Revised September, 1988". The initial version can't > have been much before that. I'm trying to remember when the first > (and only) Yellow Card event was held at an NABC, but my memory is > coming up short; it must have been right around that time, though. > > -- Adam I did (much against my better judgement) at the Fall Nationals in Niagara Falls, NY. I think that was 1983 and it was certainly older than that. Cheers.................................../Bill Bickford > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From kaima13@hotmail.com Tue Mar 4 17:17:16 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 09:17:16 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation References: <3e64af46.186a.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: I think no "interpretation" is needed. The Law is clear: If the card was in a position where it was POSSIBLE for the defender's partner to see the card, apply the Law whatever it may require. Whether he actually DID SEE it or DID NOT see it, is not a factor to affect any ruling. Kaima aka D R Davis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:51 AM Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation LAW 49 - EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER'S CARDS Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, (penalty) each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to Law 68 when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress I was declaring in 6D. The opening lead HA is ruffed and the DA is played from the table at trick 2. Rho follows but Lho discards the S10. It does not hit the table. My estimate is that it was held at about a 30 - 40 degree angle. She takes it back and discards the H3. I say I've seen the 1st card. We call the Td. He asks did RHO see the card. She says no but admits it was black in clour. The Td rules no infraction. Now There happened to be a spectator present who was sitting behind dummy to the the left (on Lho's side). Both Dummy and the spectator would have been able to name the card. IMO - I think the TD should have verified that 4 out of the 5 people at the table were able to indentify the card. While Rho was not able to identify the card value, Rho was able to state it was a club or spade. This IMO is pretty hairline stuff. Law 49 surely leaves itself open to a "oh I blinked and didn't see pd's card" type scenario or dare I say a blatant lie (not refering to this case as I believe RHO to be a truthful individual). Surely the reference to its "Face" should be better defined and changed to any information at all regarding the card played ?? Lastly - take the scenario that the Td is called and Dummy states at the table what card was in LHO's hand. Clearly he shouldn't. What now ?? K. -- http://www.iol.ie _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Mar 4 21:01:25 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:01:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <3e64af46.186a.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030304155625.00aa6010@pop.starpower.net> At 08:51 AM 3/4/03, karel wrote: >LAW 49 - EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER'S CARDS >Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a >defender's >card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its >face, or when >a defender names a card as being in his hand, (penalty) each such card >becomes >a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to Law 68 when a >defender has >made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress > >I was declaring in 6D. The opening lead HA is ruffed and the DA is >played from >the table at trick 2. Rho follows but Lho discards the S10. It does >not hit >the table. My estimate is that it was held at about a 30 - 40 degree >angle. > She takes it back and discards the H3. I say I've seen the 1st > card. We call >the Td. He asks did RHO see the card. She says no but admits it was >black >in clour. The Td rules no infraction. > >Now There happened to be a spectator present who was sitting behind >dummy to >the the left (on Lho's side). Both Dummy and the spectator would have >been >able to name the card. > >IMO - I think the TD should have verified that 4 out of the 5 people >at the >table were able to indentify the card. While Rho was not able to >identify the >card value, Rho was able to state it was a club or spade. This IMO is >pretty >hairline stuff. > >Law 49 surely leaves itself open to a "oh I blinked and didn't see >pd's card" >type scenario or dare I say a blatant lie (not refering to this case >as I believe >RHO to be a truthful individual). Surely the reference to its "Face" >should >be better defined and changed to any information at all regarding the >card played >?? L49 says "partner could possibly see its face". That doesn't mean that he *did* see it, nor does it mean that he could have *read* it. All that is required is that the card is held so that if partner was looking at it, he could have seen enough to tell its color, or whether it was a picture. "I didn't see it" is *not* a defense, even if verifiably true. In this case, the S10 is clearly a played card. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 4 23:31:17 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:31:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation Message-ID: Karel wrote: [big snip] >IMO - I think the TD should have verified that 4 out of >the 5 people at the table were able to identify the card. [big snip] Totally disagree. That is the one action that the TD should *not* have taken, as it is an irrelevant verification. The Law 49 criterion is "his partner could possibly see its face" - it is much easier for declarer, dummy, or dummy's kibitzer to see the face of a card sitting at a 90 degree angle to the card, than it is for defender's partner to see the card while sitting at a 180 degree angle to the card. Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Tue Mar 4 22:48:33 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:48:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <3e64af46.186a.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000001c2e2a0$2faa4d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Karel ......... > I was declaring in 6D. The opening lead HA is ruffed and the DA is > played from the table at trick 2. Rho follows but Lho discards the > S10. It does not hit the table. My estimate is that it was held at > about a 30 - 40 degree angle. She takes it back and discards the H3. > I say I've seen the 1st card. We call the Td. He asks did RHO see > the card. She says no but admits it was black in colour. The Td > rules no infraction. I am used to a very simple rule here: If either opponent of the player who possibly exposed a card can name that card (while the card has been in a position above the table level) then it is ruled that the player's partner "could have seen" the same card. In this case the partner even admitted that he knew the card "was black". She has "incriminated" herself and the Director was just plain wrong. Sven From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Mar 4 23:05:29 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:05:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: +++ I actually agree with you here in this case - but I feel that were the spectator on the same side as RHO (ie) at almost equal view point then the spec's opinion should matter. Of course it can be argued the spectator was alert and the RHO asleep ... another day's work. [big snip] >IMO - I think the TD should have verified that 4 out of >the 5 people at the table were able to identify the card. [big snip] Totally disagree. That is the one action that the TD should *not* have taken, as it is an irrelevant verification. The Law 49 criterion is "his partner could possibly see its face" - it is much easier for declarer, dummy, or dummy's kibitzer to see the face of a card sitting at a 90 degree angle to the card, than it is for defender's partner to see the card while sitting at a 180 degree angle to the card. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 5 01:15:33 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:15:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law of contracts bridge (was Horrible?) Message-ID: Sven wrote: >So please consider when my partner and I >have "agreed" to call according to "Bridge >in a Nutshell" without any exceptions. I >happen to know that book from cover to cover >(not to say that I use it myself in the real >life). I open with 1NT, my partner bids 2D >which I on request explains as weak and signoff >(being demonstrably correct, just look it up). >My partner at the correct opportunity informs >opponents that in his opinion it is a transfer >call for hearts. > >Are you now going to rule mistaken bid by >partner or misinformation by me? Insufficient detail given in this scenario. If: a) Your partner has also read "Bridge in a Nutshell" cover to cover, then pard has misbid due to a memory lapse; b) Your partner has never read "Bridge in a Nutshell", then your correct explanation would have been "we do not have an agreement", and your actual explanation was misinformation. >A similar situation exists whenever a partnership >has "agreed" on a certain convention but one of >them occasionally forgets this agreement. My understanding is that this situation is *not* similar to scenario b). The footnote to Law 75 defines that a Mistaken Bid can exist as an exception to a partnership agreement. But before the possibility of forgetting a partnership agreement can occur, both partners must actually have a prior partnership agreement. >The agreement itself cannot be disputed, it has >been written down, it can be witnessed by the >entire membership of the club etc. etc. Do you >rule mistaken call or misinformation if the player >in question does not admit his lousy memory? I have seen many dialogues of this sort in a new partnership: Scientific partner: "We play the Hoffmeister NT." Uncomprehending (but intimidated) partner: "Sure." Scientific partner writes up the system cards, gives 50 pages of notes to Uncomprehending partner, and they start play in their first session. The first time a 1NT call occurs, Uncomprehending partner has a balanced 17 count, but Scientific parter gives the Hoffmeister explanation. Even if the Hoffmeister NT is defined on pages 2 to 50 of the notes, if Uncomprehending partner has only read the cover page I would still rule misinformation by Scientific partner. (For more information on the Hoffmeister NT, read the excellent novel about tournament bridge, "Tickets to the Devil" by Anthony Powell.) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 5 01:40:51 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:40:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke evoked Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >>It's true that if you adjust a score to an >>entirely different contract, you won't >>normally include a revoke. However, where >>you are adjusting _because_ of a revoke >>(L64C), I don't see why you wouldn't take >>an earlier revoke into account. [snip] One could argue that this interpretation of Law 64C is contrary to the rights given to the offending side by Law 64B2: >The penalty for an established revoke does >not apply to a subsequent revoke in the same >suit by the same player. But my quibbling is purely hypothetical; Steve uses Law 64C to adjust, I use Law 72B1 to adjust, but we both arrive at the same equitable ruling for the NOS. Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 5 00:48:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:48:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law of contracts bridge (was Horrible?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c2e2b0$fa7d6ac0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ....... The only conclusion I can figure out from your posting is that you do not believe in trusting your partner? When he assures you that "yes, that agreement is OK" you will have to cross examine him to make sure that he really knows what he just agreed to or you must expect to be ruled having given misinformation when you explain your partner's call and he has a different understanding than yours? What a "nice" way of demonstrating confidence within a partnership? A little more comments below > >So please consider when my partner and I > >have "agreed" to call according to "Bridge > >in a Nutshell" without any exceptions. I > >happen to know that book from cover to cover > >(not to say that I use it myself in the real > >life). I open with 1NT, my partner bids 2D > >which I on request explains as weak and signoff > >(being demonstrably correct, just look it up). > >My partner at the correct opportunity informs > >opponents that in his opinion it is a transfer > >call for hearts. > > > >Are you now going to rule mistaken bid by > >partner or misinformation by me? > > Insufficient detail given in this scenario. If: > > a) Your partner has also read "Bridge in a > Nutshell" cover to cover, then pard has misbid > due to a memory lapse; > > b) Your partner has never read "Bridge in a > Nutshell", then your correct explanation would > have been "we do not have an agreement", and > your actual explanation was misinformation. If he tells me (not necessarily in so many words) that he knows what he is talking about I trust him. I certainly do not want to embarrass him by asking if he really knows what he agrees to. And when he agrees to my suggestion for an agreement we certainly have an agreement. > > >A similar situation exists whenever a partnership > >has "agreed" on a certain convention but one of > >them occasionally forgets this agreement. > > My understanding is that this situation is *not* > similar to scenario b). The footnote to Law 75 > defines that a Mistaken Bid can exist as an > exception to a partnership agreement. But before > the possibility of forgetting a partnership > agreement can occur, both partners must actually > have a prior partnership agreement. > > >The agreement itself cannot be disputed, it has > >been written down, it can be witnessed by the > >entire membership of the club etc. etc. Do you > >rule mistaken call or misinformation if the player > >in question does not admit his lousy memory? > > I have seen many dialogues of this sort in a new > partnership: > > Scientific partner: "We play the Hoffmeister NT." > Uncomprehending (but intimidated) partner: "Sure." So when I ask my occasional partner "do we play 5-ace Blackwood" and he says "yes" (or even "yes of course") you claim that I must also ask him "Do you know what 5-ace Blackwood actually is?" or I shall be "convicted" of misinformation when I inform opponents what his response to my 4NT bid means if he has a different understanding which is not according to 5-ace BW? Sorry - that is not how I want to be to my partners, that is not how I rule myself and it is definitely not a ruling I would ever accept. And frankly, I was in serious doubt whether I should bother to give this thread another comment. It is so incredible to me that we shall have to discuss the question: Is an agreement really an agreement? Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 5 00:54:24 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:54:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke evoked In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2e2b1$c3e13400$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ........ > But my quibbling is purely hypothetical; Steve > uses Law 64C to adjust, I use Law 72B1 to > adjust, but we both arrive at the same > equitable ruling for the NOS. Not necessarily (if you use the laws correct): "Offender could have known" is a prerequisite in Law 72B1. The only prerequisite in Law 64C is that NOS is insufficiently compensated after a revoke. Adjustments for equity after revokes should always be made under Law 64C. Sven From adam@irvine.com Wed Mar 5 01:16:37 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:16:37 -0800 Subject: [blml] revoke evoked In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:40:51 +1000." Message-ID: <200303050116.RAA24678@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > [snip] > > >>It's true that if you adjust a score to an > >>entirely different contract, you won't > >>normally include a revoke. However, where > >>you are adjusting _because_ of a revoke > >>(L64C), I don't see why you wouldn't take > >>an earlier revoke into account. > > [snip] > > One could argue that this interpretation of > Law 64C is contrary to the rights given to > the offending side by Law 64B2: > > >The penalty for an established revoke does > >not apply to a subsequent revoke in the same > >suit by the same player. I did not think an adjusted score was considered a "penalty" by the Laws. As far as I can tell, the Laws don't make this clear. However, if adjusting the score is considered a penalty, this means Law 64C contains an internal contradiction, as it would then say that the Director can impose a penalty for revokes that are not subject to penalty. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 5 02:19:25 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:19:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] To ask or not ask? Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote: [big snip] >and that the procedure of asking about a specific >*alerted* call is an exception to the Law 20 >requirement? And btw, under what law is the exception >allowed, again? :-) Chapter 1 of the Laws: >>Alert - A notification, whose form may be specified >>by a sponsoring organisation, to the effect that >>opponents may be in need of an explanation. Presumably the "form may be specified" by the SO includes the power of the SO to permit a Law 20 exception if an opponent wishes to ask about that specific alerted call. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 5 03:25:26 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:25:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation Message-ID: Karel wrote: >+++ I actually agree with you here in this case - but >I feel that were the spectator on the same side as >RHO (ie) at almost equal view point then the spec's >opinion should matter. Change "should" to "could" and I agree. Law 76B says that the TD may question a spectator when determining the facts. However, a spectator is not permitted to voluntarily state an opinion. >Of course it can be argued the spectator was >alert and the RHO asleep ... another day's work. As noted by other blml posters, RHO being awake or asleep is not relevant - the critical words in Law 49 are "could possibly see"; it is not necessary for the TD to determine that RHO "did see". Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 5 03:51:25 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:51:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law of contracts bridge (was Horrible?) Message-ID: Sven wrote: [snip] >So when I ask my occasional partner "do we play 5-ace >Blackwood" and he says "yes" (or even "yes of course") >you claim that I must also ask him "Do you know what >5-ace Blackwood actually is?" or I shall be "convicted" >of misinformation when I inform opponents what his >response to my 4NT bid means if he has a different >understanding which is not according to 5-ace BW? [snip] An excellent example. In Australia, there are two popular versions of 5-ace Blackwood, one known as 3041 and the other known as 1430, depending on the responses. So, in Australia, I would ask pard a followup question to prevent a slam accident. Suppose I did not ask a followup question, and then: Me Pard 1S 3S 4NT 5C Opponent: What does 5C mean? I would argue that I am required by Law 75 to answer, "A non-agreed number of keycards between zero and four, (but not two keycards)." I would also argue that I should be *convicted* of misinformation if I gave a different answer. Best wishes Richard From adam@tameware.com Wed Mar 5 04:25:45 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:25:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question Message-ID: I recently served on a committee whose ruling disturbed me. The law seemed clear enough, but I'm not certain justice was served. This was in the ACBL, so Law 12C3 is not a factor. The hand and initial auction are not important (I hope you'll agree). NS had a auction where they agreed diamonds and North used Roman Key Card Blackwood. South showed his aces and North bid 5NT. South bid 6C and North signed off in 6D. Now East asked the meaning of 6C and was told it showed no side kings. She passed and South, who thought he had shown the CK, bid 7D which made. The director was called and ruled that South had UI which demonstrably suggested bidding, and that pass was a logical alternative. He according adjusted the contract to 6D making 7. NS appealed and the committee made the same ruling, reasoning as the director had. East's question, while seemingly innocent enough, could serve no purpose other than to satisfy her curiosity. We asked her whether she was considering a call and she said she was not. Some would argue that she could ask only about the entire auction but let's please not discuss that -- it would have made no difference here. I am concerned that East apparently gained an advantage by asking her question when she did. Suppose South would have bid the grand half the time absent any UI. (Why not bid it on the previous round then? Perhaps showing the CK could let partner convert 7D to 7N.) Now on any board where NS are having a misunderstanding E has gained half the time compared with other Easts who ask only at the end of the auction. I'd have liked to give NS the score for 6D and EW the score for 7D, but I could think of no justification for that under the laws. Can anyone supply one? I expect this situation has been discussed here previously. If anyone can name a thread I'll be happy to look it up. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 5 06:20:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:20:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question Message-ID: [snip] >I am concerned that East apparently gained an >advantage by asking her question when she did. >Suppose South would have bid the grand half >the time absent any UI. (Why not bid it on the >previous round then? Perhaps showing the CK >could let partner convert 7D to 7N.) Now on >any board where NS are having a >misunderstanding E has gained half the time >compared with other Easts who ask only at the >end of the auction. > >I'd have liked to give NS the score for 6D and >EW the score for 7D, but I could think of no >justification for that under the laws. Can >anyone supply one? I expect this situation has >been discussed here previously. If anyone can >name a thread I'll be happy to look it up. > >-- >Adam Wildavsky In my (possibly imperfect) recollection, blml had a thread named "Hesitation Blackwood" which may have discussed this issue. In the current case either South or North has forgotten the system, or North-South do not have an agreement. South has AI that North was trying for a grand but has UI that North believes that South does not hold their actual CK. If passing 6D and bidding 7D are both logical alternatives, and South cannot demonstrate from the prior auction that the CK is an irrelevant card, then Law 73C is clearly applicable. A variant hypothetical is South misremembering the North-South system in a particular auction, and therefore giving MI. South has a 50% chance of reremembering the system when it is South's next turn to call. Before South next calls, North's explanation of the auction gives UI to South what the system actually is. In my opinion, South must now: a) Immediately call the TD to correct South's previous MI, (Law 75D1); b) Continue bidding the auction according to South's misremembrance of the system, (Law 73C). That is, UI can remove successful chances. >I am concerned that East apparently gained an >advantage by asking her question when she did. Tough. However, in the English Bridge Union, East's question would be illegal - infracting the need to know principle of local regulation - so in the EBU a split score 6D/7D may be the correct ruling. Best wishes Richard From ziffbridge@t-online.de Wed Mar 5 08:46:40 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:46:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) Message-ID: <3E65B970.3080801@t-online.de> Yes, I know it, something else would be desirable, but this one has a twist or two which may be inetresting.... Imps, Dealer West, None vulnerable J873 AJT98 A 974 Q K964 KQ73 652 T83 9765 KQJ62 83 AT52 4 KQJ42 AT5 W N E S 1C 1H - 2D - 2H - 2S - 3S - 4S E/W play 5-card majors (3+ clubs). 2D was F1, 2S was FG. The play: West lead the king of clubs to the ace. Diamond to the ace, spade to the ace, KQJ of diamonds, throwing both clubs and a heart. Scenario 1: Declarer claims, saying "I am going to play a cross-ruff, three spade tricks to you". Scenario 2: Declarer plays a heart to the ace and now claims with the same statement. Scenario 3: well, this have to wait a little. It may become pointless, but then again.... Just in case it matters to you: Every player at the table has at least one national title under his/her belt. Best regards Matthias From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 09:46:57 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:46:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <3e64af46.186a.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030305103922.00abb2a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:51 4/03/2003 +0000, Karel wrote: >LAW 49 - EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER'S CARDS >Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a defender's >card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or >when >a defender names a card as being in his hand, (penalty) each such card becomes >a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to Law 68 when a defender has >made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress > > >I was declaring in 6D. The opening lead HA is ruffed and the DA is played >from >the table at trick 2. Rho follows but Lho discards the S10. It does not hit >the table. My estimate is that it was held at about a 30 - 40 degree angle. > She takes it back and discards the H3. I say I've seen the 1st > card. We call >the Td. He asks did RHO see the card. She says no but admits it was black >in clour. The Td rules no infraction. > >Now There happened to be a spectator present who was sitting behind dummy to >the the left (on Lho's side). Both Dummy and the spectator would have been >able to name the card. > > >IMO - I think the TD should have verified that 4 out of the 5 people at the >table were able to indentify the card. While Rho was not able to identify the >card value, Rho was able to state it was a club or spade. This IMO is pretty >hairline stuff. > >Law 49 surely leaves itself open to a "oh I blinked and didn't see pd's card" >type scenario or dare I say a blatant lie (not refering to this case as I >believe >RHO to be a truthful individual). AG : IMHO it doesn't. The question is not "did partner see the card ?", but "cour partner see the card ?" (see L45C1) ; which means that RHO's denegations are irrelevant. Neither is it "did other persons see the card ?". As ascertained in BW's feature 'Appeals Committee', it is quite possible that everybody can name the card, but partner can't. The right test would be to ask the kibitz to sit on LHO's chair, holding some card the way it was held. Now the TD sits on RHO's chair and tries to see the card's face. Remark that in your case, the defender saw the card, which solves the problem. >Lastly - take the scenario that the Td is called and Dummy states at the table >what card was in LHO's hand. Clearly he shouldn't. What now ?? AG : if TD rules that the card could have been seen, then nothing changes. Possible PP against Dummy. If he rules it couldn't, then Dummy has given an item of information that is UI to declarer and AI to defenders. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 09:48:30 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:48:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <200303041652.LAA26147@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030305104755.00aa8d40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:52 4/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Martin Sinot > > That can be done by letting LHO repeat the movement, > > using some open card as an example. This can be verified by > > the opponents, and from that movement it is not too difficult > > to judge whether RHO could have seen it. This effectively > > shuts out blinking, not paying attention and the like > > from RHO. > >Kaplan once wrote something to the effect "In the entire history >of bridge, no defender has ever seen his partner's card." AG : see 'appeals committee', vol 2 From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 09:52:09 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:52:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030304155625.00aa6010@pop.starpower.net> References: <3e64af46.186a.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030305104850.00ac3100@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:01 4/03/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 08:51 AM 3/4/03, karel wrote: > >>LAW 49 - EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER'S CARDS >>Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a defender's >>card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, >>or when >>a defender names a card as being in his hand, (penalty) each such card >>becomes >>a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to Law 68 when a defender has >>made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress >> >>I was declaring in 6D. The opening lead HA is ruffed and the DA is >>played from >>the table at trick 2. Rho follows but Lho discards the S10. It does not hit >>the table. My estimate is that it was held at about a 30 - 40 degree angle. >> She takes it back and discards the H3. I say I've seen the 1st >> card. We call >>the Td. He asks did RHO see the card. She says no but admits it was black >>in clour. The Td rules no infraction. >> >>Now There happened to be a spectator present who was sitting behind dummy to >>the the left (on Lho's side). Both Dummy and the spectator would have been >>able to name the card. >> >>IMO - I think the TD should have verified that 4 out of the 5 people at the >>table were able to indentify the card. While Rho was not able to >>identify the >>card value, Rho was able to state it was a club or spade. This IMO is pretty >>hairline stuff. >> >>Law 49 surely leaves itself open to a "oh I blinked and didn't see pd's card" >>type scenario or dare I say a blatant lie (not refering to this case as I >>believe >>RHO to be a truthful individual). Surely the reference to its "Face" should >>be better defined and changed to any information at all regarding the >>card played >>?? > >L49 says "partner could possibly see its face". That doesn't mean that he >*did* see it, nor does it mean that he could have *read* it. All that is >required is that the card is held so that if partner was looking at it, he >could have seen enough to tell its color, or whether it was a picture. "I >didn't see it" is *not* a defense, even if verifiably true. In this case, >the S10 is clearly a played card. AG : let's take this to the extreme. Say that RHO had let a card slip on the floor, and is now under the table, recovering it. LHO exposes a card, which constitutes a (non-established) revoke, picks it back and plays a correct card. Now LHO emerges. I would rule that, even though the first card was exposed, it wasn't played, as partner couldn't possibly see it". Thus no PC. Right ? From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 10:03:40 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:03:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <000001c2e2a0$2faa4d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3e64af46.186a.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030305105253.00aa6540@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:48 4/03/2003 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > Karel >......... > > I was declaring in 6D. The opening lead HA is ruffed and the DA is > > played from the table at trick 2. Rho follows but Lho discards the > > S10. It does not hit the table. My estimate is that it was held at > > about a 30 - 40 degree angle. She takes it back and discards the H3. > > I say I've seen the 1st card. We call the Td. He asks did RHO see > > the card. She says no but admits it was black in colour. The Td > > rules no infraction. > >I am used to a very simple rule here: If either opponent of the player >who possibly exposed a card can name that card (while the card has been >in a position above the table level) then it is ruled that the player's >partner "could have seen" the same card. AG : IBTD. Some players have the habit of slightly turning their cards towards dummy and away from declarer (not showing their card to dummy, just being careful). In this case, dummy will usually be able to name the card when it is merely detached from the hand, while partner will not. Of course, the present case is easy, as you let it remark. I'm only invoking general principles. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Mar 5 10:42:43 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:42:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) References: <3E65B970.3080801@t-online.de> Message-ID: <3E65D4A3.6050402@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Yes, I know it, something else would be desirable, but this one has a > twist or two which may be inetresting.... > > Imps, Dealer West, None vulnerable > > J873 > AJT98 > A > 974 > Q K964 > KQ73 652 > T83 9765 > KQJ62 83 > AT52 > 4 > KQJ42 > AT5 > > W N E S > > 1C 1H - 2D > - 2H - 2S > - 3S - 4S > > E/W play 5-card majors (3+ clubs). 2D was F1, 2S was FG. > > The play: West lead the king of clubs to the ace. Diamond to the ace, > spade to the ace, KQJ of diamonds, throwing both clubs and a heart. > the rest is (we don't know if W threw a heart or a club - but we must assume that South noticed that W dropped the SQ and did not ruff) > J87- > AJT9- > - > --- > - K96- > KQ73 652 > --- ---- > -QJ6? 8- > -T52 > 4 > ---4- > -T5 > Scenario 1: Declarer claims, saying "I am going to play a cross-ruff, > three spade tricks to you". > I guess the interesting part of this scenario is whether or not this means claimer is going to play the heart ace first. It is normal practice to do so, and I won't hold the timing of the claim against declarer. He had to find east with all the diamonds (and all the spades) for the line to work. If we accept that he plays the HA first, we end up with scenario 2: > J87- > -JT9- > - > --- > - K96- > KQ7- 65- > --- ---- > -QJ6? 8- > -T52 > - > ---4- > -T5 > Scenario 2: Declarer plays a heart to the ace and now claims with the > same statement. > He's at the table, so his line will be: - ruff a heart - ruff something - ruff a heart - concede the rest. This line works, unless the "something" he intends to ruff is a diamond. Another interesting question - can we assume declarer knows the diamonds have all gone? I would rather think so. I'm giving this claim if declarer seems genuinely aware of the situation. His cashing of exactly three diamonds before claiming would make me believe he is. (Especially in scenario 1, actually) > Scenario 3: well, this have to wait a little. It may become pointless, > but then again.... > > Just in case it matters to you: Every player at the table has at least > one national title under his/her belt. > > Best regards > Matthias > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Mar 5 11:07:23 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:07:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) References: <3E65B970.3080801@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000d01c2e307$65f7f3a0$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> he hee with alittle help from my Deep friend I've discovered that its pretty hard to go off in this one - team mates will be impressed if I manage it Scenario 1 -- from the claim point I think is infrangible or even inchuckable - ruff a card in dummy - Now to continue a cross ruff it is in my opinion irrational to duck a H -- so Heart Ace - Heart ruff and now I cannot find any order of cards that assuming we keep ruffing cards high or low even if winners which fails - 10 tricks - Scenario 2 -- on the other hand if we cross to HA first and then start ruffing from hand there is a moment when we take the second ruff in dummy that getting over-ruffed will be fatal therefore 9 tricks We await Plan 3 Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 8:46 AM Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) > Yes, I know it, something else would be desirable, but this one has a > twist or two which may be inetresting.... > > Imps, Dealer West, None vulnerable > > J873 > AJT98 > A > 974 > Q K964 > KQ73 652 > T83 9765 > KQJ62 83 > AT52 > 4 > KQJ42 > AT5 > > W N E S > > 1C 1H - 2D > - 2H - 2S > - 3S - 4S > > E/W play 5-card majors (3+ clubs). 2D was F1, 2S was FG. > > The play: West lead the king of clubs to the ace. Diamond to the ace, > spade to the ace, KQJ of diamonds, throwing both clubs and a heart. > > Scenario 1: Declarer claims, saying "I am going to play a cross-ruff, > three spade tricks to you". > > Scenario 2: Declarer plays a heart to the ace and now claims with the > same statement. > > Scenario 3: well, this have to wait a little. It may become pointless, > but then again.... > > Just in case it matters to you: Every player at the table has at least > one national title under his/her belt. > > Best regards > Matthias > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 5 11:20:22 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:20:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030305104850.00ac3100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000e01c2e309$36b77a00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner .......... > AG : let's take this to the extreme. Say that RHO had let a card slip on > the floor, and is now under the table, recovering it. LHO exposes a card, > which constitutes a (non-established) revoke, picks it back and plays a > correct card. Now LHO emerges. I would rule that, even though the first > card was exposed, it wasn't played, as partner couldn't possibly see it". > Thus no PC. Right ? Right. Let us be sensible: A player who for some reason is away from the table cannot have seen any card "exposed" by his partner during that period. Nor could a player that was "below the table" have seen a card that was "exposed" above. Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 5 11:26:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) In-Reply-To: <3E65B970.3080801@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Yes, I know it, something else would be desirable, but this one has a > twist or two which may be inetresting.... > > Imps, Dealer West, None vulnerable > > J873 > AJT98 > A > 974 > Q K964 > KQ73 652 > T83 9765 > KQJ62 83 > AT52 > 4 > KQJ42 > AT5 > > W N E S > > 1C 1H - 2D > - 2H - 2S > - 3S - 4S > > E/W play 5-card majors (3+ clubs). 2D was F1, 2S was FG. > > The play: West lead the king of clubs to the ace. Diamond to the ace, > spade to the ace, KQJ of diamonds, throwing both clubs and a heart. > > Scenario 1: Declarer claims, saying "I am going to play a cross-ruff, > three spade tricks to you". If declarer plays club ruff, HA,H ruff, c ruff low he will be held to ten tricks. I don't consider this irrational. > Scenario 2: Declarer plays a heart to the ace and now claims with the > same statement. After HA, H ruff, C ruff, H ruff declarer will get another trick. Implausible concession so give him 5 (provided he is in time). I don't think ruffing high is consistent with the claim statement. > Scenario 3: well, this have to wait a little. It may become pointless, > but then again.... This isn't a claim (even if declarer has exposed his hand). Tim From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Mar 5 11:34:54 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:34:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7C830855-4EFE-11D7-B119-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 04:25 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > I recently served on a committee whose ruling disturbed me. The law > seemed clear enough, but I'm not certain justice was served. This was > in the ACBL, so Law 12C3 is not a factor. > > The hand and initial auction are not important (I hope you'll agree). > NS had a auction where they agreed diamonds and North used Roman Key > Card Blackwood. South showed his aces and North bid 5NT. South bid 6C > and North signed off in 6D. Now East asked the meaning of 6C and was > told it showed no side kings. She passed and South, who thought he had > shown the CK, bid 7D which made. > > The director was called and ruled that South had UI which demonstrably > suggested bidding, and that pass was a logical alternative. He > according adjusted the contract to 6D making 7. NS appealed and the > committee made the same ruling, reasoning as the director had. > > East's question, while seemingly innocent enough, Its innocence rather depends on her club holding, which we haven't been told. > could serve no purpose other than to satisfy her curiosity. We asked > her whether she was considering a call and she said she was not. Some > would argue that she could ask only about the entire auction but let's > please not discuss that -- it would have made no difference here. > > I am concerned that East apparently gained an advantage by asking her > question when she did. Suppose South would have bid the grand half the > time absent any UI. Why do you imagine this to be the case? Why would a player who believes that he has shown all he has been asked bid on over his partner's signoff? > (Why not bid it on the previous round then? Perhaps showing the CK > could let partner convert 7D to 7N.) Now on any board where NS are > having a misunderstanding E has gained half the time compared with > other Easts who ask only at the end of the auction. > > I'd have liked to give NS the score for 6D and EW the score for 7D, > but I could think of no justification for that under the laws. Can > anyone supply one? I expect this situation has been discussed here > previously. If anyone can name a thread I'll be happy to look it up. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Mar 5 13:16:11 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:16:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030305104850.00ac3100@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030304155625.00aa6010@pop.starpower.net> <3e64af46.186a.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030305081237.00a0ee60@pop.starpower.net> At 04:52 AM 3/5/03, Alain wrote: >At 16:01 4/03/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>L49 says "partner could possibly see its face". That doesn't mean >>that he *did* see it, nor does it mean that he could have *read* >>it. All that is required is that the card is held so that if partner >>was looking at it, he could have seen enough to tell its color, or >>whether it was a picture. "I didn't see it" is *not* a defense, even >>if verifiably true. In this case, the S10 is clearly a played card. > >AG : let's take this to the extreme. Say that RHO had let a card slip >on the floor, and is now under the table, recovering it. LHO exposes a >card, which constitutes a (non-established) revoke, picks it back and >plays a correct card. Now LHO emerges. I would rule that, even though >the first card was exposed, it wasn't played, as partner couldn't >possibly see it". Thus no PC. Right ? Right. The test is "if he were looking at it he could have seen it". In this scenario, even if his eyes were pointed straight towards the card, there would have been a table blocking his view; he could not have seen it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Mar 5 13:21:20 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:21:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <000001c2e2a0$2faa4d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3e64af46.186a.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030305081636.00aa8490@pop.starpower.net> At 05:48 PM 3/4/03, Sven wrote: >I am used to a very simple rule here: If either opponent of the player >who possibly exposed a card can name that card (while the card has been >in a position above the table level) then it is ruled that the player's >partner "could have seen" the same card. This seem illogical and inconsistent with L49. (1) I can easily hold a card in such a way that one of my opponents could see it clearly, while my partner could not see it at all. (2) I can expose a card to the table; my partner might see it, while neither opponent was paying any attention, could have easily seen it, but didn't. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Mar 5 13:36:36 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:36:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question In-Reply-To: <7C830855-4EFE-11D7-B119-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk > References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030305082500.00acd670@pop.starpower.net> At 06:34 AM 3/5/03, Gordon wrote: >On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 04:25 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >>I recently served on a committee whose ruling disturbed me. The law >>seemed clear enough, but I'm not certain justice was served. This was >>in the ACBL, so Law 12C3 is not a factor. >> >>The hand and initial auction are not important (I hope you'll agree). >>NS had a auction where they agreed diamonds and North used Roman Key >>Card Blackwood. South showed his aces and North bid 5NT. South bid 6C >>and North signed off in 6D. Now East asked the meaning of 6C and was >>told it showed no side kings. She passed and South, who thought he >>had shown the CK, bid 7D which made. >> >>The director was called and ruled that South had UI which >>demonstrably suggested bidding, and that pass was a logical >>alternative. He according adjusted the contract to 6D making 7. NS >>appealed and the committee made the same ruling, reasoning as the >>director had. >> >>East's question, while seemingly innocent enough, > >Its innocence rather depends on her club holding, which we haven't >been told. Why? North thought 6C showed no kings; South thought 6C showed the CK. If 6C had to be one or the other, Gordon might be right, but it could easily have meant something else entirely (e.g. one king, unspecified). >> could serve no purpose other than to satisfy her curiosity. We >> asked her whether she was considering a call and she said she was not. It could have served the purpose of facilitating her building a mental picture of the opponents' hands in anticipation of defending. This is a perfectly legitimate reason for asking about the opponents' bidding; it is not necessary to be evaluating alternate calls for one to have a valid "bridge reason" for knowing what an opponent's bid means. It might have been better if she had held her question until the auction was over. I believe that in some jurisdictions she would have been required to do so, but AFAIK there is no such rule in the ACBL. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From david.barton@boltblue.com Wed Mar 5 13:49:46 2003 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:49:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030304155625.00aa6010@pop.starpower.net> <3e64af46.186a.0@esatclear.ie> <5.2.0.9.0.20030305081237.00a0ee60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000e01c2e31e$15842120$0300a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation > At 04:52 AM 3/5/03, Alain wrote: > > >At 16:01 4/03/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >> > >>L49 says "partner could possibly see its face". That doesn't mean > >>that he *did* see it, nor does it mean that he could have *read* > >>it. All that is required is that the card is held so that if partner > >>was looking at it, he could have seen enough to tell its color, or > >>whether it was a picture. "I didn't see it" is *not* a defense, even > >>if verifiably true. In this case, the S10 is clearly a played card. > > > >AG : let's take this to the extreme. Say that RHO had let a card slip > >on the floor, and is now under the table, recovering it. LHO exposes a > >card, which constitutes a (non-established) revoke, picks it back and > >plays a correct card. Now LHO emerges. I would rule that, even though > >the first card was exposed, it wasn't played, as partner couldn't > >possibly see it". Thus no PC. Right ? > > Right. The test is "if he were looking at it he could have seen > it". In this scenario, even if his eyes were pointed straight towards > the card, there would have been a table blocking his view; he could not > have seen it. > > L62B1 A card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card if it was played from a defender's unfaced hand. So in the above scenario there is NO test for may have seen. It is a penalty card even if partner was in the bar at the time. ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 14:13:25 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:13:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <000e01c2e31e$15842120$0300a8c0@david> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030304155625.00aa6010@pop.starpower.net> <3e64af46.186a.0@esatclear.ie> <5.2.0.9.0.20030305081237.00a0ee60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030305150915.02dc90d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:49 5/03/2003 +0000, David Barton wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:16 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation > > > > At 04:52 AM 3/5/03, Alain wrote: > > > > >At 16:01 4/03/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > > >> > > >>L49 says "partner could possibly see its face". That doesn't mean > > >>that he *did* see it, nor does it mean that he could have *read* > > >>it. All that is required is that the card is held so that if partner > > >>was looking at it, he could have seen enough to tell its color, or > > >>whether it was a picture. "I didn't see it" is *not* a defense, even > > >>if verifiably true. In this case, the S10 is clearly a played card. > > > > > >AG : let's take this to the extreme. Say that RHO had let a card slip > > >on the floor, and is now under the table, recovering it. LHO exposes a > > >card, which constitutes a (non-established) revoke, picks it back and > > >plays a correct card. Now LHO emerges. I would rule that, even though > > >the first card was exposed, it wasn't played, as partner couldn't > > >possibly see it". Thus no PC. Right ? > > > > Right. The test is "if he were looking at it he could have seen > > it". In this scenario, even if his eyes were pointed straight towards > > the card, there would have been a table blocking his view; he could not > > have seen it. > > > > > >L62B1 A card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card if it was played from >a defender's unfaced hand. > >So in the above scenario there is NO test for may have seen. It is a penalty >card even if partner was in the bar at the time. AG : not quite. L62B mentions a card having been played, and the definition of "played card" (L45C1) mentions that partner "could have seen it". If he couldn't, the card was not played, which means that L61 and L62B don't apply. Come to think of it, it isn't even a revoke. From ziffbridge@t-online.de Wed Mar 5 13:59:15 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:59:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is the real system? Message-ID: <3E6602B3.8000909@t-online.de> Another case about system and agreements and more. Board 19 Dealer S E/W vulnerable Imps Screens are in use. T2 7542 AQ75 AT4 AKJ764 3 - AKJT986 943 KJT KQ76 J9 Q985 Q3 862 8532 The bidding: S W N E p 1D(1) p 3H (2) p 3S(3) p 4H all pass (1) A HUM-system was in use. 1D shows 5+ spades, 9-16 HCP. Some two-suiters (at least 10 cards, 5-5+) in the upper range are opened differently. (2) Explained by East to North as good 13- bad 15, 6+ hearts, not forcing. No spade fit. Will only be passed with minimum without fit. Explained by West to South as: Sorry, I am unsure about this. It is natural, 6+ cards, not sure wether it is gameforcing or invitational. Please look at the convention card or the system description. (3) Forcing opposite 13-15 (according to system description) At the end of the bidding North summoned the TD. It had taken the tray quite some time to reappear after the 3H bid. North questioned the 4H bid after possible UI. The break in tempo was agreed to have been unmistakable. Estimations of the length of time are always difficult, but E/W agreed that it took much longer than any explanation on the other side could possibly have taken. The TD now asked about the system. According to the CC and a short description (6 pages) dated early December 2002 3H was gameforcing. According to a longer description (about 65 pages) dated late January 2003 (the event was played in early February) 3H was 13-15 (as East had told North). South had looked at the CC (as suggested by West), North had looked at the long description (this had been submitted to the TD before the event. N/S had asked to have access to this. The TD had ruled that the CoC did not entitle them to this, but E/W had offered to make a copy available, which the TD had allowed. The TD ruled that North had not gotten MI (for the purpose of Law 21) and that South was misinformed but not damaged, and let play begin. 11 tricks were made (diamond lead to the ace, diamond to the king, trumps drawn, diamond discarded on a spade, club ace conceded). The system description revealed that 3S was forcing to game. The TD ruled no infraction, score stands, procedural penalty to E/W for CC and system description being different. He told E/W to amend the CC for the next rounds and inform all opponents of the correct system in advance (as per CoC ). 1) How would you have ruled? 2) What system do E/W actually play? Best regards Matthias From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Mar 5 14:08:34 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:08:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030305082500.00acd670@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:36 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 04:25 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> >>> I recently served on a committee whose ruling disturbed me. The law >>> seemed clear enough, but I'm not certain justice was served. This >>> was in the ACBL, so Law 12C3 is not a factor. >>> >>> The hand and initial auction are not important (I hope you'll >>> agree). NS had a auction where they agreed diamonds and North used >>> Roman Key Card Blackwood. South showed his aces and North bid 5NT. >>> South bid 6C and North signed off in 6D. Now East asked the meaning >>> of 6C and was told it showed no side kings. She passed and South, >>> who thought he had shown the CK, bid 7D which made. >>> >>> The director was called and ruled that South had UI which >>> demonstrably suggested bidding, and that pass was a logical >>> alternative. He according adjusted the contract to 6D making 7. NS >>> appealed and the committee made the same ruling, reasoning as the >>> director had. >>> >>> East's question, while seemingly innocent enough, >> >> Its innocence rather depends on her club holding, which we haven't >> been told. > > Why? North thought 6C showed no kings; South thought 6C showed the > CK. If 6C had to be one or the other, Gordon might be right, but it > could easily have meant something else entirely (e.g. one king, > unspecified). I don't think "could easily have meant something else" is quite correct - "could possibly have meant something else" is about as far as it could go. I've certainly never encountered anyone playing it as other than CK or 0 Kings. But even if you are correct, how does this affect the innocence of the question? Was she going to sacrifice or double against certain king holdings but not others? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 5 14:11:25 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:11:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] revoke evoked Message-ID: <200303051411.JAA02301@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > One could argue that this interpretation of > Law 64C is contrary to the rights given to > the offending side by Law 64B2: > > >The penalty for an established revoke does > >not apply to a subsequent revoke in the same > >suit by the same player. Of course there are no extra penalty tricks for the second revoke; nobody is suggesting there are. However, L64C explicitly applies to revokes "not subject to penalty," and that includes second (or third or fourth) revokes in the same suit. > But my quibbling is purely hypothetical; Steve > uses Law 64C to adjust, I use Law 72B1 to > adjust, but we both arrive at the same > equitable ruling for the NOS. Well, given that we both adjust, no doubt we arrive at the same result. However, I don't need "could have known," whereas Richard does. One example of a difference is where there is a missing card, later found on the floor or at the previous table. I would still adjust under L64C, whereas the revoker might argue to Richard that he could not have known. If Richard won't buy such an argument, then indeed we end up in the same place. (Another unimportant difference is that I would have made the same ruling prior to 1997, but Richard couldn't have done so.) From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 15:09:25 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:09:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is the real system? In-Reply-To: <3E6602B3.8000909@t-online.de> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030305154641.02dc9440@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:59 5/03/2003 +0100, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >Another case about system and agreements and more. > >Board 19 Dealer S E/W vulnerable > >Imps > >Screens are in use. > > > T2 > 7542 > AQ75 > AT4 > AKJ764 3 > - AKJT986 > 943 KJT > KQ76 J9 > Q985 > Q3 > 862 > 8532 > >The bidding: > > S W N E > p 1D(1) p 3H (2) > p 3S(3) p 4H > all pass > >(1) A HUM-system was in use. 1D shows 5+ spades, 9-16 HCP. Some >two-suiters (at least 10 cards, 5-5+) in the upper range are opened >differently. AG : this doesn't make the system a HUM per se, so the fact that the system was a HUM is irrelevant. >(2) Explained by East to North as good 13- bad 15, 6+ hearts, not forcing. >No spade fit. Will only be passed with minimum without fit. >Explained by West to South as: Sorry, I am unsure about this. It is >natural, 6+ cards, not sure wether it is gameforcing or invitational. >Please look at the convention card or the system description. > >(3) Forcing opposite 13-15 (according to system description) AG : quite logically. a) if 3H is FG, 3S, being below game, is forcing b) if East's explanation is right, 3S shows a maximum, and is thus forcing >At the end of the bidding North summoned the TD. It had taken the tray >quite some time to reappear after the 3H bid. North questioned the 4H bid >after possible UI. The break in tempo was agreed to have been >unmistakable. Estimations of the length of time are always difficult, but >E/W agreed that it >took much longer than any explanation on the other side could possibly >have taken. AG : this is one of those cases where the break in tempo may mean anything : a) East hesitated between a forcing bid and this NF (according to him) bid. b) East hesitated between a weak-sounding bid (perhaps 2H, as I guess 1H would have been a relay) and this NF bid. c) East had some difficulties remembering his system, which is quite plausible given that their notes seemed imperfect. d) There were many questions. e) East hesitated between a relay-type bid and this 3H bid (in case 3H is forcing) Even brushing d) aside , there is hardly any UI, as is usually the case when a player makes a positive bid (has he more or less ? Nobody knows). Thus no suggested alternative. Imagine West opens 1S, and East answers an old-fashioned 3S. Whether 3S is forcing or not, there isn't much UI if East hesitated. >The TD now asked about the system. According to the CC and a short >description (6 pages) dated early December 2002 3H was gameforcing. >According to a longer description (about 65 pages) dated late January >2003 (the event was played in early February) 3H was 13-15 (as East had >told North). South had looked at the CC (as suggested by West), North had >looked at the long description (this had been submitted to the TD before >the event. N/S had asked to have access to this. The TD had ruled that the >CoC did not entitle them to this, but E/W had offered to make a copy >available, which the TD had allowed. >The TD ruled that North had not gotten MI (for the purpose of Law 21) and >that South was misinformed but not damaged, and let play begin. 11 tricks >were made (diamond lead to the ace, diamond to the king, trumps drawn, >diamond discarded on a spade, club ace conceded). AG : I agree : there was MI, but it created no damage. South's bidding and lead did not depend on whether 3H was forcing or merely positive. Without screens, there is is only one question : getting the information that West didn't know about the 3H bid, which is UI, what should East do ? He should of course do as if partner had bid 3S (strong) over his (NF) 3H bid, which means bidding 4H. To the contrary, if he passed 3S, he would take into account that partner perhaps bid 3S merely "just in case 3H was forcing". *that* would be illegal. With screens, East has no problems. >The system description revealed that 3S was forcing to game. >The TD ruled no infraction, score stands, procedural penalty to E/W for CC >and system description being different. He told E/W to amend the CC for >the next rounds and inform all opponents of the correct system in advance >(as per CoC ). > >1) How would you have ruled? AG : exactly the same, given the CoC. >2) What system do E/W actually play? AG : the registrated version. If there is none, the latest version available. Here, 3H = NF. Best regards, Alain. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 5 14:58:02 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:58:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question Message-ID: <200303051458.JAA02529@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Wildavsky > I recently served on a committee whose ruling disturbed me. The law > seemed clear enough, but I'm not certain justice was served. We have discussed the general problem before: an opponent's gratuitous question puts a side into a UI situation. BLML has seen several variations on this theme, but I don't remember any subject headers, alas. As you say, the present law is quite clear. The question is what could be changed. The BLML sentiment seemed to be that if a side has a misunderstanding, it would be nice for them to have a fair chance to correct it or otherwise land on their feet without UI helping them do so _and_ without UI restrictions preventing them. Under the present laws, we have the first but not the second. > NS had a auction where they agreed diamonds and North used Roman Key > Card Blackwood. South showed his aces and North bid 5NT. South bid 6C > and North signed off in 6D. Now East asked the meaning of 6C ... One solution is to play behind screens, but obviously that isn't practical for most competitions. I have suggested going back to the 1975 UI Laws, where there are two "levels" of UI. The effect in this case would be that if the explanation is correct (and South has misbid), NS would be under minimal restrictions, but if North has misexplained, today's severe UI restrictions would still apply. Kaplan, in the "Appeal's Committee" booklets, explains the merits of this approach. However, it is at best only a partial solution. Another approach is to restrict East's right to ask questions. Unfortunately, the result of that may be to put EW into a UI position, which we don't want either. If anyone has a better solution, I bet the LC would love to hear it. From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Mar 5 15:28:41 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:28:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is the real system? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030305154641.02dc9440@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00a001c2e32b$e971e690$727e870a@sabre.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > AG : this is one of those cases where the break in tempo may mean anything : > a) East hesitated between a forcing bid and this NF (according to him) bid. Alain - it was *West* who hesitated, not East. That's why the 4H bid was questioned. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Podwojne ZWYCIESTWO... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f16e7 From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Mar 5 16:02:17 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:02:17 GMT Subject: [blml] Law 49 & 50 clash ?? Message-ID: <3e661f89.5bcd.0@esatclear.ie> +++ Just discussing the previous law 49 thread amongst friends and one guy pointed out that Law 50 seems to give the TD the right to rule pretty much as he wants !! LAW 49 - EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER=92S CARDS Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a defender=92s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, (penalty) each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to Law 68 when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress. LAW 50 - DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise. The Director shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below, when he deems that Law 72B1 applies. +++ " ... unless the director designates otherwise." What an amazing statement. Does this mean the TD can just be judge and jury all in one ?? In the previous post can he say - "I believe offenders pd couldn't see the card" or "Seeing a black color is irrelevant and gives her no UI" .. no infraction .. play on ?? Under what circumstances can a TD invoke such a power ?? K. -- http://www.iol.ie From kaima13@hotmail.com Wed Mar 5 16:23:18 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:23:18 -0800 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question References: Message-ID: snip > I don't think "could easily have meant something else" is quite correct > - "could possibly have meant something else" is about as far as it > could go. I've certainly never encountered anyone playing it as other > than CK or 0 Kings. Just a comment: Where I play (ACBL clubs and tournaments) you will encounter other meanings which are quite common and used by all levels of players, not only the top. *Playing specific kings, 6C is "club king" and does not deny higher ranking kings. *Playing number of kings in 1430, 6C is "one or four" *Playing number of kings in 0314, 6C is "zero or three" Best regards, kaima aka D R Davis > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 5 16:46:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Law 49 & 50 clash ?? In-Reply-To: <3e661f89.5bcd.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote: > +++ " ... unless the director designates otherwise." What an amazing > statement. Does this mean the TD can just be judge and jury all in one?? Yes. There are 2 situations I can think of where I would use this authority. If the opponents ask me to waive the penalty card, and if I arrive at a table to be told by a player "LHO has a penalty card" and discover that I was not called until a number of tricks after the card was actually played. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 17:07:07 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 18:07:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is the real system? In-Reply-To: <00a001c2e32b$e971e690$727e870a@sabre.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030305154641.02dc9440@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030305180155.00ab8b30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:28 5/03/2003 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > AG : this is one of those cases where the break in tempo may mean anything >: > > a) East hesitated between a forcing bid and this NF (according to him) >bid. > > >Alain - it was *West* who hesitated, not East. >That's why the 4H bid was questioned. AG : sorry. Take away my previous mail. Keep the conclusions. East knows that West hesitated. He might even guess why, if he is conscious that their system has changed. He is under absolute duty to take the 3S bid as it is in his system. Thus forcing. The 4H bid is probably the only one possible (unless 3S guarantees very long spades, in which case 4S is a possibility). To pass 3S would be acting on the UI that perhaps partner bid 3S because he believes 3H is forcing (and not because he has a strong hand), thus would be disallowed under L16. East *must* act as if the 3S bid was strong, and he did. WTP ? (except of course that PPs are possible for MI and badly filled-in CC) Best regards, Alain. From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Wed Mar 5 18:33:55 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:33:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question In-Reply-To: <7C830855-4EFE-11D7-B119-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> from "Gordon Rainsford" at Mar 05, 2003 11:34:54 AM Message-ID: <200303051833.h25IXtb18147@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: Gordon Rainsford > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:34:54 +0000 > > > On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 04:25 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > > I recently served on a committee whose ruling disturbed me. The law > > seemed clear enough, but I'm not certain justice was served. This was > > in the ACBL, so Law 12C3 is not a factor. > > > > The hand and initial auction are not important (I hope you'll agree). > > NS had a auction where they agreed diamonds and North used Roman Key > > Card Blackwood. South showed his aces and North bid 5NT. South bid 6C > > and North signed off in 6D. Now East asked the meaning of 6C and was > > told it showed no side kings. She passed and South, who thought he had > > shown the CK, bid 7D which made. > > > > The director was called and ruled that South had UI which demonstrably > > suggested bidding, and that pass was a logical alternative. He > > according adjusted the contract to 6D making 7. NS appealed and the > > committee made the same ruling, reasoning as the director had. > > > > East's question, while seemingly innocent enough, > > Its innocence rather depends on her club holding, which we haven't been > told. > It may also depend upon if she would be on opening lead and made a mistake of when to ask. This is more relevant for intermediate and beginner players, but still relevant. Many players will assume that after the captain of the auction has "signed off" that the auction is over and they ask their questions out of order because they don't think there will be any further bidding despite being in a live auction situation. > > could serve no purpose other than to satisfy her curiosity. We asked > > her whether she was considering a call and she said she was not. Some > > would argue that she could ask only about the entire auction but let's > > please not discuss that -- it would have made no difference here. > > > > I am concerned that East apparently gained an advantage by asking her > > question when she did. Suppose South would have bid the grand half the > > time absent any UI. > > Why do you imagine this to be the case? Why would a player who believes > that he has shown all he has been asked bid on over his partner's > signoff? > Because there are many situations where you may have shown the CK and still have further information to convey. When partner has shown interest in grand and confirmed all key cards (in this case, all aces, and the trump king and queen) then there could be several reasons that might be relevant: - an undisclosed void in a constructive side suit - additional kings. If you are playing specific kings then 6C shows the CK and may have the HK or SK. 6D says that the CK wasn't enough to go on. However, holding the HK or the SK usually the responder will then cuebid that king or bid 7 with both side kings. - additional distribution like an undisclosed running side suit. If I held Kx/x/KT9x/AKQxxx and we had that auction and I had not had a chance to show the running clubs, I would always advance the contract and I doubt this wouldn't be a question even with UI on the table (I don't think passing 6D is a LA where the key is on logical). Remember, partner has confirmed all the key cards with 5NT. > > (Why not bid it on the previous round then? Perhaps showing the CK > > could let partner convert 7D to 7N.) Now on any board where NS are > > having a misunderstanding E has gained half the time compared with > > other Easts who ask only at the end of the auction. > > Why not show on the previous round? Because you might not have enough information to decide "which" grand slam and think that the CK might help partner make that decision when you pull 6D to 7D. The CK might be all (s)he needs to choose 7NT over 7D. > > I'd have liked to give NS the score for 6D and EW the score for 7D, > > but I could think of no justification for that under the laws. Can > > anyone supply one? I expect this situation has been discussed here > > previously. If anyone can name a thread I'll be happy to look it up. Without more information, I can't tell you if this is appropriate or not. At the least, the player should be given a warning that it is inappropriate to ask the question unless there is a need to know issue. The correct time for "general" questions is at the end of the auction. With an expert player, especially one who understands that they may gain from asking at an inappropriate time, you could levy a PP against the player under L72B1. However, I would only suggest this against an expert player who knows (or should know) that it would be inappropriate to ask questions prematurely and knows (or should know) that it might cause a problem. -Ted. From adam@tameware.com Wed Mar 5 18:54:12 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:54:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question In-Reply-To: <200303051833.h25IXtb18147@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: <200303051833.h25IXtb18147@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: At 1:33 PM -0500 3/5/03, Ted Ying wrote: > > From: Gordon Rainsford > > Its innocence rather depends on her club holding, which we haven't been >> told. My question was theoretical -- I'd like to know what the proper ruling is assuming that the question conveys no UI to partner. Please assume that it did not. For what it's worth Easts clubs were Qxxx. >It may also depend upon if she would be on opening lead and made >a mistake of when to ask. She would have been on lead and she knew she could ask then. > > > I'd have liked to give NS the score for 6D and EW the score for 7D, >> > but I could think of no justification for that under the laws. Can > > > anyone supply one? > >Without more information, I can't tell you if this is appropriate >or not. What information would you like? Better yet, tell me under what circumstances that would be an appropriate ruling. My goal is not to make the right ruling in that case -- I no longer have the opportunity. I want to know how to address such problems in the future, under the current laws. >The correct time for "general" questions is at the end of the auction. I could agree, but where do the laws tell us so? >With an expert player, especially one who >understands that they may gain from asking at an inappropriate time, >you could levy a PP against the player under L72B1. Here's 72B1: "Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. " So, what makes Easts question irregular? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Mar 5 19:51:57 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:51:57 -0600 Subject: [blml] KO match: how would you rule? In-Reply-To: <200302260854.h1Q8sLA12182@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> 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. > >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). I've given this one a lot of thought. Before I come back to the case in question, let me give an example from last night. I held S: xx, H: K9xxx D: xxxx C: xx. Auction goes: 1S(pard) P P(me) 2H 3D(pard) 3H P(me) P X(pard*) P ?(me) *long pause. But in this position, a quick call is never going to come from her, so there is not actually any UI, even though it looks like there is. (She is notorious for snail-like bidding and play. Her long pause here was about one minute, equivalent to a speedier player's 2 or 3 seconds. She'd had about 2 s from the 3H call to her turn. Enough time to think, that jerk hasn't said a word. What do I do now?) If her spades are fairly solid and her diamonds are ok and she has a bit in clubs (and I think that is what she has) we probably are going to beat this, except the 3 heart bidder is not going to put his wife in a really bad spot, so our most likely result is down two for 300 for us versus plus 130 for 4 diamonds, if her hand is as good as I expect. So I pass. So we let them make it on less than perfect defense. Her hand was not quite as good as I hoped, but best defense does set it. Not easy to find, though. Now back to the case at hand. Playing with my most regular partner, the double would simply say that he does not have first or second round control of their suit, so I better not bid on (to make) unless I do. (He of course does have what looks like second round control. So he should not double here. The double is co-op here, anyway.) However, I have made a mildly preemptive call by bidding 4H, as I could show support by a cue bid (4D) at that point. I haven't denied defensive values. My personal view is I've made an opening at the one level without the defensive strength such a bid normally includes (why didn't I open with 3S?), so pulling the first double is compulsory. No matter how fast or slow the double. But that's me bidding with my most regular partner. Absolutely no help with your problem. Except to say that I would not sit for that double. Pass is not a logical alternative for me, here. Passing would say I actually have the values I promised, and I don't. I don't think this would improve the BLML discussion, which has ended, anyway. Yours, REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Wed Mar 5 21:13:23 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:13:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question In-Reply-To: from "Adam Wildavsky" at Mar 05, 2003 01:54:12 PM Message-ID: <200303052113.h25LDO3n029388@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: Adam Wildavsky > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:54:12 -0500 > > >It may also depend upon if she would be on opening lead and made > >a mistake of when to ask. > > She would have been on lead and she knew she could ask then. > I'd be a little more leniant here. I would give her a warning that it was inappropriate since it may have conveyed information to her partner. The appropriate way is to wait until the end of the auction and when the opponents announce they have had an ace/key asking sequence, you ask what the responses showed without specifying any particular bid. > > > > I'd have liked to give NS the score for 6D and EW the score for 7D, > >> > but I could think of no justification for that under the laws. Can > > > > anyone supply one? > > > >Without more information, I can't tell you if this is appropriate > >or not. > > What information would you like? Better yet, tell me under what > circumstances that would be an appropriate ruling. My goal is not to > make the right ruling in that case -- I no longer have the > opportunity. I want to know how to address such problems in the > future, under the current laws. > As I said, if there was any way that an experienced person could know that it might convey information to partner (and even on opening lead, it could suggest a good switch later), then it is inappropriate. One should also avoid calling attention to specific bids if that question could convey information to partner. There are ways to ask generically for the same information without the implications present. > >The correct time for "general" questions is at the end of the auction. > > I could agree, but where do the laws tell us so? > > >With an expert player, especially one who > >understands that they may gain from asking at an inappropriate time, > >you could levy a PP against the player under L72B1. > > Here's 72B1: > > "Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the > time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to > damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play > to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers > that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. > " > > So, what makes Easts question irregular? > Sorry, L72B1 in conjuction with L73B1 which states "Gratuitous Information: Partners shall not communicate...through questions asked or not asked of the opponents..." If the player knew that the question and/or timing could communicate information to partner, she should word the question so as to get the same information without implying any interest in a particular suit. There is always the generic, "what do the bids in the auction mean?" or "what do the bids above 3NT show?" or "what do the responses to the key-card sequence show?" You can also time the questions better so that they don't convey information. Since there is a possibility that asking a question early could convey information (even if it was just an implication that the 6C bid might be significant), the player should avoid asking at that time. I would be more leniant on intermediate and novice players who might not understand the significance of timing, but on experienced players, they need to learn this. I've given warnings about this to less experienced players when I've had to adjudicate in these situations. -Ted. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 5 23:12:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:12:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>AG : let's take this to the extreme. Say that RHO had let a card slip >>>on the floor, and is now under the table, recovering it. LHO exposes a >>>card, which constitutes a (non-established) revoke, picks it back and >>>plays a correct card. Now LHO emerges. I would rule that, even though >>>the first card was exposed, it wasn't played, as partner couldn't >>>possibly see it". Thus no PC. Right ? Eric Landau agreed: >>Right. The test is "if he were looking at it he could have seen >>it". In this scenario, even if his eyes were pointed straight towards >>the card, there would have been a table blocking his view; he could not >>have seen it. David Barton differed: >L62B1 A card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card if it was played from >a defender's unfaced hand. > >So in the above scenario there is NO test for may have seen. It is a penalty >card even if partner was in the bar at the time. There is a paradox in the Laws. As David Barton has pointed out, Law 62B1 defines the withdrawn card as a penalty card (and Law 62B1 includes a cross-reference to Law 50, but not any cross-reference to Law 49). However, there is also Law 47B: "A played card may be withdrawn to correct an illegal or simultaneous play (see Law 58 for simultaneous play; and, for defenders, see Law 49, penalty card)." This Law includes a cross-reference to Law 49, perhaps permitting the under- the-table scenario of ruling a non-penalty card. However, the last two words of Law 47B could be interpreted as either a non-binding naming of Law 49 as the penalty card Law, or alternatively the binding determination of the withdrawn card as a penalty card. Grattan, one for your notebook? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 6 00:10:29 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:10:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>My question was theoretical -- I'd like to know what >>the proper ruling is assuming that the question >>conveys no UI to partner. Please assume that it did >>not. For what it's worth Easts clubs were Qxxx. [snip] >>I want to know how to address such problems in the >>future, under the current laws. [snip] >>Here's 72B1: >> >>"Whenever the Director deems that an offender could >>have known at the time of his irregularity that the >>irregularity would be likely to damage the non- >>offending side, he shall require the auction and play >>to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if >>he considers that the offending side gained an >>advantage through the irregularity." >> >>So, what makes East's question irregular? If we assume that East's question was made in the form prescribed by Law 20F1, and if we assume that East's question does not communicate UI contrary to Law 73B1, then East has not committed an irregularity. Ted Ying wrote: >Since there is a possibility that asking a question >early could convey information (even if it was just an >implication that the 6C bid might be significant), the >player should avoid asking at that time. [snip] >experienced players, they need to learn this. I've >given warnings about this to less experienced players >when I've had to adjudicate in these situations. I am slightly uncomfortable about Ted Ying's position; it reminds me of the premise of the film Minority Report where you get arrested for a murder you have not yet committed. If a question could convey information, but the possibility does not occur, then no infraction exists, and the TD should avoid giving warnings and PPs. Of course, if the questioner is unlucky, and finds that their question has created UI contrary to Law 73B1, then the TD can legitimately issue a plethora of warnings and PPs. Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 6 00:04:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 01:04:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 & 50 clash ?? In-Reply-To: <3e661f89.5bcd.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000001c2e373$e5e576c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Karel ........... > LAW 50 - DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD > A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender > is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise. > The Director shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the > rectifications below, when he deems that Law 72B1 applies. > > +++ " ... unless the director designates otherwise." What an > amazing statement. > Does this mean the TD can just be judge and jury all in one ?? > In the previous post can he say - "I believe offenders pd > couldn't see the card" or "Seeing a black color is irrelevant > and gives her no UI" .. no infraction .. play on ?? > Under what circumstances can a TD invoke such a power ?? Like ever so often it pays to look up the commentaries, even those that were written for the 1987 laws: In short the commentaries say that the Director "will designate otherwise" if he feels that rights have been jeopardized by a failure to call him earlier; ....... That means if he finds that some players have been damaged due to a violation of Law 9B then equity may best be restored by the Director canceling the "ruling" (by the players) that a card is a penalty card. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 6 01:06:59 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:06:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 49 & 50 clash ?? Message-ID: Karel wrote: >>+++ " ... unless the director designates otherwise." What an amazing >>statement. Does this mean the TD can just be judge and jury all in one?? Tim replied: >Yes. There are 2 situations I can think of where I would use this >authority. If the opponents ask me to waive the penalty card, and if I >arrive at a table to be told by a player "LHO has a penalty card" and >discover that I was not called until a number of tricks after the card was >actually played. The TD is not judge and jury as such; the TD is bound to apply Law when determining whether a card is a penalty card (first phrase of Law 49 - "Except in the normal course of play or application of law"). However, in Tim's 2 situations the TD is applying Law 81C8 and Law 11A. Another Law the TD can use to cancel the designation of a penalty card is Law 47E1: "A lead out of turn may be retracted without penalty if the leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead (LHO should not accept the lead)." Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 6 01:24:10 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:24:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : not quite. L62B mentions a card having been >played, and the definition of "played card" (L45C1) >mentions that partner "could have seen it". If he >couldn't, the card was not played, which means that >L61 and L62B don't apply. Come to think of it, it >isn't even a revoke. Incorrect. Law 45C1 is *not* the definition of a defender's played card; it merely states that if its conditions are fulfilled the card "must be played to the current trick". The definition of a played card is in fact Law 45A: "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him. The opening lead is first made face down (unless the sponsoring organisation directs otherwise)." Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 6 01:45:27 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:45:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] What is the real system? Message-ID: Matthias wrote: [snip] >The TD now asked about the system. According to the CC and a short >description (6 pages) dated early December 2002 3H was gameforcing. >According to a longer description (about 65 pages) dated late January >2003 (the event was played in early February) 3H was 13-15 (as East had >told North). South had looked at the CC (as suggested by West), North >had looked at the long description (this had been submitted to the TD >before the event. N/S had asked to have access to this. The TD had ruled >that the CoC did not entitle them to this, but E/W had offered to make a >copy available, which the TD had allowed. >The TD ruled that North had not gotten MI (for the purpose of Law 21) >and that South was misinformed but not damaged, and let play begin. 11 >tricks were made (diamond lead to the ace, diamond to the king, trumps >drawn, diamond discarded on a spade, club ace conceded). > >The system description revealed that 3S was forcing to game. >The TD ruled no infraction, score stands, procedural penalty to E/W for >CC and system description being different. He told E/W to amend the CC >for the next rounds and inform all opponents of the correct system in >advance (as per CoC ). > >1) How would you have ruled? Identically to the actual TD. (Bobby Wolff, however, would have hit East-West with a savage imp penalty for Convention Disruption.) >2) What system do E/W actually play? I suspect that East was the author of the 65 pages, getting an unfair memory advantage over West. Meanwhile, it seems that West was in charge of one or both Convention Cards. However, the 65 pages do appear to be the East-West system, since West's explanation reveals that he recalled two possible meanings for the 3H bid. Fortune favours the foolish, since if West had remembered that 3H was non-forcing, West would have passed 3H and missed the lucky game. But, despite Bobby Wolff, it is still legal to misbid to a lucky result. :-) Best wishes Richard From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Thu Mar 6 01:19:18 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:19:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Computer dealt hands (was Ivory Tower) In-Reply-To: <3E5D1270.40407@skynet.be> References: <200302261726.MAA23057@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030305201513.0231dab0@mail.comcast.net> At 02:16 PM 2/26/2003, Herman De Wael wrote: >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. Play order still introduces a bias. If a player has several cards of a suit, they are more likely to be consecutive in play order, because he is likely to have played several rounds of the suit, or had his hand sorted into suits when play ended with a claim. The problem is more serious in rubber bridge, in which tricks are kept together. If declarer in 4S draws three rounds of trumps, and one defender shows out on the third round, then 11 of 12 consecutive cards are in the same suit. It will take a lot of shuffles to break up this clump so that someone can get a long spade suit on the next deal. From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Mar 6 05:09:32 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 05:09:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation References: Message-ID: <001401c2e39e$b55bdeb0$424ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation > Law 45C1 is *not* the definition of a > defender's played card; it merely states that if > its conditions are fulfilled the card "must be > played to the current trick". > > The definition of a played card is in fact Law 45A: > > "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching > it from his hand and facing it on the table > immediately before him. The opening lead is first > made face down (unless the sponsoring organisation > directs otherwise)." > +=+ Touching Law 49 we should bear in mind that the criterion is "could possibly have seen its face". This is not synonymous with having seen the suit/rank of the card. If the player has seen that it is a black card then the player has seen its face = this knowledge is not obtained otherwise. Evidence that one or both of the opponents has seen the face of the card is not proof in itself that the defender could have seen its face; the Director has to work a little more diligently than that on establishing the facts of the incident. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Mar 6 05:24:19 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 05:24:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question References: Message-ID: <000b01c2e3a0$d341e9e0$424ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Gratuitous question > I am slightly uncomfortable about Ted Ying's position; > it reminds me of the premise of the film Minority > Report where you get arrested for a murder you have not > yet committed. If a question could convey information, > but the possibility does not occur, then no infraction > exists, and the TD should avoid giving warnings and PPs. > > Of course, if the questioner is unlucky, and finds that > their question has created UI contrary to Law 73B1, then > the TD can legitimately issue a plethora of warnings and > PPs. > +=+ All players are on notice that UI may be created by a question asked. Nothing can exclude the possibility of it. A player who asks a question when he does not need to know flies in the face of this risk and may give the impression of having an ulterior motive in asking, so is liable to be judged more rigorously. It is good teaching that educates players not to make their enquiries whilst the auction is progressing if they have no reason to do so. A defender on lead may ask before making the opening lead and the other defender does so best after the opening lead is selected and before it is faced, or at his first turn to play. ~ G ~ +=+ From ziffbridge@t-online.de Thu Mar 6 08:51:39 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:51:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) References: <3E65B970.3080801@t-online.de> <3E65D4A3.6050402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3E670C1B.3070403@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > the rest is (we don't know if W threw a heart or a club - but we must > assume that South noticed that W dropped the SQ and did not ruff) > > > J87- > > AJT9- > > - > > --- > > - K96- > > KQ73 652 > > --- ---- > > -QJ6? 8- > > -T52 > > 4 > > ---4- > > -T5 > > my fault. West threw a club, but it doesn`t matter much. > >> Scenario 1: Declarer claims, saying "I am going to play a cross-ruff, >> three spade tricks to you". >> > > > I guess the interesting part of this scenario is whether or not this > means claimer is going to play the heart ace first. It is normal > practice to do so, and I won't hold the timing of the claim against > declarer. He had to find east with all the diamonds (and all the spades) > for the line to work. > > If we accept that he plays the HA first, we end up with scenario 2: > > >> J87- >> -JT9- >> - >> --- >> - K96- >> KQ7- 65- >> --- ---- >> -QJ6? 8- >> -T52 >> - >> ---4- >> -T5 > > > >> Scenario 2: Declarer plays a heart to the ace and now claims with the >> same statement. >> > > > He's at the table, so his line will be: > - ruff a heart > - ruff something > - ruff a heart > - concede the rest. > > This line works, unless the "something" he intends to ruff is a > diamond. Another interesting question - can we assume declarer knows > the diamonds have all gone? I would rather think so. I'm giving this > claim if declarer seems genuinely aware of the situation. His cashing of > exactly three diamonds before claiming would make me believe he is. > (Especially in scenario 1, actually) > > That`s the question: is it irrational to ruff the thirteenth diamond low? Declarer didn`t want to take a trick with it, so ruffing it may not be out of the question. On the other hand he cashed exactly three (four, counting dummy`s ace) top diamonds, as you mentioned above. Best regards Matthias From ziffbridge@t-online.de Thu Mar 6 08:59:44 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:59:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) References: <3E65B970.3080801@t-online.de> <000d01c2e307$65f7f3a0$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> Message-ID: <3E670E00.3030904@t-online.de> mamos schrieb: > he hee with alittle help from my Deep friend I've discovered that its > pretty hard to go off in this one - team mates will be impressed if I manage > it > > > Scenario 1 -- from the claim point I think is infrangible or even > inchuckable - ruff a card in dummy - Now to continue a cross ruff it is in > my opinion irrational to duck a H -- so Heart Ace - Heart ruff and now I > cannot find any order of cards that assuming we keep ruffing cards high or > low even if winners which fails - 10 tricks - > > Scenario 2 -- on the other hand if we cross to HA first and then start > ruffing from hand there is a moment when we take the second ruff in dummy > that getting over-ruffed will be fatal therefore 9 tricks > As Herman discovered there is only one way to go down: ruffing the diamond in dummy before ruffing a club. After club ruff-heart ace-heart ruff ten tricks are there. Only diamond ruff low first or heart ace-heart ruff-diamond can "achieve" less than 10 tricks. Ia a diamond ruff rational? If so, is it rational to ruff low? I would answer "yes" to the second question. What about the first? > We await Plan 3 > Scenario 3 will have to wait for a day or two... > Mike > Cheers Matthias From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 6 08:02:28 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:02:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question In-Reply-To: <200303052113.h25LDO3n029388@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030306085936.00aca710@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:13 5/03/2003 -0500, Ted Ying wrote: > > From: Adam Wildavsky > > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:54:12 -0500 > > > > >It may also depend upon if she would be on opening lead and made > > >a mistake of when to ask. > > > > She would have been on lead and she knew she could ask then. > > > >I'd be a little more leniant here. I would give her a warning >that it was inappropriate since it may have conveyed information >to her partner. The appropriate way is to wait until the end >of the auction and when the opponents announce they have had an >ace/key asking sequence, you ask what the responses showed without >specifying any particular bid. AG : why would they volunteer without being asked the information that they've had an ace-showing sequence ? From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Mar 6 07:58:37 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:58:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 49 & 50 clash ?? References: <3e661f89.5bcd.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <001701c2e3b6$49261220$d143e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 4:02 PM Subject: [blml] Law 49 & 50 clash ?? +++ " ... unless the director designates otherwise." What an amazing statement. Does this mean the TD can just be judge and jury all in one ?? In the previous post can he say - "I believe offenders pd couldn't see the card" or "Seeing a black color is irrelevant and gives her no UI" .. no infraction .. play on?? Under what circumstances can a TD invoke such a power ?? > +=+ I would think that 'judge' and 'jury' are not the appropriate concepts. In my opinion a better word to describe the Director's role is 'facilitator'. The TD's objectives and duties are set down in Law 81; in order to achieve them he is required to form an opinion as to the facts of an occurrence and to use bridge judgement as to their import and implications. He greases the wheels of the game and puts it back on course, as far as possible, when it strays. Whilst the game is on his powers are monocratic; his use of them is subject afterwards to review by the AC if requested (by him or by a contestant - see Laws 81C9 and 92A), . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Mar 6 09:32:50 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:32:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation References: <001401c2e39e$b55bdeb0$424ee150@endicott> Message-ID: <004801c2e3c3$5f747230$d2c7f1c3@LNV> > > > +=+ Touching Law 49 we should bear in mind that the > criterion is "could possibly have seen its face". This is > not synonymous with having seen the suit/rank of the > card. If the player has seen that it is a black card then > the player has seen its face = this knowledge is not > obtained otherwise. Evidence that one or both of the > opponents has seen the face of the card is not proof > in itself that the defender could have seen its face; the > Director has to work a little more diligently than that on > establishing the facts of the incident. > ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ How much more? In the course book I would use if it had been written there will not be an instruction to ask other defender whether he/she saw the card. While the answer '' yes'' would help a lot the answer '' no'' is useless, in the real world it is. And when declarer and dummy have seen the card the player must have done a marvellous trick to prevent his partner from seeing it (as dropping it on his lap, etc. ). So my decision you can guess now. Let me tell you a story that happened in Valkenburg 1980, the teams Olympiad. We were with 5 junior TD's from the Netherlands there, promising, eager guys you know. So I was one of them. And we were directing under guidance of the TD celebraties, one of which was Kojak, whom I met for the first time there. He was guiding me in the closed room of the open event. We were called at a table were two teams from central America were playing. One of the defenders had shown a card OOT, but had not really played it. And then declarer said that since the other partner was not paying attention to the play at that moment he was sure that partner hadn't seen this card ( the answer '' no'' above given by declarer in this case). Kojak took his lawbook and made clear that the question whether he did or did not see the card was irrelevant, it was the position the card was held that mattered. So played card etc. Walking back together he told me that in case he had made another ruling he could have been sure that the captain of declarer's team would have approached him later, asking whether he had become mad giving such ruling. He also told me that declarer's statement had nothing to do with facts, was just daylight politeness defined by culture. Yes you need to know your 'pappenheimers'. (no translation other than 'people' known to me) . ton From kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Mar 6 09:44:09 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 01:44:09 -0800 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030306085936.00aca710@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: snip > AG : why would they volunteer without being asked the information that > they've had an ace-showing sequence ? In ACBL, it is required to announce there was an ace asking sequence after the auction is over. _________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Mar 6 12:22:17 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:22:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question In-Reply-To: from "Alain Gottcheiner" at Mar 06, 2003 09:02:28 AM Message-ID: <200303061222.h26CMHSK018436@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:02:28 +0100 > > At 16:13 5/03/2003 -0500, Ted Ying wrote: > > > From: Adam Wildavsky > > > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:54:12 -0500 > > > > > > >It may also depend upon if she would be on opening lead and made > > > >a mistake of when to ask. > > > > > > She would have been on lead and she knew she could ask then. > > > > > > >I'd be a little more leniant here. I would give her a warning > >that it was inappropriate since it may have conveyed information > >to her partner. The appropriate way is to wait until the end > >of the auction and when the opponents announce they have had an > >ace/key asking sequence, you ask what the responses showed without > >specifying any particular bid. > > AG : why would they volunteer without being asked the information that > they've had an ace-showing sequence ? > TY: Sorry, this is a little bit of ACBL-land "fun" that's been added to the alert procedure. Whenever there has been an ace or key showing sequence a post-alert is required. After the auction, but before the opening lead the declaring side needs to announce that there has been an ace or key showing sequence. If the defending side has any question about the sequence at that point, they can ask questions. -Ted. From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Mar 6 12:30:07 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:30:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Mar 06, 2003 10:10:29 AM Message-ID: <200303061230.h26CU7Le018555@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:10:29 +1000 > > Ted Ying wrote: > > >Since there is a possibility that asking a question > >early could convey information (even if it was just an > >implication that the 6C bid might be significant), the > >player should avoid asking at that time. > > [snip] > > >experienced players, they need to learn this. I've > >given warnings about this to less experienced players > >when I've had to adjudicate in these situations. > > I am slightly uncomfortable about Ted Ying's position; > it reminds me of the premise of the film Minority > Report where you get arrested for a murder you have not > yet committed. If a question could convey information, > but the possibility does not occur, then no infraction > exists, and the TD should avoid giving warnings and PPs. > > Of course, if the questioner is unlucky, and finds that > their question has created UI contrary to Law 73B1, then > the TD can legitimately issue a plethora of warnings and > PPs. > > Best wishes > > Richard > TY: Why is this? To me, this is like the speed limit. Everyone drives over the speed limit and as long as you don't get into an accident, you shouldn't have warnings and tickets. The point is that players should be cautioned about the correct way to avoid problems. Even if it only causes problems one time out of a dozen, players should still aim to avoid the situation. It can be excused when it doesn't create a problem, but it should still carry a warning that you shouldn't do it. As Grattan says, everyone should be encouraged to learn to make their enquiries at the appropriate time. -Ted. From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Mar 6 13:05:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) In-Reply-To: <3E670E00.3030904@t-online.de> Message-ID: Ziffbridge asked: > As Herman discovered there is only one way to go down: ruffing the > diamond in dummy before ruffing a club. > After club ruff-heart ace-heart ruff ten tricks are there. Only diamond > ruff low first or heart ace-heart ruff-diamond can "achieve" less than > 10 tricks. > > Ia a diamond ruff rational? If so, is it rational to ruff low? > I would answer "yes" to the second question. What about the first? Let me think. Is it rational to try and cross ruff in a suit in which both opponents are known to be void when one has an alternative suit in which opponents retain 4 cards between them? Gosh that's a tough one - Irrational seems a bit mild - would terminally insane cover it? Tim From ziffbridge@t-online.de Thu Mar 6 13:38:28 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:38:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) References: Message-ID: <3E674F54.3050501@t-online.de> Hi all, Tim West-Meads schrieb: > Ziffbridge asked: > > >>As Herman discovered there is only one way to go down: ruffing the >>diamond in dummy before ruffing a club. >>After club ruff-heart ace-heart ruff ten tricks are there. Only diamond >>ruff low first or heart ace-heart ruff-diamond can "achieve" less than >>10 tricks. >> >>Ia a diamond ruff rational? If so, is it rational to ruff low? >>I would answer "yes" to the second question. What about the first? > > > Let me think. Is it rational to try and cross ruff in a suit in which > both opponents are known to be void when one has an alternative suit in > which opponents retain 4 cards between them? Gosh that's a tough one - > Irrational seems a bit mild - would terminally insane cover it? > > Tim > Possibly. Now for the kicker... Scenario 3 This is what really happened. No fun. No joke. The pure truth. Declarer claimed after trick 6 in the way I described in the original mail. There was a certain amount of tension at the table. Especially South and East don`t get along terribly well with each other. East asked declarer to play it out (don`t read the laws to me guys, please...). Declarer, being somewhat annoyed, complied. Trick 7: diamond ruffed low.... (on my honour, the complete truth!!). Now dummy called for the TD and complained that play had ended with the claim and asked for a ruling. Comments please. Best regards Matthias From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 6 14:00:29 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:00:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] To ask or not ask? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/5/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Presumably the "form may be specified" by the SO >includes the power of the SO to permit a Law 20 >exception if an opponent wishes to ask about that >specific alerted call. Why? It doesn't say so. I have been roundly criticized recently for daring to suggest that since the law says that agreements *must* be fully and freely available, and since the preface (in the NA edition) says that when players "must" do something, failure to do so is "serious indeed", that being one step beyond "shall" where failure "will be penalized more often than not", a TD in such a case should issue a PP unless he has some very good reason not to do so. I was told that TDs should *not* issue "frequent PPs", that it's "not good for the game". It seems that if (a) it's not written in one of the numbered laws, it's irrelevant and (b) if it *is* written in one of the numbered laws, it can be ignored if the TD feels like doing so. If those of you who who wrote (or approved the inclusion of) that bit in the preface didn't intend TDs to follow that guidance, why did you bother? Yeah, okay, it's a rant. Sosumi. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 6 14:27:15 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:27:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <000e01c2e31e$15842120$0300a8c0@david> Message-ID: On 3/5/03, David Barton wrote: >L62B1 A card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card if it was played from >a defender's unfaced hand. > >So in the above scenario there is NO test for may have seen. It is a penalty Nice one! However, (Law 50) "A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law=A057) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise." Two questions: (a) is this card "prematurely exposed"? (b) under what circumstances may a Director "designate otherwise"? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 6 14:20:05 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:20:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030305104850.00ac3100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 3/5/03, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : let's take this to the extreme. Say that RHO had let a card slip >on the floor, and is now under the table, recovering it. LHO exposes a >card, which constitutes a (non-established) revoke, picks it back and >plays a correct card. Now LHO emerges. I would rule that, even though >the first card was exposed, it wasn't played, as partner couldn't >possibly see it". Thus no PC. Right ? I suppose it depends on how far you want to take "could have seen". Certainly RHO "could have seen" the card had he not been under the table. Ridiculous? Well, I think so, but it's no more ridiculous than some rulings I've seen. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Mar 6 14:42:06 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:42:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Let me think. Is it rational to try and cross ruff in a suit in which > both opponents are known to be void when one has an alternative suit in > which opponents retain 4 cards between them? Gosh that's a tough one - > Irrational seems a bit mild - would terminally insane cover it? > > Tim Let me think. Should we assume that a player, who has failed to use a simple opportunity to mention it as part of a claim, is aware that both opponents are void in one suit and have 4 cards in another? Would it be irrational for the player to have failed to notice this, or merely careless? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Mar 6 14:49:24 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:49:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) In-Reply-To: <3E674F54.3050501@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 01:38 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > > This is what really happened. No fun. No joke. The pure truth. > > Declarer claimed after trick 6 in the way I described in the original > mail. There was a certain amount of tension at the table. Especially > South and East don`t get along terribly well with each other. East > asked declarer to play it out (don`t read the laws to me guys, > please...). Declarer, being somewhat annoyed, complied. Trick 7: > diamond ruffed low.... (on my honour, the complete truth!!). Now dummy > called for the TD and complained that play had ended with the claim > and asked for a ruling. > > Comments please. > Dummy is of course correct, as established in Gunnar Hallberg's Double Squeeze Claim case. This case serves to illustrate the folly of those who wish to be generous to players who make poor claims. However, the difference between this case and Gunnar's claim is that Gunnar's claim was adequate while this one is not. So we can accept dummy's point and still rule against declarer. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 6 14:55:50 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:55:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question In-Reply-To: <200303061230.h26CU7Le018555@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: On 3/6/03, Ted Ying wrote: >Why is this? To me, this is like the speed limit. Everyone drives >over the speed limit and as long as you don't get into an accident, >you shouldn't have warnings and tickets. Perhaps not. But we do. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 6 14:41:35 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:41:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 49 & 50 clash ?? In-Reply-To: <000001c2e373$e5e576c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 3/6/03, Sven Pran wrote: >Like ever so often it pays to look up the commentaries, even >those that were written for the 1987 laws: The commentaries would be nice to have - but (a) are they still available? (b) are they applicable in the ACBL? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 6 14:34:44 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:34:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030305150915.02dc90d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 3/5/03, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : not quite. L62B mentions a card having been played, and the >definition of "played card" (L45C1) mentions that partner "could have >seen it". If he couldn't, the card was not played, which means that >L61 and L62B don't apply. Come to think of it, it isn't even a revoke. For anyone but dummy, the definition of "played card" is in 45A, not 45C1: "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him." From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Mar 6 15:27:56 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:27:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Mar 06, 2003 09:55:50 AM Message-ID: <200303061527.h26FRu0j027926@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: Ed Reppert > Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:55:50 -0500 > > On 3/6/03, Ted Ying wrote: > > >Why is this? To me, this is like the speed limit. Everyone drives > >over the speed limit and as long as you don't get into an accident, > >you shouldn't have warnings and tickets. > > Perhaps not. But we do. > TY: I'm sorry. I made a mistake that I haven't made in years. My above retort was sarcastic and I have known for years that sarcasm doesn't transmit very well electronically. I do think we should have warnings and tickets for speeding and I do think we should warn players when they are engaging in potentially dangerous behaviour and how to correct it (like when the appropriate time to ask questions may be). The difference in waiting one extra round of bidding (likely to be under 10-15 seconds) is surely negligible for whatever purpose she had (whether to determine her opening lead, whether to try to "place" the opponents values, whether to understand what their bids meant) compared to the damage that may result if it causes problems. As directors, we are not only responsible for running and adjudicating the game, but to take efforts to make the game run smoother. And educating our players about things that can help that is, IMHO, a part of the job. I think this is an extension of educating our players generically what to do in UI situations. -Ted. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Mar 6 15:50:41 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:50:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: <004801c2e3c3$5f747230$d2c7f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <62203133-4FEB-11D7-A67A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 09:32 AM, Ton Kooijman wrote: > And when declarer and dummy have seen the card the player must have > done a > marvellous trick to prevent his partner from seeing it Not really. Try rotating a card slowly at the table and see who sees its face first. Almost certainly not partner. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Mar 6 15:09:59 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 16:09:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) References: <3E674F54.3050501@t-online.de> Message-ID: <3E6764C7.5070809@skynet.be> OK, let me answer Tim's reply first. Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Hi all, > > Tim West-Meads schrieb: > >> Ziffbridge asked: >> >> >>> As Herman discovered there is only one way to go down: ruffing the >>> diamond in dummy before ruffing a club. >>> After club ruff-heart ace-heart ruff ten tricks are there. Only >>> diamond ruff low first or heart ace-heart ruff-diamond can "achieve" >>> less than 10 tricks. >>> >>> Ia a diamond ruff rational? If so, is it rational to ruff low? >>> I would answer "yes" to the second question. What about the first? >> >> >> >> Let me think. Is it rational to try and cross ruff in a suit in which >> both opponents are known to be void when one has an alternative suit >> in which opponents retain 4 cards between them? Gosh that's a tough >> one - Irrational seems a bit mild - would terminally insane cover it? >> >> Tim >> I don't think the question is whether or not it would be irrational to ruff a diamond, but rather whether or not it would be careless to not have remembered at the appropriate time that the diamonds had all gone. I think we can agree on the irrationality of the issue. We cannot but for being at the table form an impression as to whether or not claimer has remembered. I for one would be convinced by a claimer who stated to me at the table: "I played a fourth diamond in order to confirm my original estimate that they were 3-4 with trumps 1-4". I would rule that it would be grossly negligent, not merely careless, to not remember that when having to decide which of the minors next to ruff. But then of course we come to: > > Possibly. > > Now for the kicker... > > Scenario 3 > > This is what really happened. No fun. No joke. The pure truth. > > Declarer claimed after trick 6 in the way I described in the original > mail. There was a certain amount of tension at the table. Especially > South and East don`t get along terribly well with each other. East asked > declarer to play it out (don`t read the laws to me guys, please...). > Declarer, being somewhat annoyed, complied. Trick 7: diamond ruffed > low.... (on my honour, the complete truth!!). Now dummy called for the > TD and complained that play had ended with the claim and asked for a > ruling. > The main point here is "don't get along terribly well" and "being somewhat annoyed". Those are elements to take into account when claimer does something stupid. I would not attach much weight on this actual play in my deciding the claim. Luckily we have a precedent for this: the double squeeze claim. Further play need not be taken as prima facie evidence for there being something wrong. But I may be missing something. Did claimer also not play to the HA first? That means that he has committed not just one, but two silly errors? > Comments please. > > Best regards > Matthias > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Mar 6 16:42:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:42 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > Let me think. Is it rational to try and cross ruff in a suit in which > > both opponents are known to be void when one has an alternative suit > > in which opponents retain 4 cards between them? Gosh that's a tough > > one > > - > > Irrational seems a bit mild - would terminally insane cover it? > > Let me think. Should we assume that a player, who has failed to use a > simple opportunity to mention it as part of a claim, is aware that both > opponents are void in one suit and have 4 cards in another? Would it be > irrational for the player to have failed to notice this, or merely > careless? Does it matter? The above is a finding as to fact, irrationality and carelessness don't come into it. If the TD determines that declarer was unaware (or even possibly unaware) that both opponents were void in diamonds he will rule differently. I know it wouldn't occur to me to lead a diamond in the original position, I really doubt it would occur to me that opps would consider it possible I would lead a Diamond so I don't think the form of the claim is any indication. I also know that at the table I sometimes make calls/plays that are not merely careless/inferior but completely irrational (if only I didn't!). I can even accept that declarer, at the time of the claim, was aware that the diamonds had all gone but had forgotten after the argument on playing it out. Of course I can not guarantee that my judgement about declarer's mindset at the time of the claim was correct but on the facts originally presented (declarer's line, timing of claim, holding a national title) I didn't see it as a "doubtful point" - and to be honest I still don't. Tim From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 6 19:41:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:41:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c2e418$50cc0090$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ....... > Nice one! However, (Law 50) "A card prematurely exposed (but not led, > see Law=A057) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director > designates otherwise." Two questions: (a) is this card "prematurely > exposed"? (b) under what circumstances may a Director "designate > otherwise"? b: (Also answered previously to another post): When the Director finds that some side's rights may have been jeopardized because of actions taken at the table subsequent to the exposure of the card but before he was called to the table. Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 6 19:49:38 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:49:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 & 50 clash ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c2e419$85ef19f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On 3/6/03, Sven Pran wrote: > > >Like ever so often it pays to look up the commentaries, even > >those that were written for the 1987 laws: > > The commentaries would be nice to have - but (a) are they still > available? I do not know (b) are they applicable in the ACBL? The commentaries include notifications where zonal organizations may have exceptions. However, the note to f.i. Law 61B limits itself to state that "no such authorization has been given in the European zone", so I assume some caution is in order when using the commentaries outside the EBL area on laws which are not universal. Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Mar 6 22:36:29 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:36:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] SAYC history Message-ID: <200303062236.RAA08630@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Here's a brief update, but I still haven't found the original date of the system. In the 1988 September _ACBL Bulletin_, p. 30, there's an article giving a brief summary of the system. The SAYC portion of the article begins, "Most tournament players are already familiar with [SAYC]." Jacoby 2NT is included. I see no indication that there were changes in the system at that time. More interesting, the article begins by describing an effort to create "ACBL Standard," originally presented in the June issue. It suggests that there could be as many as four different versions varying in complexity. As far as I can tell, this effort sank without trace (except for the preexisting SAYC). As for SAYC tournament events, there was an NABC in Niagara Falls in 1982 March. The CoC in the 1982 February _Bulletin_ make no mention of SAYC events. In fact, the tournament used the old A-F convention charts, not the present GCC/MidChart/SuperChart, although that isn't necessarily proof that SAYC did not exist then. If anybody has a better idea of when SAYC might have originated, I'll look further, but I'm inclined to think between 1982 and 1988, probably closer to the later date. That would agree with Adam's memory, so maybe I'll just start there and work backwards. (If I have time.) By the way, the ACBL's "Classic Bridge" effort was around 1996 August. That too vanished after (I believe) a single day at an NABC. All of these efforts had implementation problems, but so far there is no evidence that players like events that force them to use a set bidding system. From adam@irvine.com Thu Mar 6 23:05:08 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:05:08 -0800 Subject: [blml] SAYC history In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:36:29 EST." <200303062236.RAA08630@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200303062305.PAA04442@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > By the way, the ACBL's "Classic Bridge" effort was around 1996 August. > That too vanished after (I believe) a single day at an NABC. San Francisco, November 1996. If I recall correctly, the plan was to offer Classic Card events on every day of the tournament. They did this for at least two or three days, but I do remember that by the last day or so of the tournament, they were no longer holding the event due to very poor demand. (The SAYC event I played in in the late 80's, by contrast, had a decent turnout---at least three or four sections IIRC. However, my partner and I decided we didn't like it and wouldn't try it again, and I suspect others felt the same way.) > All of these efforts had implementation problems, but so far there is > no evidence that players like events that force them to use a set > bidding system. There are always players who complain (often in letters to the Bulletin) about bidding getting too complicated and who would like to go back to when there were relatively few conventions. The ACBL was apparently trying to cater to this group of players. My guess is that they didn't bother to find out whether the players who made these complaints are the same players who travel to NABC's; I suspect the intersection of those two sets is quite small. -- Adam From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Thu Mar 6 23:28:22 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:28:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] SAYC history In-Reply-To: from "Steve Willner" at Mar 06, 2003 05:36:29 PM Message-ID: <200303062328.h26NSM6X022690@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Hmmm...I've done some background hunting on the web. The first site that I found was the official ACBL site which noted that the system as defined was officially introduced in September 1988. >From the note at the bottom, it looks like it is version 3 of this released version (see http://rrnet.com/meadowlark/yellow.html). Another site that gives a good background history of SA and SAYC is http://www.bridge-forum.com/Archives/sayc_compared_to_standard_american.html Here it says: "[SAYC] was developed and officially introduced at the 1988 Spring NABC by the American Contract Bridge League. SAYC was intended for pickup partnerships and special games using ONLY that card. SAYC was based on modern-style Standard American, but included several conventions not found at many home or rubber bridge games. Around 1990 the ACBL stopped supporting SAYC. However, it is now taught to many novices as an alternative to Standard American. It is also used by many online players world-wide as the pickup system of choice." And it looks as if the most recent ACBL version of SAYC is revised 9/88. I have to say, from my experience, the field that is most likely to want to play in restricted convention events is the senior events and although popular there, there are a fair number of seniors that want to play their fancy systems, too. It's just far more popular there than any other game. -Ted. > From: Steve Willner > Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:36:29 -0500 (EST) > > Here's a brief update, but I still haven't found the original date > of the system. > > In the 1988 September _ACBL Bulletin_, p. 30, there's an article giving > a brief summary of the system. The SAYC portion of the article begins, > "Most tournament players are already familiar with [SAYC]." Jacoby 2NT > is included. I see no indication that there were changes in the system > at that time. > > More interesting, the article begins by describing an effort to create > "ACBL Standard," originally presented in the June issue. It suggests > that there could be as many as four different versions varying in > complexity. As far as I can tell, this effort sank without trace > (except for the preexisting SAYC). > > As for SAYC tournament events, there was an NABC in Niagara Falls in > 1982 March. The CoC in the 1982 February _Bulletin_ make no mention of > SAYC events. In fact, the tournament used the old A-F convention > charts, not the present GCC/MidChart/SuperChart, although that isn't > necessarily proof that SAYC did not exist then. > > If anybody has a better idea of when SAYC might have originated, I'll > look further, but I'm inclined to think between 1982 and 1988, probably > closer to the later date. That would agree with Adam's memory, so > maybe I'll just start there and work backwards. (If I have time.) > > By the way, the ACBL's "Classic Bridge" effort was around 1996 August. > That too vanished after (I believe) a single day at an NABC. > > All of these efforts had implementation problems, but so far there is > no evidence that players like events that force them to use a set > bidding system. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 7 01:37:44 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:37:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question Message-ID: Grattan wrote: >+=+ All players are on notice that UI may be created by a >question asked. Nothing can exclude the possibility of >it. A player who asks a question when he does not need to >know flies in the face of this risk and may give the >impression of having an ulterior motive in asking, so is >liable to be judged more rigorously. A possibility is not an infraction. A risk is not an infraction. An impression is not an infraction. In the context of a gratuitous question, only a communication to partner (or a deception of an opponent) is an infraction. >It is good teaching that educates players not to make >their enquiries whilst the auction is progressing if they >have no reason to do so. Actually, that is bad teaching. Law 73B1 refers to: "questions asked or not asked". Never asking a gratuitous question means that the non-asking of a question creates UI that the non-asker is unreasoning. Players who randomly intersperse gratuitous questions with need-to-know questions create a higher noise-to-signal ratio, and therefore less UI, than Grattanic players do. I do concede, however, that Grattanic players are less likely to infract Law 90B2. >A defender on lead may ask before making the opening lead >and the other defender does so best after the opening lead >is selected and before it is faced, or at his first turn to >play. ~ G ~ +=+ An incomplete paraphrase of Law 41B, which does not restrict defenders' questions to the opening lead/first trick. The final sentence of Law 41B states: "The defenders (subject to Law 16) and the declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at his own turn to play." Presumably Grattan's reference to "best" is a nod at the bracketed reference to Law 16. Even so, an unbest question is still not necessarily an infraction of Law 16, so a player should not be educated or warned by the TD for using a right specifically given to them by Law 41B or Law 20F1. Note: At the table I am a greatly Grattanic player in the timing of my own questions; I merely believe that the policy of Grattan and myself is not compulsory according to the existing Laws. Best wishes Richard From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 7 01:04:14 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:04:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation References: <001401c2e39e$b55bdeb0$424ee150@endicott> <004801c2e3c3$5f747230$d2c7f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <003701c2e445$9f795300$e33987d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation > > > > > > +=+ Touching Law 49 we should bear in mind that the > > criterion is "could possibly have seen its face". This is > > not synonymous with having seen the suit/rank of the > > card. If the player has seen that it is a black card then > > the player has seen its face = this knowledge is not > > obtained otherwise. Evidence that one or both of the > > opponents has seen the face of the card is not proof > > in itself that the defender could have seen its face; the > > Director has to work a little more diligently than that on > > establishing the facts of the incident. > > ~ Grattan ~ > > +=+ > > > How much more? In the course book I would use if it > had been written there will not be an instruction to ask > other defender whether he/she saw the card. While the > answer '' yes'' would help a lot the answer '' no'' is useless, > in the real world it is. And when declarer and dummy > have seen the card the player must have done a > marvellous trick to prevent his partner from seeing it (as > dropping it on his lap, etc. ). > +=+ 'must'? How good were the writer's grades in physics? +=+ > >So my decision you can guess now. > +=+ That's the monocratic bit.+=+ > > Let me tell you a story that happened in Valkenburg 1980, > the teams Olympiad. We were with 5 junior TD's from the > Netherlands there, promising, eager guys you know. So I > was one of them. And we were directing under guidance > of the TD celebraties, one of which was Kojak, whom I met > for the first time there. He was guiding me in the closed > room of the open event. We were called at a table were > two teams from central America were playing. One of the > defenders had shown a card OOT, but had not really > played it. And then declarer said that since the other > partner was not paying attention to the play at that moment > he was sure that partner hadn't seen this card ( the answer > '' no'' above given by declarer in this case). Kojak took his > lawbook and made clear that the question whether he did > or did not see the card was irrelevant, it was the position > the card was held that mattered. So played card etc. > +=+ "the position the card was held in" - agreed - not defined, of course, by whether declarer or dummy could see it.+=+ > > Walking back together he told me that in case he had > made another ruling he could have been sure that the > captain of declarer's team would have approached him > later, asking whether he had become mad giving such > ruling. He also told me that declarer's statement had > nothing to do with facts, was just daylight politeness > defined by culture. Yes you need to know your > 'pappenheimers'. (no translation other than 'people' > known to me) . > +=+ He may also have said something about the then policy of denying the Director judgement and requiring him to rule automatically against the offender, now outmoded? We do actually grant that the Director has a mind these days. +=+ > +=+ He 'knew his man'. He 'needs to know his man'. ('Knowing' a woman is a different thing :-) ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Mar 7 02:01:58 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:01:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation References: Message-ID: <000f01c2e44d$b60e2430$4444e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >>>AG : let's take this to the extreme. Say that RHO > >>> had let a card slip on the floor, and is now under > >>> the table, recovering it. LHO exposes a card, > >>> which constitutes a (non-established) revoke, > >>> picks it back and plays a correct card. Now > >>> LHO emerges. I would rule that, even though > >>> the first card was exposed, it wasn't played, as > >>> partner couldn't possibly see it". Thus no PC. > >>> Right ? > ------------------ \x/ ------------------------- > > Grattan, one for your notebook? > > Best wishes > > Richard > +=+ Before I leap into the quicksand perhaps we should clarify what we are talking about. "LHO exposes a card" - 'exposes' or 'plays'? Law 62B1 only applies to a withdrawn revoke card; to be a revoke card it must have been played to the trick. This would include a compulsory play under 45C1 if applicable*. If it is exposed, but not "in the normal course of play or application of law*", we are in Law 49. Could we just fit what is being said within this framework, so that I may understand the problem? ~ G ~ +=+ From nancy@dressing.org Fri Mar 7 02:35:41 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:35:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] SAYC history References: <200303062328.h26NSM6X022690@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <004c01c2e452$3f496120$6501a8c0@hare> I have several SAYC Booklets and Convention Cards. The one (card) I have in hand now says it was copyright ACBL 1988 and rev. 4/91. My Booklet's copyright date is Rev 1988. The May 1988 Bulletin "Highlight of Board Actions" states that the Standard Card will be modified and used in the Salt Lake City (which it was) and will remain unaltered for a year. There also are letters to the Editor referring to an article "Good Bye Goren System Hello ACBL Standard". There is a letter to the editor in the Sept. 1988 bulletin complaining about not be able to play that card because they don't play all those conventions.!! I have checked the April, May, July, August 1988 Bulletins but no Good Bye Goren article, I would guess from the letters it might be in the June Bulletin. When they finally got rid of the SAYC, I took all that they had at the NABC but I can't remember which one. I have in mind that it might have been in Toronto in the early 90s. The booklet is wonderful for students who have a bit of experience and want to add some gadgets to their system. I have a copy scanned into my computer of the booklet if anyone is interested. Nancy --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Are you still wasting your time with spam?... There is a solution!" Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector The most powerful anti-spam software available. http://www.giantcompany.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Ying" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] SAYC history > > Hmmm...I've done some background hunting on the web. The first > site that I found was the official ACBL site which noted that > the system as defined was officially introduced in September 1988. > >From the note at the bottom, it looks like it is version 3 of > this released version (see http://rrnet.com/meadowlark/yellow.html). > > Another site that gives a good background history of SA and SAYC is > http://www.bridge-forum.com/Archives/sayc_compared_to_standard_american.html > Here it says: > > "[SAYC] was developed and officially introduced at the > 1988 Spring NABC by the American Contract Bridge League. SAYC was > intended for pickup partnerships and special games using ONLY that > card. SAYC was based on modern-style Standard American, but included > several conventions not found at many home or rubber bridge games. > Around 1990 the ACBL stopped supporting SAYC. However, it is now > taught to many novices as an alternative to Standard American. It is > also used by many online players world-wide as the pickup system of > choice." > > And it looks as if the most recent ACBL version of SAYC is revised > 9/88. > > I have to say, from my experience, the field that is most likely > to want to play in restricted convention events is the senior > events and although popular there, there are a fair number of > seniors that want to play their fancy systems, too. It's just far > more popular there than any other game. > > -Ted. > > > From: Steve Willner > > Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:36:29 -0500 (EST) > > > > Here's a brief update, but I still haven't found the original date > > of the system. > > > > In the 1988 September _ACBL Bulletin_, p. 30, there's an article giving > > a brief summary of the system. The SAYC portion of the article begins, > > "Most tournament players are already familiar with [SAYC]." Jacoby 2NT > > is included. I see no indication that there were changes in the system > > at that time. > > > > More interesting, the article begins by describing an effort to create > > "ACBL Standard," originally presented in the June issue. It suggests > > that there could be as many as four different versions varying in > > complexity. As far as I can tell, this effort sank without trace > > (except for the preexisting SAYC). > > > > As for SAYC tournament events, there was an NABC in Niagara Falls in > > 1982 March. The CoC in the 1982 February _Bulletin_ make no mention of > > SAYC events. In fact, the tournament used the old A-F convention > > charts, not the present GCC/MidChart/SuperChart, although that isn't > > necessarily proof that SAYC did not exist then. > > > > If anybody has a better idea of when SAYC might have originated, I'll > > look further, but I'm inclined to think between 1982 and 1988, probably > > closer to the later date. That would agree with Adam's memory, so > > maybe I'll just start there and work backwards. (If I have time.) > > > > By the way, the ACBL's "Classic Bridge" effort was around 1996 August. > > That too vanished after (I believe) a single day at an NABC. > > > > All of these efforts had implementation problems, but so far there is > > no evidence that players like events that force them to use a set > > bidding system. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 7 03:46:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:46:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] SuperTD (was Gratuitous question) Message-ID: I wrote: >>I am slightly uncomfortable about Ted Ying's position; >>it reminds me of the premise of the film Minority >>Report where you get arrested for a murder you have not >>yet committed. [snip] Ted Ying replied: [snip] >The point is that players should be cautioned about the >correct way to avoid problems. Even if it only causes problems >one time out of a dozen, players should still aim to avoid >the situation. It can be excused when it doesn't create a >problem, but it should still carry a warning that you shouldn't >do it. At the start of a session, SuperTD makes a routine announcement: "Players, avoid problems by never claiming. It only causes a situation one time out of a dozen, but I caution you that you shouldn't claim." >As Grattan says, everyone should be encouraged to learn to >make their enquiries at the appropriate time. SuperTD makes another routine announcement: "Players, I encourage you to ignore what the Laws of Bridge say is the appropriate time. Instead, learn to become my Acol-yte." :-) wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 7 04:18:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:18:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>AG : let's take this to the extreme. Say that RHO >> had let a card slip on the floor, and is now under >> the table, recovering it. LHO exposes a card, >> which constitutes a (non-established) revoke, >> picks it back and plays a correct card. Now >> LHO emerges. I would rule that, even though >> the first card was exposed, it wasn't played, as >> partner couldn't possibly see it". Thus no PC. >> Right ? Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ Before I leap into the quicksand perhaps >we should clarify what we are talking about. >"LHO exposes a card" - 'exposes' or 'plays'? >Law 62B1 only applies to a withdrawn revoke >card; to be a revoke card it must have been >played to the trick. This would include a >compulsory play under 45C1 if applicable*. > If it is exposed, but not "in the normal >course of play or application of law*", we are >in Law 49. > Could we just fit what is being said within >this framework, so that I may understand the >problem? ~ G ~ +=+ In my opinion, it seems that: a) Law 45C1 does not apply when defender's partner is under the table; neither does Law 49; b) Therefore, in Alain's scenario, LHO cannot "expose" a card; c) However, in Alain's scenario LHO can play a card - Law 45A - reaching the unusual state that LHO has a played card which is simultaneously not an exposed card; d) We now reach paradox if we assume LHO immediately corrects their revoke before RHO emerges from under the table. Law 62B1 states that the played card becomes a penalty card, cross-referencing Law 50. But Law 50 defines a penalty card as a prematurely exposed card, which this is not. As TD I would resolve this paradox by eating the card in a club sandwich. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Mar 7 03:59:46 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:59:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) References: <3E674F54.3050501@t-online.de> Message-ID: <008f01c2e45d$fe61a9e0$e55827d9@pbncomputer> Matthias wrote: > This is what really happened. No fun. No joke. The pure truth. > Declarer claimed after trick 6 in the way I described in the original > mail. There was a certain amount of tension at the table. Especially > South and East don`t get along terribly well with each other. East asked > declarer to play it out (don`t read the laws to me guys, please...). > Declarer, being somewhat annoyed, complied. Trick 7: diamond ruffed > low.... (on my honour, the complete truth!!). Now dummy called for the > TD and complained that play had ended with the claim and asked for a ruling. > Comments please. None whatever. A while ago, Herman told me to "stop it" when I was trying to express my opinions about claims, so I stopped it. Here is TWM, who tells us that it would not only be irrational but "terminally insane" to do the thing that declarer in fact did. And here is Herman, whose infallible recipe for working out what was going on in declarer's mind appears to have encountered... well, shall we say, a stumbling block? To be honest, I have never seen such furious back-pedalling in all my life - and it is not as if I were still there to say "I told you so". But at least the shamefaced and shambolic reactions to Matthias's case encourage me to believe that you are still capable of other than wholly irrational thought. Persevere. David Burn London, England From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Fri Mar 7 07:55:04 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:55:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpreation Message-ID: <004801c2e47e$de657b00$264565d5@swipnet.se> As a corollary to Ton=B4s story I have this one. It happened at the European Championships in Birmingham in 1981. Closed = room, Great Britain vs Iceland. I was directing in the closed room and = happened to stand behind East. The contract was 4 hearts by South. Trumps were drawn and South had = eliminated his minor suits. He had trumps left and this was the spade = situation: K J x x x ------------------------A Q 9 8 10 x x x South played a spade and was thinking of playing the jack or the king. = After a while he asked for the king and East was halfway playing the = queen, thinking the jack was played. It was borderline wheyher west = could have seen the queen. I went to stand behind West and asked East to = do the same thing again. He did. On my I found out that it did not = matter whether East plays the queen or the ace. East was end played. = Anyway, when standing behind West I found out that the queen could have = been seen and I ruled the queen to be played. East got his two spade = tricks. I liked my ruling. Yours etc Hans-Olof =20 From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Mar 7 08:45:23 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:45:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation References: Message-ID: <002701c2e486$27a52480$2304e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ Before I leap into the quicksand perhaps > >we should clarify what we are talking about. > >"LHO exposes a card" - 'exposes' or 'plays'? > >Law 62B1 only applies to a withdrawn revoke > >card; to be a revoke card it must have been > >played to the trick. This would include a > >compulsory play under 45C1 if applicable*. > > If it is exposed, but not "in the normal > >course of play or application of law*", we are > >in Law 49. > > Could we just fit what is being said within > >this framework, so that I may understand the > >problem? ~ G ~ +=+ > RH: > In my opinion, it seems that: > > a) Law 45C1 does not apply when defender's partner > is under the table; neither does Law 49; > > b) Therefore, in Alain's scenario, LHO cannot > "expose" a card; > > c) However, in Alain's scenario LHO can play a > card - Law 45A - reaching the unusual state that > LHO has a played card which is simultaneously > not an exposed card; > > d) We now reach paradox if we assume LHO immediately > corrects their revoke before RHO emerges from > under the table. Law 62B1 states that the played > card becomes a penalty card, cross-referencing > Law 50. But Law 50 defines a penalty card as a > prematurely exposed card, which this is not. > > As TD I would resolve this paradox by eating the > card in a club sandwich. > > Best wishes > > Richard > +=+ The statement in Law 50 is not a whole definition of a penalty card. It says that a card prematurely exposed etc is etc., but it does not exclude the possibility that, if the relevant law say so, a penalty card may not be something other than that. When another law says that a card is a penalty card the reference then to Law 50 places the treatment of it under Law 50 and is concerned with the manner in which the card, being a penalty card, is to be treated. The Director applies the laws of physics (though he may not actually realize it) when deciding whether a defender's partner could possibly see a card placed in the position in which the Director has determined it was placed. If the partner is in the bathroom or under the table at the time it is unlikely that it would be thought possible for him to see the card. Don't eat the card, it might be a loose diamond. Cheers, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Mar 7 10:00:55 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:00:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 Interpretation References: <001401c2e39e$b55bdeb0$424ee150@endicott> <004801c2e3c3$5f747230$d2c7f1c3@LNV> <003701c2e445$9f795300$e33987d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <006e01c2e490$7a3655c0$b93ef0c3@LNV> > > > > > > > > > +=+ Touching Law 49 we should bear in mind that the > > > criterion is "could possibly have seen its face". This is > > > not synonymous with having seen the suit/rank of the > > > card. If the player has seen that it is a black card then > > > the player has seen its face = this knowledge is not > > > obtained otherwise. Evidence that one or both of the > > > opponents has seen the face of the card is not proof > > > in itself that the defender could have seen its face; the > > > Director has to work a little more diligently than that on > > > establishing the facts of the incident. > > > ~ Grattan ~ > > > +=+ > > > > > > How much more? In the course book I would use if it > > had been written there will not be an instruction to ask > > other defender whether he/she saw the card. While the > > answer '' yes'' would help a lot the answer '' no'' is useless, > > in the real world it is. And when declarer and dummy > > have seen the card the player must have done a > > marvellous trick to prevent his partner from seeing it (as > > dropping it on his lap, etc. ). > > > +=+ 'must'? How good were the writer's grades in physics? +=+ > >So my decision you can guess now. > > > +=+ That's the monocratic bit.+=+ > > > > Let me tell you a story that happened in Valkenburg 1980, > > the teams Olympiad. We were with 5 junior TD's from the > > Netherlands there, promising, eager guys you know. So I > > was one of them. And we were directing under guidance > > of the TD celebraties, one of which was Kojak, whom I met > > for the first time there. He was guiding me in the closed > > room of the open event. We were called at a table were > > two teams from central America were playing. One of the > > defenders had shown a card OOT, but had not really > > played it. And then declarer said that since the other > > partner was not paying attention to the play at that moment > > he was sure that partner hadn't seen this card ( the answer > > '' no'' above given by declarer in this case). Kojak took his > > lawbook and made clear that the question whether he did > > or did not see the card was irrelevant, it was the position > > the card was held that mattered. So played card etc. > > > +=+ "the position the card was held in" - agreed - not defined, > of course, by whether declarer or dummy could see it.+=+ > > > > Walking back together he told me that in case he had > > made another ruling he could have been sure that the > > captain of declarer's team would have approached him > > later, asking whether he had become mad giving such > > ruling. He also told me that declarer's statement had > > nothing to do with facts, was just daylight politeness > > defined by culture. Yes you need to know your > > 'pappenheimers'. (no translation other than 'people' > > known to me) . > > > +=+ He may also have said something about the then > policy of denying the Director judgement and requiring > him to rule automatically against the offender, now > outmoded? We do actually grant that the Director has > a mind these days. +=+ > > > +=+ He 'knew his man'. He 'needs to know his man'. > ('Knowing' a woman is a different thing :-) > ~ G ~ +=+ Just for historical clarity: We started ruling against offender in '87 I think. And that had to do with what we call judgement cases, not with technical rulings even when the facts where not that easy to establish. I even doubt whether Kojak's decision is appealable (more neatly: could be overruled; another problem we need to pay attention to in the drafting committee)). And more credit for Kojak: he always has objected this approach during that black period in world bridge, and kept trying to make the best decision possible. ton From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Mar 7 10:37:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:37 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) In-Reply-To: <008f01c2e45d$fe61a9e0$e55827d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David Burn wrote: > None whatever. A while ago, Herman told me to "stop it" when I was > trying to express my opinions about claims, so I stopped it. Here is > TWM, who tells us that it would not only be irrational but "terminally > insane" to do the thing that declarer in fact did I don't know about you David but I see players make completely irrational calls/plays at the table with a a fair degree of frequency. These are usually greeted by the question from partner "Are you mad?". When describing the situation to the crowd in the bar later the phrase "Partner was on drugs" is often used. The law tells us to exclude such plays from consideration when adjudicating claims - so I do. I acknowledge that the phrase "terminally insane" contains a small degree of hyperbole. Tim From svenpran@online.no Fri Mar 7 11:03:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:03:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c2e499$3b2fe900$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads .......... > I don't know about you David but I see players make completely irrational > calls/plays at the table with a a fair degree of frequency. These are > usually greeted by the question from partner "Are you mad?". When > describing the situation to the crowd in the bar later the phrase "Partner > was on drugs" is often used. The law tells us to exclude such plays from > consideration when adjudicating claims - so I do. I acknowledge that the > phrase "terminally insane" contains a small degree of hyperbole. The laws tell us to exclude irrational plays - but they do not tell us where to draw the line between irrational and careless or inferior play. Much of this discussion seems to come from reluctance to accept that plays as above described by Tim is in fact too frequent to be excluded in a claim situation, unless we want to actively protect the claimer from making mistakes he might very well have made had he not claimed but instead played on. And that cannot possibly be the intention of Law 70 can it? This is why I prefer, and try to implement a rather strict limitation on what shall be accepted as "irrational". Sven From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Mar 7 13:28:37 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:28:37 GMT Subject: [blml] Law 49 & 50 clash ?? Message-ID: <3e689e85.3c9e.0@esatclear.ie> > >Like ever so often it pays to look up the commentaries, even >those that were written for the 1987 laws: > >In short the commentaries say that the Director "will designate >otherwise" if he feels that rights have been jeopardized by a >failure to call him earlier; ....... > >That means if he finds that some players have been damaged due >to a violation of Law 9B then equity may best be restored by >the Director canceling the "ruling" (by the players) that a >card is a penalty card. > >Regards Sven +++ Right ... annddd erhh these commentaries are they on the internet or does one have to buy em ?? K. -- http://www.iol.ie From svenpran@online.no Fri Mar 7 15:18:07 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:18:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 49 & 50 clash ?? In-Reply-To: <3e689e85.3c9e.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000101c2e4bc$c1c06030$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Karel > Sent: 7. mars 2003 14:29 > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 49 & 50 clash ?? > > > > >Like ever so often it pays to look up the commentaries, even > >those that were written for the 1987 laws: > > > >In short the commentaries say that the Director "will designate > >otherwise" if he feels that rights have been jeopardized by a > >failure to call him earlier; ....... > > > >That means if he finds that some players have been damaged due > >to a violation of Law 9B then equity may best be restored by > >the Director canceling the "ruling" (by the players) that a > >card is a penalty card. > > > >Regards Sven > > +++ Right ... annddd erhh these commentaries are they on the internet or > does > one have to buy em ?? Frankly, I don't know, but you could try a search for: "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen Published in conjunction with the European Bridge League by APSBRIDGE SERVICES LTD. (In England), and issued in 1992. My copy even carries an ISBN number: 0 946236 37 2 Regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Mar 7 15:17:11 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 16:17:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) References: <000201c2e499$3b2fe900$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E68B7F7.80204@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Tim West-Meads > .......... > >>I don't know about you David but I see players make completely >> > irrational > >>calls/plays at the table with a a fair degree of frequency. These are >>usually greeted by the question from partner "Are you mad?". When >>describing the situation to the crowd in the bar later the phrase >> > "Partner > >>was on drugs" is often used. The law tells us to exclude such plays >> > from > >>consideration when adjudicating claims - so I do. I acknowledge that >> This is the crucial point. Irrational things do happen at the table, but we must exclude them from claim adjustments - lest we shall rule all claims as zero tricks. > the > >>phrase "terminally insane" contains a small degree of hyperbole. >> > > The laws tell us to exclude irrational plays - but they do not tell us > where to draw the line between irrational and careless or inferior play. > Indeed, and that is where the TD steps in. He's the man at the table - he should judge. > Much of this discussion seems to come from reluctance to accept that > plays as above described by Tim is in fact too frequent to be excluded > in a claim situation, unless we want to actively protect the claimer > from making mistakes he might very well have made had he not claimed but > instead played on. And that cannot possibly be the intention of Law 70 > can it? > > This is why I prefer, and try to implement a rather strict limitation on > what shall be accepted as "irrational". > Now the problem in this case is not really what we regard as irrational, since it is clear that trying to ruff a diamond is, in itself, irrational. Rather we need to look at the degree of carelessness which is needed for claimer to forget, when having to decide which of his three minors he shall ruff, that the diamonds have all gone. I would probably be convinced, at the table, that claimer cannot possibly be so careless. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Fri Mar 7 16:21:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:21:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) In-Reply-To: <3E68B7F7.80204@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c2e4c5$9c77c3a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: ......... > > The laws tell us to exclude irrational plays - but they do not tell us > > where to draw the line between irrational and careless or inferior play. > > > > > Indeed, and that is where the TD steps in. He's the man at the table - > he should judge. > > > > Much of this discussion seems to come from reluctance to accept that > > plays as above described by Tim is in fact too frequent to be excluded > > in a claim situation, unless we want to actively protect the claimer > > from making mistakes he might very well have made had he not claimed but > > instead played on. And that cannot possibly be the intention of Law 70 > > can it? > > > > This is why I prefer, and try to implement a rather strict limitation on > > what shall be accepted as "irrational". > > > > > Now the problem in this case is not really what we regard as > irrational, since it is clear that trying to ruff a diamond is, in > itself, irrational. Rather we need to look at the degree of > carelessness which is needed for claimer to forget, when having to > decide which of his three minors he shall ruff, that the diamonds have > all gone. > > I would probably be convinced, at the table, that claimer cannot possibly > be so careless. And I become convinced at the table only when either: 1: The claimer has mentioned all points that show up to be important, or 2: The winning play becomes evident from what must be revealed automatically in one of the claimed tricks before the winning play would have to be selected when an unmentioned choice exists. I do not accept that the claimer has a full count of the (essential) cards played unless he demonstrates so with his claim statement or unless for instance a void in one of opponent's hands was revealed in the trick(s) immediately preceding the claim. Example of what I accept under alternative 2: I do not award a defender trick for an outstanding, unmentioned trump if regardless how that defender can use this trump his LHO has a higher trump which he can legally play to that same trick. (I do not consider Law 70C to imply that less strict requirements shall be imposed on the claimer's statement related to important cards other than trumps which he may have forgotten). Regards Sven From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Mar 7 16:26:07 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:26:07 GMT Subject: [blml] Sources & answers Message-ID: <3e68c81f.46c5.0@esatclear.ie> Sometimes on this forum - the replies or more often deep silences from the more bridge educated amongst us leave the not so well informed feeling like complete twats. This recent law 49 & 50 thread - I was glad to see Ed echo almost word for word my questions. If 2 people echo the same questions you can be sure there are hundreds/thousands more with the same unspoken question. This in turn implies the particular Law in question is not clearly defined. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't say any where in the laws, examples or specifics, in what circumstances a TD can/should invoke his Law 50 discretionary powers ... The other small point you might want to consider - is posting the site/sites/sources/etc which contain minutes, commentaries or any other relevant information which the non experts like me cannot be aware exist. Abit of light reading on the side may enlighten me further ... K. -- http://www.iol.ie From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Mar 7 16:42:02 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:42:02 GMT Subject: [blml] YACC (Yet another claim case) Message-ID: <3e68cbda.47ae.0@esatclear.ie> >> >> > J87- >> > AJT9- >> > - >> > --- >> > - K96- >> > KQ73 652 >> > --- ---- >> > -QJ6? 8- >> > -T52 >> > 4 >> > ---4- >> > -T5 >>> Scenario 1: Declarer claims, saying "I am going to play a cross-ruff, three spade tricks to you". >>> Scenario 2: Declarer plays a heart to the ace and now claims with the same statement. +++ Now call me pedantic .. but neither of the above claims is fool proof and it is possible the that declarer could go wrong. If the player is good enough to cash 3 top diamonds etc etc then why not simply make a better claim or play the cards out to a position where it is crystal clear. This is a bad claim period. I would rule against declarer I dont care how good he is. The words " ... will ruff a diamond or club high" were not uttered. We must therefore assume they were not critical factors to declarers claim and rule accordingly. As David Burn said the fact that he actually ruffed low subsequently just gives further proof that his claim was infact flawed. It gives further proof that we should never allow the players ability in such cases to be a factor in determining our decision. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From karel@esatclear.ie Sat Mar 8 22:43:51 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel De Raeymaeker) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:43:51 -0800 Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query In-Reply-To: <000101c2e4bc$c1c06030$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In my previous Law 49 post everyone agreed the director was wrong and that RHO "saw" LHO's ST. So now we have the H3 "played" on the table and the ST as a penalty card. My queries are 1) Are both of these are now major penalty cards ?? (2 penalty cards imply both are major ... I think) 2) Can declarer designate which of these me wants played to the trick in question even though the orginal order was ST (taken back) H3 ?? K. From karel@esatclear.ie Sat Mar 8 23:09:08 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel De Raeymaeker) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:09:08 -0800 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 Message-ID: Hi All This appeal has been circulating. Just wanted to get people's view on it ... Board 5 N/S vul. Dealer North NORTH s 6 5 2 h 9 6 d 9 7 3 2 c J 9 7 6 WEST ........... EAST s Q J 10 ....... s K 8 7 3 h K 10 4 ....... h 7 d Q J 6 4 ...... d A K 10 5 c Q 8 5 ........ c A 10 3 2 SOUTH s A 9 4 h A Q J 8 5 3 2 d 8 c K 4 bidding W .... N ..... E ...... S - .... pass .. 1d ..... dbl 3NT .. pass .. pass ... (pause) pass lead: 9 of hearts, result 3NT -3 EW call the director and object to the heart lead which they claim could have been influenced by Souths long pause before passing. your call... From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 8 15:28:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:28:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c2e587$6fd1eed0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Karel De Raeymaeker > > In my previous Law 49 post everyone agreed the director was wrong and that > RHO "saw" LHO's ST. So now we have the H3 "played" on the table and the > ST > as a penalty card. My queries are > > 1) Are both of these are now major penalty cards ?? (2 penalty cards > imply > both are major ... I think) > > 2) Can declarer designate which of these me wants played to the trick in > question even though the orginal order was ST (taken back) H3 ?? Just to refresh the case: West is void and discards the ST, but then immediately retracts that card and instead discards her H3. It can be considered established that East "could have seen the face of the ST". The relevant Law is 47G except if the play of the ST was accepted as inadvertent (See Law 45C4(b) - this law normally applies to declarer's naming of cards from dummy but can also be applied on other plays) in which case Law 47C applies. To qualify for L47C I would normally in a case like this require that the ST apparently fell from the hand, definitely not as the result of that card being played. 1: Under Law 47C the H3 is played and ST becomes a major penalty card. It would have been a minor penalty card had it not been for the rank of the card as an honor. 2: Under Law 47G the ST is played and the H3 becomes a major penalty card. It would have been a minor penalty card had it not been played but rather accidentally exposed. Summary: A penalty card is always a major penalty card except when all the following conditions are met: - It is a card below the rank of an honor (below a ten). - It became exposed only because of an "accident". - It is the only penalty card for that player. (If a player gets another penalty card while he already has a minor penalty card then ALL his penalty cards become major penalty cards.) regards Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Mar 8 15:58:34 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:58:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query In-Reply-To: <000001c2e587$6fd1eed0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Saturday, March 8, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > The relevant Law is 47G except if the play of the ST was accepted as > inadvertent (See Law 45C4(b) - this law normally applies to declarer's > naming of cards from dummy but can also be applied on other plays) Can it? The words of the Law itself don't seem to suggest that is true. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 8 16:05:00 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:05:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query Message-ID: <200303081605.LAA24790@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" > In my previous Law 49 post everyone agreed the director was wrong and that > RHO "saw" LHO's ST. So now we have the H3 "played" on the table and the ST > as a penalty card. My queries are > > 1) Are both of these are now major penalty cards ?? (2 penalty cards imply > both are major ... I think) If there are two or more penalty cards, all are major (L50B). Also, any card deliberately played is always major. Only a single, accidentally exposed card can be minor, and only if it's not an honor. > 2) Can declarer designate which of these me wants played to the trick in > question even though the orginal order was ST (taken back) H3 ?? As I recall the original story, a heart had been led, and the S-T was a revoke. If that's the case, the obligation to follow suit takes precedence over all other rules (L44C). If both cards can legally be played to the trick (which doesn't make a lot of sense in the current case -- why was H-3 exposed at all?), then declarer can designate which one is played (L51A). As others have explained, if the declaring side is somehow responsible for H-3 having been exposed, the TD may rule that it is not a penalty card at all. Of course life is a lot simpler if the TD is called as soon as the S-T may have been exposed. The TD rules whether it must be played or not (as others have also explained), and play goes on from there. From moranl@netvision.net.il Sat Mar 8 16:06:40 2003 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 18:06:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20030308180603.0288cc80@mail.netvision.net.il> In the original post the S10 was played/not played, and was taken back. LHO then played H3. If we assume the TD was right in ruling no infraction, there are no penalty cards and H3 is played and play continues from there. If (as seems to be the correct ruling based on the facts you have given) the S10 is ruled as a played card then S10 must be played and it is not a penalty card. The H3 was exposed AFTER the played S10 and is therefore a penalty card (major - it was deliberately played) . Declarer does not have a choice, there is only one penalty card (H3), and it will have to be played in accordance with 50D from the next trick onwards. Eitan Levy At 14:43 08/03/03 -0800, you wrote: >In my previous Law 49 post everyone agreed the director was wrong and that >RHO "saw" LHO's ST. So now we have the H3 "played" on the table and the ST >as a penalty card. My queries are > >1) Are both of these are now major penalty cards ?? (2 penalty cards imply >both are major ... I think) > >2) Can declarer designate which of these me wants played to the trick in >question even though the orginal order was ST (taken back) H3 ?? > >K. > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 8 16:25:24 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:25:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 Message-ID: <200303081625.LAA24996@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" > This appeal has been circulating. Just wanted to get people's view on it There are no legal issues here; it's just a matter of bridge judgment. This is a perfect example of where a TD should consult players of the same skill as North. > NORTH > s 6 5 2 > h 9 6 > d 9 7 3 2 > c J 9 7 6 > bidding > W .... N ..... E ...... S > - .... pass .. 1d ..... dbl > 3NT .. pass .. pass ... (pause) pass > > lead: 9 of hearts, result 3NT -3 So what are the logical alternative leads? Usually in a magazine polls, there are votes for all suits. Here, I think everything except a diamond is probably a LA. The normal lead is surely a major, probably a heart, but I think there would probably be enough club leaders (or enough seriously considering a club lead) to make it a LA too in most jurisdictions. (Fortunately, on the actual hand the ruling will not depend on whether a club is a LA or not because club and spade give the same result.) What is suggested by the pause (which I'm assuming on the basis of your report was determined to be out of tempo)? To me it suggests a long suit. Possibly it could suggest a good diamond holding but not enough overall strength to double (but then why not a 1NT overcall?), but I think long major with a good hand is more likely. This might depend on the pair's takeout double style. (Kaplan takeout doubles, for example, deny a long major, but few play those methods.) Also on how they play their lead-directing doubles. If South has a long suit, clearly it is more likely to be hearts than anything else, so a heart lead is illegal. If you judge that a club is a LA, a spade lead is also illegal: the hesitation suggests spades over clubs. As I've indicated, all this is strictly bridge judgment. Others can easily disagree with mine, and I'd change my mind in a hurry if a poll of North's peers gave a different answer. The important thing is the process: which leads are LA's? And which LA's are suggested over another? From kaima13@hotmail.com Sat Mar 8 16:26:30 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:26:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 References: Message-ID: > This appeal has been circulating. Just wanted to get people's view on it > Board 5 > N/S vul. > Dealer North > > NORTH > s 6 5 2 > h 9 6 > d 9 7 3 2 > c J 9 7 6 > > WEST ........... EAST > s Q J 10 ....... s K 8 7 3 > h K 10 4 ....... h 7 > d Q J 6 4 ...... d A K 10 5 > c Q 8 5 ........ c A 10 3 2 > > SOUTH > s A 9 4 > h A Q J 8 5 3 2 > d 8 > c K 4 > > bidding > W .... N ..... E ...... S > - .... pass .. 1d ..... dbl > 3NT .. pass .. pass ... (pause) pass > > lead: 9 of hearts, result 3NT -3 > > EW call the director and object to the heart lead which they claim could > have been influenced by Souths long pause before passing. > > your call.. K: I cannot see any connection with the pause and a heart lead. A lead in a major suit was well indicated by the bidding. I would have led hearts because the 9 is a nice spot ("nicer" than the spade spots) and my hand is never going to be on lead again in this hand, so I will try to be as helpful to partner as possible this one chance that I have = opening lead. However, if a diamond was the setting lead, and North lead a diamond, EW (whose character was defined by their calling director in this case) would have called director then as well. Same thing, if spade lead was the killer and spade was lead. Director! Or if a club lead.... you get it... EW were out to get a score in their column at any cost. I hope director did not condone EW's conduct, and that he applied education/procedural penalty or whatever in his power, to emphasize to EW that this sort of litigious behaviour is not part of the game. Best regards, Kaima aka D R Davis _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <002c01c2e592$1a56d780$2f2e6651@annescomputer> What a pity there are no procedural penalties available to this list. Kaima's defamation of E/W for calling the TD is an abomination. In my opinion the hesitation indicates that S would like to double for a short suit lead. It is not acceptable to pass this information in any other way than to actually do so. As Steve Wilner said - this is now down to bridge judgement as to the logical elternatives that North has as to the lead he may choose. West has more or less denied a 4 card major, so either may be a good lead.West is marked with some D support so even a diamond lead is unlikely to give much away. On the other hand, the only values North has are in clubs, it is surely a logical alternative to tell partner this at trick one, by leading one. I would rule that the lead of the 9H has been chosen from among logical alternatives, and that the result should be ammended to 3NT making 9 tricks. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "kaima" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal 666 > > This appeal has been circulating. Just wanted to get people's view on it > > Board 5 > > N/S vul. > > Dealer North > > > > NORTH > > s 6 5 2 > > h 9 6 > > d 9 7 3 2 > > c J 9 7 6 > > > > WEST ........... EAST > > s Q J 10 ....... s K 8 7 3 > > h K 10 4 ....... h 7 > > d Q J 6 4 ...... d A K 10 5 > > c Q 8 5 ........ c A 10 3 2 > > > > SOUTH > > s A 9 4 > > h A Q J 8 5 3 2 > > d 8 > > c K 4 > > > > bidding > > W .... N ..... E ...... S > > - .... pass .. 1d ..... dbl > > 3NT .. pass .. pass ... (pause) pass > > > > lead: 9 of hearts, result 3NT -3 > > > > EW call the director and object to the heart lead which they claim could > > have been influenced by Souths long pause before passing. > > > > your call.. > > K: > I cannot see any connection with the pause and a heart lead. A lead in a > major suit was well indicated by the bidding. I would have led hearts > because the 9 is a nice spot ("nicer" than the spade spots) and my hand is > never going to be on lead again in this hand, so I will try to be as helpful > to partner as possible this one chance that I have = opening lead. > > However, if a diamond was the setting lead, and North lead a diamond, EW > (whose character was defined by their calling director in this case) would > have called director then as well. Same thing, if spade lead was the killer > and spade was lead. Director! Or if a club lead.... you get it... > > EW were out to get a score in their column at any cost. I hope director did > not condone EW's conduct, and that he applied education/procedural penalty > or whatever in his power, to emphasize to EW that this sort of litigious > behaviour is not part of the game. > > Best regards, > Kaima aka D R Davis > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 8 17:03:14 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:03:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2e594$9c2bc570$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > Sven Pran wrote: > > > The relevant Law is 47G except if the play of the ST was accepted as > > inadvertent (See Law 45C4(b) - this law normally applies to declarer's > > naming of cards from dummy but can also be applied on other plays) > > Can it? The words of the Law itself don't seem to suggest that is true. That law uses the term "Player" not "Declarer". There is a distinction. The laws uses the term "Declarer" in every place they apply exclusively to the declarer like when playing cards from dummy. Besides it is (together with Law 47C that caters for the case of a defender accidentally dropping a card on the table (while attempting to play another). Regards Sven From kaima13@hotmail.com Sat Mar 8 17:16:39 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:16:39 -0800 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 References: <002c01c2e592$1a56d780$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: Anne wrote: > What a pity there are no procedural penalties available to this list. > Kaima's defamation of E/W for calling the TD is an abomination. K: Interesting. I can live with the fact that someone calls my opinion an abomination, that is what discussion sometimes is. Karel was asking for people to give their views. I gave mine. It is a player view, not TD, AC or a laws expert. Of course I may change it (as any normal person would) if there are grounds to change it or if I overlooked facts in the first place. I am looking forward to posts on this subject now with added interest. Thank you. Kaima aka D R Davis > In my opinion the hesitation indicates that S would like to double for a > short suit lead. It is not acceptable to pass this information in any other > way than to actually do so. > As Steve Wilner said - this is now down to bridge judgement as to the > logical elternatives that North has as to the lead he may choose. West has > more or less denied a 4 card major, so either may be a good lead.West is > marked with some D support so even a diamond lead is unlikely to give much > away. On the other hand, the only values North has are in clubs, it is > surely a logical alternative to tell partner this at trick one, by leading > one. > I would rule that the lead of the 9H has been chosen from among logical > alternatives, and that the result should be ammended to 3NT making 9 tricks. > Anne > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "kaima" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 4:26 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal 666 > > > > > This appeal has been circulating. Just wanted to get people's view on > it > > > Board 5 > > > N/S vul. > > > Dealer North > > > > > > NORTH > > > s 6 5 2 > > > h 9 6 > > > d 9 7 3 2 > > > c J 9 7 6 > > > > > > WEST ........... EAST > > > s Q J 10 ....... s K 8 7 3 > > > h K 10 4 ....... h 7 > > > d Q J 6 4 ...... d A K 10 5 > > > c Q 8 5 ........ c A 10 3 2 > > > > > > SOUTH > > > s A 9 4 > > > h A Q J 8 5 3 2 > > > d 8 > > > c K 4 > > > > > > bidding > > > W .... N ..... E ...... S > > > - .... pass .. 1d ..... dbl > > > 3NT .. pass .. pass ... (pause) pass > > > > > > lead: 9 of hearts, result 3NT -3 > > > > > > EW call the director and object to the heart lead which they claim could > > > have been influenced by Souths long pause before passing. > > > > > > your call.. > > > > K: > > I cannot see any connection with the pause and a heart lead. A lead in a > > major suit was well indicated by the bidding. I would have led hearts > > because the 9 is a nice spot ("nicer" than the spade spots) and my hand is > > never going to be on lead again in this hand, so I will try to be as > helpful > > to partner as possible this one chance that I have = opening lead. > > > > However, if a diamond was the setting lead, and North lead a diamond, EW > > (whose character was defined by their calling director in this case) would > > have called director then as well. Same thing, if spade lead was the > killer > > and spade was lead. Director! Or if a club lead.... you get it... > > > > EW were out to get a score in their column at any cost. I hope director > did > > not condone EW's conduct, and that he applied education/procedural penalty > > or whatever in his power, to emphasize to EW that this sort of litigious > > behaviour is not part of the game. > > > > Best regards, > > Kaima aka D R Davis > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Mar 8 17:57:18 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 17:57:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query In-Reply-To: <000101c2e594$9c2bc570$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <66FAC0F2-518F-11D7-9C81-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Saturday, March 8, 2003, at 05:03 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Gordon Rainsford >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> The relevant Law is 47G except if the play of the ST was accepted as >>> inadvertent (See Law 45C4(b) - this law normally applies to > declarer's >>> naming of cards from dummy but can also be applied on other plays) >> >> Can it? The words of the Law itself don't seem to suggest that is > true. > > That law uses the term "Player" not "Declarer". There is a distinction. > The laws uses the term "Declarer" in every place they apply exclusively > to the declarer like when playing cards from dummy. > > Besides it is (together with Law 47C that caters for the case of a > defender accidentally dropping a card on the table (while attempting to > play another). > It seems to me that it might apply to other *namings* or *designations*, but not to other *plays*. Hence "player" and not "declarer", since this Law could apply to a defender who names a card, but not to a declarer who *plays* a card. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From jrhind@therock.bm Sat Mar 8 21:01:54 2003 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 17:01:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/8/03 7:09 PM, "Karel De Raeymaeker" wrote: > Hi All > > This appeal has been circulating. Just wanted to get people's view on it > ... > > > Board 5 > N/S vul. > Dealer North > > NORTH > s 6 5 2 > h 9 6 > d 9 7 3 2 > c J 9 7 6 > > WEST ........... EAST > s Q J 10 ....... s K 8 7 3 > h K 10 4 ....... h 7 > d Q J 6 4 ...... d A K 10 5 > c Q 8 5 ........ c A 10 3 2 > > SOUTH > s A 9 4 > h A Q J 8 5 3 2 > d 8 > c K 4 > > bidding > W .... N ..... E ...... S > - .... pass .. 1d ..... dbl > 3NT .. pass .. pass ... (pause) pass > > lead: 9 of hearts, result 3NT -3 > > EW call the director and object to the heart lead which they claim could > have been influenced by Souths long pause before passing. > > your call... > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml This is a classic example of a situation where the TD needs to get the opinion of players in North's peer group. I believe that a major suit lead is stand out on this hand. I think that a heart lead is more likely to help than a spade. It is clear to me, however, that South's hesitation is likely to be based on a long major and a good hand. Notice that a club lead has the same effect as a heart lead. I want to be guided by what other players lead without the hesitation, and by what they think partner's hand pattern is when they know there has been a hesitation. Regards, Jack From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 8 21:13:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:13:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query In-Reply-To: <66FAC0F2-518F-11D7-9C81-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c2e5b7$a1832ea0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > >> Sven Pran wrote: > >> > >>> The relevant Law is 47G except if the play of the ST was accepted as > >>> inadvertent (See Law 45C4(b) - this law normally applies to > > declarer's > >>> naming of cards from dummy but can also be applied on other plays) > >> > >> Can it? The words of the Law itself don't seem to suggest that is > > true. > > > > That law uses the term "Player" not "Declarer". There is a distinction. > > The laws uses the term "Declarer" in every place they apply exclusively > > to the declarer like when playing cards from dummy. > > > > Besides it is (together with Law 47C) the only law that caters for the case of a defender accidentally dropping a card on the table (while attempting to play another). > > > > It seems to me that it might apply to other *namings* or > *designations*, but not to other *plays*. > > Hence "player" and not "declarer", since this Law could apply to a > defender who names a card, but not to a declarer who *plays* a card. Law 45C4(a): A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play. Law 45C4(b): A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought; ....... Law 47C: A played card may be withdrawn without penalty after a change of designation as permitted by Law 45C4(b). Pleased note the wording in (a) above: "names or otherwise designates". Obviously "designates" is not limited to the naming of a card. I have been unable to find any other law in the book that will permit any player who inadvertently drops a card he has no intention of playing on the table to instead play the card he intended. Is it your opinion that a defender or the declarer shall not be permitted to withdraw such a card which was dropped inadvertently? You can of course claim that Law45C is irrelevant because the player did not in any way designate the card as the card he intended to play, but then we have the interesting situation that the player has detached the card from his hand and faced it on the table immediately before him. (Law 45A which does not include "intention" to play that card as a condition for the card to be considered being played). And Law 47 in that case does not permit him to withdraw the card because none of the conditions for such withdrawal is fulfilled. Stalemate? Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sun Mar 9 00:09:30 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:09:30 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: <002c01c2e592$1a56d780$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Anne Jones wrote: > away. On the other hand, the only values North has are in clubs, it is > surely a logical alternative to tell partner this at trick one, by leading > one. My take on it is much closer to kaima's than anne's. It does depend some on who North is. If he's a rank beginner, yeah, I suppose fourth best from your longest and strongest is an LA. But I would be deeply insulted to be holding North's cards and hear someone suggest I would consider a club lead for more than two seconds before selecting a heart, pause or no pause, double or no double. We aren't given system details, but in most of the world, 3NT denies a 4-card major and carries a mild suggestion of significant club values as opposed to a good diamond fit that might inspire some slam exploration. Since opener doesn't have a 5-card major either (and if playing Acol the odds of him having a decent 4-card major are reduced).... it is blindingly obvious South has a heart suit. Why didn't he overcall 1H? Either he has both majors (maybe 4-5 , but not 5-4), or he is too strong for a simple overcall. Either way, I am not getting in again, and need to lead my partner's best suit. If EW and N are all fairly good players I rule score stands, and I keep the deposit if EW appeal. If EW are less experienced I will return the deposit and explain why. But telling North that many of his peers would have led a club is a pretty dire insult even if we do resolve doubtful points against the offenders. GRB From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <002e01c2e5db$42a8c330$2f2e6651@annescomputer> I didn't tell North that a good many of his peers would have led clubs. I considered it to be a logical alternative. Your rationalle may well be right - as SW said originally - a group of the players in the field should be consulted. If N is a good player then the field is his judge. It matters not how good E/W are - nor North's perception of their ability. It was kaima's denigration of E/W that got to me. I will punish this voiced opinion in any event I TD. Kaima has graciously said that he accepts my comments as part of a reasoned discussion. I hope he has started to see that there is more involved in this case than meets they eye to the uninitiated at the table. I see no report of the TD decision or of the AC judgement, although Karen said originally that it was an appeal. Maybe this information might help us to comment better because the AC would have ascertained the probable LAs :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 12:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal 666 > > > On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Anne Jones wrote: > > > away. On the other hand, the only values North has are in clubs, it is > > surely a logical alternative to tell partner this at trick one, by leading > > one. > > My take on it is much closer to kaima's than anne's. > > It does depend some on who North is. If he's a rank beginner, yeah, I > suppose fourth best from your longest and strongest is an LA. But I would > be deeply insulted to be holding North's cards and hear someone suggest I > would consider a club lead for more than two seconds before selecting a > heart, pause or no pause, double or no double. > > We aren't given system details, but in most of the world, 3NT denies a > 4-card major and carries a mild suggestion of significant club values as > opposed to a good diamond fit that might inspire some slam exploration. > Since opener doesn't have a 5-card major either (and if playing Acol the > odds of him having a decent 4-card major are reduced).... it is blindingly > obvious South has a heart suit. Why didn't he overcall 1H? Either he has > both majors (maybe 4-5 , but not 5-4), or he is too strong for a simple > overcall. Either way, I am not getting in again, and need to lead my > partner's best suit. > > If EW and N are all fairly good players I rule score stands, and I keep > the deposit if EW appeal. If EW are less experienced I will return the > deposit and explain why. But telling North that many of his peers would > have led a club is a pretty dire insult even if we do resolve doubtful > points against the offenders. > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun Mar 9 11:17:06 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:17:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query In-Reply-To: <000001c2e5b7$a1832ea0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Saturday, March 8, 2003, at 09:13 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Law 45C4(a): A card must be played if a player names or otherwise > designates it as the card he proposes to play. > > Law 45C4(b): A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent > designation if he does so without pause for thought; ....... > > Law 47C: A played card may be withdrawn without penalty after a change > of designation as permitted by Law 45C4(b). > > Pleased note the wording in (a) above: "names or otherwise = designates". > Obviously "designates" is not limited to the naming of a card. That's true, but it doesn't extend to include cards which have been=20 played. > > I have been unable to find any other law in the book that will permit > any player who inadvertently drops a card he has no intention of=20 > playing > on the table to instead play the card he intended. When that player is the declarer, it's dealt with by Law 48A: Declarer=20= Exposes a Card Declarer is not subject to penalty for exposing a card, and no card of=20= declarer's or dummy's hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not=20= required to play any card dropped accidentally. When that player is a defender, it seems to be dealt with by a=20 combination of Laws 49 & 50: LAW=A049 - EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER'S CARDS Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a =20 defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly =20 see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, =20 (penalty) each such card becomes a penalty card (Law=A050); but see the=20= footnote to Law=A068, when a defender has made a statement concerning an=20= uncompleted trick currently in progress. LAW=A050 - DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law=A057) by a defender = is=20 a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise. The Director=20 shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below,=20 when he deems that Law=A072B1 applies. B. Major or Minor Penalty Card? A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently=20= (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card=20 accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honour rank, or=20= any card exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of turn, or=20= in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card; when=20 one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major=20= penalty cards. > > Is it your opinion that a defender or the declarer shall not be > permitted to withdraw such a card which was dropped inadvertently? So, no, it is my opinion that a declarer may withdraw such a card=20 without penalty, and a defender may withdraw such a card, but it will=20 become a penalty card (major or minor depending on rank) if partner=20 could have seen its face. > > You can of course claim that Law45C is irrelevant because the player=20= > did > not in any way designate the card as the card he intended to play, but > then we have the interesting situation that the player has detached = the > card from his hand and faced it on the table immediately before him. > (Law 45A which does not include "intention" to play that card as a > condition for the card to be considered being played). > > And Law 47 in that case does not permit him to withdraw the card=20 > because > none of the conditions for such withdrawal is fulfilled. > > Stalemate? Not at all - we're just reading from different pages :) -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From svenpran@online.no Sun Mar 9 12:52:18 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:52:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c2e63a$b7fedca0$6900a8c0@WINXP> I find much of your arguments well taken, but I am not sure that you are fully aware of a few important details? > Gordon Rainsford > On Saturday, March 8, 2003, at 09:13 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Law 45C4(a): A card must be played if a player names or otherwise > > designates it as the card he proposes to play. > > > > Law 45C4(b): A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent > > designation if he does so without pause for thought; ....... > > > > Law 47C: A played card may be withdrawn without penalty after a change > > of designation as permitted by Law 45C4(b). > > > > Pleased note the wording in (a) above: "names or otherwise designates". > > Obviously "designates" is not limited to the naming of a card. > > That's true, but it doesn't extend to include cards which have been > played. Isn't this just a matter of grammar? When you consider cards that have already been played you will have to change verbs in the present tense to some past tense? (i.e. "designated"). And as "designates" cannot be limited to the naming of a card nor can "designated" be limited similarly. > > > > > I have been unable to find any other law in the book that will permit > > any player who inadvertently drops a card he has no intention of > > playing > > on the table to instead play the card he intended. > > When that player is the declarer, it's dealt with by Law 48A: Declarer > Exposes a Card > Declarer is not subject to penalty for exposing a card, and no card of > declarer's or dummy's hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not > required to play any card dropped accidentally. > > When that player is a defender, it seems to be dealt with by a > combination of Laws 49 & 50: ........ All those laws apply to cards exposed but not played unless the withdrawal of a played card is allowed (under Law 47!). Our case is about cards that are inadvertently played. If a player (declarer or defender) absentmindedly produces one card on the table in a manner which indicates he plays that card but then immediately ("without any pause for thought") wakes up and wants to play another card instead. Are we to allow such change of play or not? Would it make any difference if the first play was obviously insane or would you consider only the manner in which the activity took place? For the sake of not becoming too abstract let us assume that the card was placed face up on the table before the player who then immediately looks astonished at the card and tries to withdraw it for replacement by another. (The manner of action being similar to what we accept in changing bid cards). I believe we both agree that when the declarer names a card in dummy (so that it definitely is "played" as specified in Law 45B) but then immediately says "no - I mean" and names another card in dummy then we allow the change under law 45C4(b). Please consider the difference. Regards Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun Mar 9 13:28:36 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:28:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query In-Reply-To: <000001c2e63a$b7fedca0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <08344EFA-5233-11D7-A394-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Sunday, March 9, 2003, at 12:52 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I find much of your arguments well taken, but I am not sure that you > are > fully aware of a few important details? Quite possibly not - I'm acutely aware that you are a very experienced director and I am not :) However the reason I'm here is to learn so I'll dive in anyway. > >> Gordon Rainsford >> On Saturday, March 8, 2003, at 09:13 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> Law 45C4(a): A card must be played if a player names or otherwise >>> designates it as the card he proposes to play. >>> >>> Law 45C4(b): A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent >>> designation if he does so without pause for thought; ....... >>> >>> Law 47C: A played card may be withdrawn without penalty after a > change >>> of designation as permitted by Law 45C4(b). >>> >>> Pleased note the wording in (a) above: "names or otherwise > designates". >>> Obviously "designates" is not limited to the naming of a card. >> >> That's true, but it doesn't extend to include cards which have been >> played. > > Isn't this just a matter of grammar? When you consider cards that have > already been played you will have to change verbs in the present tense > to some past tense? (i.e. "designated"). And as "designates" cannot be > limited to the naming of a card nor can "designated" be limited > similarly. This has nothing to do with the tense of the words. I can play a card. I can name a card (which is one way of designating it). I can otherwise designate a card (by pointing at it for example). Designating a card (by naming or otherwise) is not the same thing as playing it. Law 45C4(a) seems to make this clear: Named or Designated Card (a) Play of Named Card A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposed to play. The law could not be telling us that the card *must be played* if it had already been played. > >> >>> >>> I have been unable to find any other law in the book that will > permit >>> any player who inadvertently drops a card he has no intention of >>> playing >>> on the table to instead play the card he intended. >> >> When that player is the declarer, it's dealt with by Law 48A: Declarer >> Exposes a Card >> Declarer is not subject to penalty for exposing a card, and no card of >> declarer's or dummy's hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is > not >> required to play any card dropped accidentally. >> >> When that player is a defender, it seems to be dealt with by a >> combination of Laws 49 & 50: > ........ > > All those laws apply to cards exposed but not played unless the > withdrawal of a played card is allowed (under Law 47!). Our case is > about cards that are inadvertently played. You mean you're considering the situation when I pull the wrong card out of my hand and place it on the table, but then notice it's not the card I meant to play? I don't think that's what "inadvertently drops" means. But then, yes I am of the opinion that it can't be changed. > > > If a player (declarer or defender) absentmindedly produces one card on > the table in a manner which indicates he plays that card but then > immediately ("without any pause for thought") wakes up and wants to > play > another card instead. Are we to allow such change of play or not? No. > > Would it make any difference if the first play was obviously insane or > would you consider only the manner in which the activity took place? Only the manner, which tells us whether it was played or dropped. If it's dropped or accidentally exposed it can be changed. If it' s played it can't be changed. > > For the sake of not becoming too abstract let us assume that the card > was placed face up on the table before the player who then immediately > looks astonished at the card and tries to withdraw it for replacement > by > another. (The manner of action being similar to what we accept in > changing bid cards). I've been in that situation, but I've never tried to withdraw it because it's already been played. Law 47F tells me it can't be withdrawn. > > I believe we both agree that when the declarer names a card in dummy > (so > that it definitely is "played" as specified in Law 45B) but then > immediately says "no - I mean" and names another card in dummy then we > allow the change under law 45C4(b). Yes, I've also been in that situation, and I have asked (and eventually been allowed) to change it, much to my opponents' disgust :) > Please consider the difference. > The difference is that they're covered by different Laws which tell us they're to be treated differently. If that doesn't seem sufficient reason, perhaps Law 45C4(a) again might provide the clue - the card has not yet been played when it has been named or otherwise designated - though we are told that it must subsequently be played (subject to the exception of Law 45C4(b)). -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Sun Mar 9 14:24:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:24:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query In-Reply-To: <08344EFA-5233-11D7-A394-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000101c2e647$88f74c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > Sven Pran wrote: > > > I find much of your arguments well taken, but I am not sure that you > > are > > fully aware of a few important details? > > Quite possibly not - I'm acutely aware that you are a very experienced > director and I am not :) > However the reason I'm here is to learn so I'll dive in anyway. And well done it is. I should add that during my 20+ years of directing I have never had to rule a case of "inadvertent play" from a defender or declarer, and it might very well be that I shall never meet a case where I would intuitively feel that withdrawal of such play should be allowed. This is unimportant. But what is important is that by Law 45B a card from dummy's hand has actually been played the moment declarer named that card. (It is for instance at this time too late for Dummy to try preventing declarer from playing from the wrong hand by saying "You are at your own hand" or words to that effect). And I find it illogical if the inadvertent play of a card from dummy by naming it may be withdrawn but an inadvertent play by accidentally gripping the wrong card and playing it may not, even when the mistake is immediately discovered by the player in question. But maybe I am wrong? Maybe that is what is intended after all? (Like Chess: Once you have touched a piece, you must move it, no excuse?) ........... > You mean you're considering the situation when I pull the wrong card > out of my hand and place it on the table, but then notice it's not the > card I meant to play? I don't think that's what "inadvertently drops" > means. > > But then, yes I am of the opinion that it can't be changed. Obviously not inadvertent "drops" (and I am sorry for introducing dropping of cards which really only was a sidetracking of the discussion). Your opinion that absolutely no inadvertent "play" should be permitted withdrawn is clarifying and corroborates your understanding of these laws. BTW: A curious side effect of this understanding could be that if a defender says "Here is the King . . . . Oops I mean the Queen" then he has apparently first designated the King and then changed the designation to the Queen in a way that is permitted under Law 45C4(b). Now, if he doesn't have the King, that card could of course not become a penalty card in any case, but what if he has it? Does Law 45C4(b) ("without penalty") take precedence over Law 49 ("exposure of a defender's cards)? And has the King really been exposed at all? I would tend to rule that the King is exposed if he has it, but this is definitely not an obvious case. Regards Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Mar 9 18:59:12 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:59:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 Message-ID: <200303091859.NAA14436@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Jack Rhind > This is a classic example of a situation where the TD needs to get the > opinion of players in North's peer group. I believe that a major suit lead > is stand out on this hand. I think that a heart lead is more likely to help > than a spade. It is clear to me, however, that South's hesitation is likely > to be based on a long major and a good hand. Yes. > Notice that a club lead has the same effect as a heart lead. I don't think so. Declarer goes up with dummy's ace, then knocks out the ace of spades. It looks to me as though only a heart defeats the contract. > From: Gordon Bower > It does depend some on who North is. If he's a rank beginner, yeah, I > suppose fourth best from your longest and strongest is an LA. But I would > be deeply insulted to be holding North's cards and hear someone suggest I > would consider a club lead for more than two seconds before selecting a > heart, pause or no pause, double or no double. I can buy your argument that a club is not a LA (especially in the EBU, which has the least restrictive definition), but what about a spade? In any case, criticizing EW for asking for a ruling is way out of line. South has caused this whole problem, even though his tempo break was not in itself an infraction. He should have done his thinking during his partner's mandatory pause over the 3NT skip bid. By failing to do so, he transmitted UI. We can argue about LA's and "suggested over another" as matters of bridge judgment, and North's lead might or might not be judged an infraction, but certainly the potential for problems should have been obvious to South. It should be no surprise when the TD gets called. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Mar 9 19:05:54 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:05:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query Message-ID: <200303091905.OAA14547@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > I have been unable to find any other law in the book that will permit > any player who inadvertently drops a card he has no intention of playing > on the table to instead play the card he intended. I think one point of confusion got cleared up later, but let's make sure. There is a big difference between a card accidentally dropped and a card that is actually played. In the former case, at least if it's declarer's card, there's no problem at all. Even a defender would not be required to play an accidentally dropped card if his partner could not have seen its face or if it qualifies as a minor penalty card. A card actually played is a different story, and I look forward to further clarification. Whatever the rules are now, I hope they will be even more obvious after 2007. From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Mar 9 19:07:55 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:07:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 References: Message-ID: <003901c2e66f$32e015e0$25b54351@noos.fr> First thank you for given me a good lead problem for my bidding poll. I am always short of problems and I am going to use this one. Jack: >Notice that a club lead has the > same effect as a heart lead. This is not true. On a club lead declarer goes (should go) up ace and plays on spades. Gordon: > But I would > be deeply insulted to be holding North's cards and hear someone suggest I > would consider a club lead for more than two seconds before selecting a > heart, pause or no pause, double or no double. Strong language. I understand the argument that the 3NT guy often has clubs but he might be (very) short when bidding on diamonds. Or he can easily have a 4333 with a major. Anyway before bidding 3NT they tend to check their major stops better than their club stop. But the real argument against leading a major is that partner couldn't find a 1H or 1S overcall. For these reasons I consider clubs the NORMAL lead (= I would lead a club playing with a sane partner). Actually the pause gives a lot of UI. Given a somewhat normal 3NT partner can only consider another bid being completely off-shape. This strongly suggest a short major lead. Since club is more than a LA I would not allow any succesful short major lead. Given a high level NS pair I would at least impose a warning. I can 'remember' some more or less 'identical' cases. Where did this one came from? Tenerife maybe? This case is too similar to a Tenerife case. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Rhind" To: "Karel De Raeymaeker" ; "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal 666 > On 3/8/03 7:09 PM, "Karel De Raeymaeker" wrote: > > > Hi All > > > > This appeal has been circulating. Just wanted to get people's view on it > > ... > > > > > > Board 5 > > N/S vul. > > Dealer North > > > > NORTH > > s 6 5 2 > > h 9 6 > > d 9 7 3 2 > > c J 9 7 6 > > > > WEST ........... EAST > > s Q J 10 ....... s K 8 7 3 > > h K 10 4 ....... h 7 > > d Q J 6 4 ...... d A K 10 5 > > c Q 8 5 ........ c A 10 3 2 > > > > SOUTH > > s A 9 4 > > h A Q J 8 5 3 2 > > d 8 > > c K 4 > > > > bidding > > W .... N ..... E ...... S > > - .... pass .. 1d ..... dbl > > 3NT .. pass .. pass ... (pause) pass > > > > lead: 9 of hearts, result 3NT -3 > > > > EW call the director and object to the heart lead which they claim could > > have been influenced by Souths long pause before passing. > > > > your call... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > This is a classic example of a situation where the TD needs to get the > opinion of players in North's peer group. I believe that a major suit lead > is stand out on this hand. I think that a heart lead is more likely to help > than a spade. It is clear to me, however, that South's hesitation is likely > to be based on a long major and a good hand. Notice that a club lead has the > same effect as a heart lead. I want to be guided by what other players lead > without the hesitation, and by what they think partner's hand pattern is > when they know there has been a hesitation. > > Regards, > > Jack > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sun Mar 9 23:57:30 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:57:30 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: <200303091859.NAA14436@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Steve Willner wrote: > I can buy your argument that a club is not a LA (especially in the EBU, > which has the least restrictive definition), but what about a spade? The same arguments apply to E-W re both majors. The fact I have one more spade means partner has one less spade, and there are more reasons to double with 4-5 majors than with 5-4 majors (if you play 1D-1H-P-1S as nonforcing, anyway.) I am sure there are some directors who think other suits are LAs, and I am sure for some players there would be. I personally would be leading a heart against 1D-X-3NT almost automatically, and feel many good players would do the same, > In any case, criticizing EW for asking for a ruling is way out of > line. Of course they are allowed to ask for a ruling. No argument there. But somehow this wound up in front of an appeals committee, so we were told (no details yet), and if EW were appealing a table ruling of Score Stands I will indeed criticize them unless they are novices. If an overzealous director took away NS's good score and North appealed, I will be happily restoring the table result.:) GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 10 01:35:12 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:35:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 Message-ID: Hypothetical variant, with West dealer: West North East South 1NT Pass 3NT(1) Pass(2) Pass Pass (1) Did not use the Stop! card (2) Break in tempo North 652 96 9732 J976 North leads the H9, finding South with a solid heart suit. How would you rule? Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 10 00:44:39 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:44:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: <003901c2e66f$32e015e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000001c2e69e$3bec0520$6900a8c0@WINXP> I have been watching this thread for a while and I am really surprised how few comments (only one I believe) consider it automatic and obvious to try finding partner rather than try a hopeless(?) invitation from own "best suit" with such a weak hand (anything less than 7 HCP)? In North here after the quoted auction I would never even think of leading anything else than a heart, my shortest suit in a major denomination for which opponents have shown no interest. Sven > > > Board 5 > > > N/S vul. > > > Dealer North > > > > > > NORTH > > > s 6 5 2 > > > h 9 6 > > > d 9 7 3 2 > > > c J 9 7 6 > > > > > > WEST ........... EAST > > > s Q J 10 ....... s K 8 7 3 > > > h K 10 4 ....... h 7 > > > d Q J 6 4 ...... d A K 10 5 > > > c Q 8 5 ........ c A 10 3 2 > > > > > > SOUTH > > > s A 9 4 > > > h A Q J 8 5 3 2 > > > d 8 > > > c K 4 > > > > > > bidding > > > W .... N ..... E ...... S > > > - .... pass .. 1d ..... dbl > > > 3NT .. pass .. pass ... (pause) pass > > > > > > lead: 9 of hearts, result 3NT -3 > > > > > > EW call the director and object to the heart lead which they claim > could > > > have been influenced by Souths long pause before passing. From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 10 01:02:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:02:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2e6a0$a93bf570$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Hypothetical variant, with West dealer: > > West North East South > 1NT Pass 3NT(1) Pass(2) > Pass Pass > > (1) Did not use the Stop! card > (2) Break in tempo > > North > 652 > 96 > 9732 > J976 > > North leads the H9, finding South with > a solid heart suit. > > How would you rule? In Norway: Very simple: Our regulations on the stop card is that the skip bidder controls the (approximately) 10 seconds delay by withdrawing the stop card when he feels the pause has lasted long enough. His LHO has the right to 10 seconds even if the stop card is withdrawn earlier, but he is not permitted to call while the stop card remains faced on the table even if the skip bidder "forgets" it there. He is however permitted to call immediately when the stop card is withdrawn (and supposed to call immediately when the stop card is withdrawn after at least 10 seconds delay). If the skip bidder fails to produce the stop card when required he has no "break in tempo" case against his opponents unless possibly if the delay by the next player is significantly excessive (say at least some 20 seconds). Ruling? No irregularity by North or South. Regards Sven From dkent@sujja.com Mon Mar 10 02:23:58 2003 From: dkent@sujja.com (David Kent) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:23:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: <000001c2e69e$3bec0520$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven said: > > I have been watching this thread for a while and I am really surprised > how few comments (only one I believe) consider it automatic and obvious > to try finding partner rather than try a hopeless(?) invitation from own > "best suit" with such a weak hand (anything less than 7 HCP)? > > In North here after the quoted auction I would never even think of > leading anything else than a heart, my shortest suit in a major > denomination for which opponents have shown no interest. > I have been watching this thread with increasing incredulity. 1) Anyone who fails to bid 1H with the South hand gets NO sympathy. 2) Leading a H against this auction is, at best, double-dummy - at worst cheating. 3) As director I would roll it back to 3NT making. 4) As a committee member I would keep the deposit if NS appealed. If the auction had gone 1N-P-3N-P-P-P and North had been on lead with the given hand, a Heart lead would have been more than acceptable. On the given auction, no! -- Dave Kent From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Mar 10 04:10:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:10 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Hi All > > This appeal has been circulating. Just wanted to get people's view on > it > ... > > > Board 5 > N/S vul. > Dealer North > > NORTH > s 6 5 2 > h 9 6 > d 9 7 3 2 > c J 9 7 6 > > WEST ........... EAST > s Q J 10 ....... s K 8 7 3 > h K 10 4 ....... h 7 > d Q J 6 4 ...... d A K 10 5 > c Q 8 5 ........ c A 10 3 2 > > SOUTH > s A 9 4 > h A Q J 8 5 3 2 > d 8 > c K 4 > > bidding > W .... N ..... E ...... S > - .... pass .. 1d ..... dbl > 3NT .. pass .. pass ... (pause) pass > > lead: 9 of hearts, result 3NT -3 > > EW call the director and object to the heart lead which they claim could > have been influenced by Souths long pause before passing. The auction, with or without the hesitation, suggests leading partner's major. A minor lead is silly here (still an LA for poor players but if a player is that poor I don't expect him to be able to interpret the UI correctly anyway). I really can't see how the hesitation suggests Hearts over Spades. Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 10 07:29:06 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:29:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille Message-ID: This deal was discussed by a panel in the most recent Australian Directors Bulletin. State Championship Board-A-Match (B-A-M) Teams. Bd. 16 / W / EW 102 QJ3 93 QJ10873 7653 AQJ98 1064 852 K1072 AQ8 64 A9 K4 AK97 J654 K52 West North East South Pass Pass 1NT(1) All Pass (1) 17-19 HCP, Balanced The Play: H9 - H4 - HJ - H5 HQ - H8 - H7 - H6 H3 - H2 - HK - H10 HA - S3 - S2 - C9 C2 After all the cards from the fourth trick had been quitted, South asked North what she had discarded. North then re-faced the S2. Result: E/W - 300 N/S were playing odd-even discards (the S2 being a suit preference for clubs). East believes that without South's illegal re-sighting of the North discard, South may possibly have switched to either a diamond or spade. South counters that a diamond switch is pointless given dummy's holding and that the club switch is both safer and more likely than a spade to defeat the contract. * * * Question 1: How would you rule as TD if you were permitted to use Law 12C3? Question 2: One of the panel wrote: >Despite the Law, it is common for a player to ask to >see the cards again, and opponents always accede to >this request without comment. E/W may have right on >their side, but their level of gamesmanship does >nothing to encourage. [snip] Do you agree? Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 10 09:03:07 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:03:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c2e6e3$de144430$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > This deal was discussed by a panel in the > most recent Australian Directors Bulletin. > > State Championship > Board-A-Match (B-A-M) Teams. > Bd. 16 / W / EW > > 102 > QJ3 > 93 > QJ10873 > 7653 AQJ98 > 1064 852 > K1072 AQ8 > 64 A9 > K4 > AK97 > J654 > K52 > > West North East South > Pass Pass 1NT(1) All Pass > > (1) 17-19 HCP, Balanced > > The Play: > H9 - H4 - HJ - H5 > HQ - H8 - H7 - H6 > H3 - H2 - HK - H10 > HA - S3 - S2 - C9 > C2 > > After all the cards from the fourth trick had been > quitted, South asked North what she had discarded. > North then re-faced the S2. > Result: E/W - 300 > N/S were playing odd-even discards (the S2 being a > suit preference for clubs). East believes that without > South's illegal re-sighting of the North discard, South > may possibly have switched to either a diamond or > spade. South counters that a diamond switch is > pointless given dummy's holding and that the club > switch is both safer and more likely than a spade to > defeat the contract. > > * * * > > Question 1: > > How would you rule as TD if you were permitted to use > Law 12C3? Law 12C3 applies to the AC, not to the TD for whom it is always available. The S2 is UI to South so I would as the Director rule (Law 16A) that South may not among logical alternative actions chose one that could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI. Here, South shall be denied continuing in clubs and the score adjusted correspondingly. On the AC with L12C3 available I would of course rule the same, with L12C3 unavailable I would rule Law 93B3 and ask the Director to change his ruling. > > > Question 2: > > One of the panel wrote: > > >Despite the Law, it is common for a player to ask to > >see the cards again, and opponents always accede to > >this request without comment. E/W may have right on > >their side, but their level of gamesmanship does > >nothing to encourage. > > [snip] > > Do you agree? Yes, if this is a social club with fairly inexperienced players and their own set of standards on how to behave when playing bridge. But I take the fact that there was an appeal and a committee to handle it as an indication that such conditions are not present in this club. Regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 10 09:54:44 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:54:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 References: <003901c2e66f$32e015e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E6C60E4.4010209@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > I can 'remember' some more or less 'identical' cases. Where did this one > came from? Tenerife maybe? This case is too similar to a Tenerife case. > yes - tenerife 26 - I'll post it > Jaap van der Neut > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 10 09:55:55 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:55:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: <3E6C612B.4030801@skynet.be> Jaap asked about the similarity with a Tenerife appeal - here is it: Appeal No. 26 Sweden v France Appeals Committee: Steen M=F8ller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium),=20 Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Eric Kokish (Canada) Ladies Teams Round 11 Board 5. Dealer North. North/South Vulnerable. [ 6 5 2 ] 9 6 { 9 7 3 2 } J 9 7 6 [ Q J 10 =20 [ K 8 7 3 ] K 10 4 ]=20 7 { Q J 6 4 { A K 10 5 } Q 8 5 =20 } A 10 3 2 [ A 9 4 ] A Q J 8 5 3 2 { 8 } K 4 West North East South Lustin Midskog Avon G=F6the 1Di Dble 3NT All Pass Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by West Lead: Nine of Hearts Result: 6 tricks, NS +150 The Facts: South had thought for some time before making the final pass. West called the Director, claiming that this hesitation had influenced=20 North in her selection of lead. West stated the pause had been one minute long. South confirmed the=20 hesitation and did not disagree about its length. North stated that=20 she had not noticed the delay. East said she had. The Director: Considered the hesitation established, but did not believe the=20 hesitation carried any information affecting the choice between Hearts=20 and Spades. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 16A East/West appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The Players: South explained that she was usually a fast bidder but she was fixed. North stated that she believed the final contract had been reached,=20 and she asked questions about the nature of the 3NT bid and started=20 considering her lead. Sometimes the tray stays on the other side, even=20 when the final pass has been made. She explained the choice of a Heart. It was clear to lead a major and=20 she knew partner had certainly at least four Hearts. If partner had=20 five or more in any suit, it was more likely to be Hearts. East/West considered that a fast pass would tell partner to choose,=20 whereas a slow pass would indicate that the shortest suit should be led. The Committee: Considered the hesitation proven. While it is true that the hesitation carries no information regarding=20 Hearts or Spades, it does carry the information that there is some=20 interesting lead to be found, and this inclines to suggest North's=20 shorter major. When in possession of unauthorized information, a player should not=20 take the action that is demonstrably suggested by it, when there are=20 logical alternatives available to that action. In this case, the action that has been suggested is to lead the=20 shorter suit, and since a Spade lead is certainly an alternative,=20 North should not have led a Heart. The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to 3NT by West, made, NS -400 Deposit: Returned --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Mar 10 10:00:08 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:00:08 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Question 2: > > One of the panel wrote: > > >Despite the Law, it is common for a player to ask to > >see the cards again, and opponents always accede to > >this request without comment. This much is certainly true. Well - at my table I say "technically no but I'll be nice" and face the card anyway. I doubt it actually does help, but at least I make a token effort at educating the players. It is an unfortunate situation... but it is only the people who are already known for being rude in all aspects of the table manner who refuse late requests to re-expose their own card. Even when I really don't want to show mine, I feel under pressure do to so because I know my opponents will be offended if I don't. > E/W may have right on > >their side, but their level of gamesmanship does > >nothing to encourage. This case is a little different: N asked S to do something, so the usual "rude to refuse your opponent's request" pressure doesn't apply. It is (a little) more socially acceptable to protest your opponents doing things they shouldn't than it is to be uncooperative. It would still be difficult for EW to do more than say "you shouldn't have asked that, you know." I disagree that the committee should hold it against EW that they want to see the rules followed. I concede that it's a case that will cause a lot more hard feelings than it is probably worth, and can understand why some people might try to get EW to pipe down. Returning to the actual case - um - let me just say I am glad I live in a jurisdiction where I can't use 12C3 :)) GRB From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <001401c2e6ec$bbeff210$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Well thanks Herman. I agree with all that :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:55 AM Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) Jaap asked about the similarity with a Tenerife appeal - here is it: Appeal No. 26 Sweden v France Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Eric Kokish (Canada) Ladies Teams Round 11 Board 5. Dealer North. North/South Vulnerable. [ 6 5 2 ] 9 6 { 9 7 3 2 } J 9 7 6 [ Q J 10 [ K 8 7 3 ] K 10 4 ] 7 { Q J 6 4 { A K 10 5 } Q 8 5 } A 10 3 2 [ A 9 4 ] A Q J 8 5 3 2 { 8 } K 4 West North East South Lustin Midskog Avon Göthe 1Di Dble 3NT All Pass Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by West Lead: Nine of Hearts Result: 6 tricks, NS +150 The Facts: South had thought for some time before making the final pass. West called the Director, claiming that this hesitation had influenced North in her selection of lead. West stated the pause had been one minute long. South confirmed the hesitation and did not disagree about its length. North stated that she had not noticed the delay. East said she had. The Director: Considered the hesitation established, but did not believe the hesitation carried any information affecting the choice between Hearts and Spades. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 16A East/West appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The Players: South explained that she was usually a fast bidder but she was fixed. North stated that she believed the final contract had been reached, and she asked questions about the nature of the 3NT bid and started considering her lead. Sometimes the tray stays on the other side, even when the final pass has been made. She explained the choice of a Heart. It was clear to lead a major and she knew partner had certainly at least four Hearts. If partner had five or more in any suit, it was more likely to be Hearts. East/West considered that a fast pass would tell partner to choose, whereas a slow pass would indicate that the shortest suit should be led. The Committee: Considered the hesitation proven. While it is true that the hesitation carries no information regarding Hearts or Spades, it does carry the information that there is some interesting lead to be found, and this inclines to suggest North's shorter major. When in possession of unauthorized information, a player should not take the action that is demonstrably suggested by it, when there are logical alternatives available to that action. In this case, the action that has been suggested is to lead the shorter suit, and since a Spade lead is certainly an alternative, North should not have led a Heart. The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to 3NT by West, made, NS -400 Deposit: Returned -- 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 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Mar 10 10:21:57 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:21:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query In-Reply-To: <000101c2e647$88f74c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1F7B1B98-52E2-11D7-B8F4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Sunday, March 9, 2003, at 02:24 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Gordon Rainsford >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> I find much of your arguments well taken, but I am not sure that you >>> are >>> fully aware of a few important details? >> >> Quite possibly not - I'm acutely aware that you are a very experienced >> director and I am not :) >> However the reason I'm here is to learn so I'll dive in anyway. > > And well done it is. I should add that during my 20+ years of directing > I have never had to rule a case of "inadvertent play" from a defender > or > declarer, and it might very well be that I shall never meet a case > where > I would intuitively feel that withdrawal of such play should be > allowed. On the occasion when I withdrew an inadvertent designation of a card from dummy under law 45C4(b), I don't think the Director had met that either. Certainly I had to (politely) ask him to consult with others before he agreed that I was indeed allowed to change the designation. > > This is unimportant. But what is important is that by Law 45B a card > from dummy's hand has actually been played the moment declarer named > that card. (It is for instance at this time too late for Dummy to try > preventing declarer from playing from the wrong hand by saying "You are > at your own hand" or words to that effect). There seem to be two laws with some overlapping ground. Law 45B relates specifically to playing from dummy, and tells us that the card is played by naming it (but doesn't mention "otherwise designating" it). For cards which have been otherwise designated we have to go to Law 45C4(a), which covers a wider area, since it includes designations other than by declarer of cards in dummy, and also includes designations by declarer of cards in dummy *other than by naming them*. So, it seems to me from this, a declarer who points at a card (unambiguously) has not yet played it, but must now do so. I suspect that for all practical purposes this will lead to the same result (as in your case of Dummy trying to prevent Declarer leading from the wrong hand), but I do still think that the distinction holds between a played card and a designated card, and Law 45C4(b) does not relate to a change of a *played* card. > > And I find it illogical if the inadvertent play of a card from dummy by > naming it may be withdrawn but an inadvertent play by accidentally > gripping the wrong card and playing it may not, even when the mistake > is > immediately discovered by the player in question. > > But maybe I am wrong? Maybe that is what is intended after all? It certainly seems that way to me. Maybe others will tell us what they think. > (Like Chess: Once you have touched a piece, you must move it, no > excuse?) That was how it was when I first learned bridge, and it was consistent with the way my "firm but fair" card-playing family treated all card games. Maybe that's why I find myself siding with David Burn in the recent claims debate? I don't see that uncertainty is good for the game, and knowing what the rules are and that they will be consistently applied seems an important goal. > > ........... > >> You mean you're considering the situation when I pull the wrong card >> out of my hand and place it on the table, but then notice it's not the >> card I meant to play? I don't think that's what "inadvertently drops" >> means. >> >> But then, yes I am of the opinion that it can't be changed. > > Obviously not inadvertent "drops" (and I am sorry for introducing > dropping of cards which really only was a sidetracking of the > discussion). > > Your opinion that absolutely no inadvertent "play" should be permitted > withdrawn is clarifying and corroborates your understanding of these > laws. > > BTW: A curious side effect of this understanding could be that if a > defender says "Here is the King . . . . Oops I mean the Queen" then he > has apparently first designated the King and then changed the > designation to the Queen in a way that is permitted under Law 45C4(b). > > Now, if he doesn't have the King, that card could of course not become > a > penalty card in any case, but what if he has it? Does Law 45C4(b) > ("without penalty") take precedence over Law 49 ("exposure of a > defender's cards)? And has the King really been exposed at all? > > I would tend to rule that the King is exposed if he has it, but this is > definitely not an obvious case. > I would agree. It seems obvious to me that Law 49 should take precedence, but perhaps others can provide a reason why it should be so (or an argument that it should not). -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Mar 10 10:44:07 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:44:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <386292A4-52E5-11D7-B8F4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 10:00 AM, Gordon Bower wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Question 2: >> >> One of the panel wrote: >> >>> Despite the Law, it is common for a player to ask to >>> see the cards again, and opponents always accede to >>> this request without comment. > > This much is certainly true. "Always" is certainly an overbid. > Well - at my table I say "technically no but > I'll be nice" and face the card anyway. I doubt it actually does help, > but > at least I make a token effort at educating the players. I usually just say "No, the trick is finished", as pleasantly as I can. I *never* ask to see a trick once I've turned my card over, so I don't see that others should have that advantage over me. It's long puzzled me that this law above all others if widely disregarded. > > It is an unfortunate situation... but it is only the people who are > already known for being rude in all aspects of the table manner who > refuse > late requests to re-expose their own card. I don't think I'm "known for being rude in all aspects of the table manner". > Even when I really don't want > to show mine, I feel under pressure do to so because I know my > opponents > will be offended if I don't. I feel the pressure too, but I try to resist it. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Mar 10 11:11:00 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:11:00 +1300 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c2e6f5$bf0c5e30$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Monday, 10 March 2003 8:29 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Reveley reveille > > > This deal was discussed by a panel in the > most recent Australian Directors Bulletin. > > State Championship > Board-A-Match (B-A-M) Teams. > Bd. 16 / W / EW > > 102 > QJ3 > 93 > QJ10873 > 7653 AQJ98 > 1064 852 > K1072 AQ8 > 64 A9 > K4 > AK97 > J654 > K52 > > West North East South > Pass Pass 1NT(1) All Pass > > (1) 17-19 HCP, Balanced > > The Play: > H9 - H4 - HJ - H5 > HQ - H8 - H7 - H6 > H3 - H2 - HK - H10 > HA - S3 - S2 - C9 > C2 > > After all the cards from the fourth trick had been > quitted, South asked North what she had discarded. > North then re-faced the S2. > Result: E/W - 300 > N/S were playing odd-even discards (the S2 being a > suit preference for clubs). East believes that without > South's illegal re-sighting of the North discard, South > may possibly have switched to either a diamond or > spade. South counters that a diamond switch is > pointless given dummy's holding and that the club > switch is both safer and more likely than a spade to > defeat the contract. > > * * * > > Question 1: > > How would you rule as TD if you were permitted to use > Law 12C3? > I am not sure what equity is in this matter. Both North and South have violated the laws... South's question is an illegal communication and North's turning of the card face up is an illegal action. North and South have conspired against themselves to give South unauthorized information - special emphasis has been placed on the discard. I think that an adjusted score is in order - 1NT making 3 is possible on a spade switch. In spite of South's arguments a club switch is demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information and so must be avoided in the presence of logical alternatives. I would also warn North South that this manner of communication is inappropriate. > > Question 2: > > One of the panel wrote: > > >Despite the Law, it is common for a player to ask to > >see the cards again, and opponents always accede to > >this request without comment. E/W may have right on > >their side, but their level of gamesmanship does > >nothing to encourage. > > [snip] > > Do you agree? I would never ask to see my partner's card nor would I turn my card face up at partner's request (unless I was unaware that partner had turned the played card face down). At times I have shown my card to an opponent who has quitted a trick (especially an inexperienced opponent) but I would in no way think that this was mandatory. I think any gamesmanship is being displayed by the pair that request and face their quitted cards as if it was their right. Wayne From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Mar 10 11:05:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <3E6C612B.4030801@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman quoted the AC rationale: > While it is true that the hesitation carries no information regarding > Hearts or Spades, it does carry the information that there is some > interesting lead to be found, and this inclines to suggest North's > shorter major. I find this very curious. Surely when playing teams one will *always* lead on the basis that "there is an interesting lead to be found"? I really can't see how having that assumption confirmed would affect my choice of lead. Tim From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Mar 10 11:15:01 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:15:01 +1300 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: <386292A4-52E5-11D7-B8F4-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000101c2e6f6$4eaf9bb0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > Sent: Monday, 10 March 2003 11:44 p.m. > Cc: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Reveley reveille > > > > On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 10:00 AM, Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Even when I really don't want > > to show mine, I feel under pressure do to so because I know my > > opponents > > will be offended if I don't. > > I feel the pressure too, but I try to resist it. And surely this pressure is gamesmanship :-) Wayne From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <000801c2e6f6$a4a53930$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Surely the whole point Tim is the wording of Law 16. , the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. If we agree that the hesitation demonstrably suggested a short suit lead, then a short suit lead is an illegal choice. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) > Herman quoted the AC rationale: > > > While it is true that the hesitation carries no information regarding > > Hearts or Spades, it does carry the information that there is some > > interesting lead to be found, and this inclines to suggest North's > > shorter major. > > I find this very curious. Surely when playing teams one will *always* > lead on the basis that "there is an interesting lead to be found"? > I really can't see how having that assumption confirmed would affect my > choice of lead. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Mar 10 11:34:53 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:34:53 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: <000101c2e6f6$4eaf9bb0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Wayne Burrows wrote: > And surely this pressure is gamesmanship :-) I didn't mean pressure from my table opponents. I meant pressure on all players to allow the viewing of quitted tricks because "everyone" does it so often. Or, more generally, pressure on all players to go out of their way to be courteous to their opponents and to not be a nuisance by calling the director for every technicality. Put another way, asking for the rules to be bent, which SHOULD be called gamesmanship, has become so common that asking for them to be followed DOES get called gamesmanship. (Other examples: a player's partner responding to a request for a review, or starting to shuffle and deal the boards for a team match before the opponents arrive. Complaining about the latter, in particular, is perceived as so close to an outright accusation of cheating by the dealer that it's guaranteed to sour the whole match.) GRB From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 10 11:41:09 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:41:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) References: <001701c2e6ed$9bc19d30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E6C79D5.8050107@skynet.be> Sven, Maybe you and I are just not good enough bridge players. Sven Pran wrote: > Herman, > I am in doubt if this is of any interest for blml, but I would like to > hear your opinion: > > When opponents have reached the contract 3NT through an apparently > controlled auction, if I can see that I probably have less than half the > outstanding strength - that is less than 6 or 7 HCP - and I have no > attractive suit to lead (attractive in the way that it can probably both > be established and cashed), but I have a doubleton or even a singleton > in a major suit for which declarer and dummy has shown no interest then > I almost automatically lead that suit. > So do I. > This is so automatic that I have been tempted to write it on my CC (and > maybe I will). I definitely do tell my opponents when applicable. > > If North had been able to produce a CC to this effect in the appeal > below would that (in your opinion) have been sufficient to make the AC > let the result stand? > It certainly was the defence used. The reasoning in the committee room was as follows: The hesitation says "there is an interesting lead" It says nothing about hearts or spades, true, but it does say there is a good lead. Leading from a small suit is sometimes good, but sometimes not. If partner is 4-4 in the majors, the spade lead is better. The knowledge that partner is more likely to be 6-2 than 4-4 makes the lead from the doubleton more indicated. Thus the heart lead was the one that was indicated. It was the opinion of the AC that the spade lead was a LA. That is sufficient for a rectification. > Regards Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Mon Mar 10 11:47:19 2003 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:47:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <3E6C79D5.8050107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01c2e6fa$ce121820$733a81d9@netvisao.pt> I am not going to enter in a long discussion about this one (even because I was one of the TDs involved in the original discussion of the case), but will give some food for thought... What should N lead with 6 5 2 / 9 6 / 9 7 3 2 / J 9 7 6? And with 6 5 / 9 6 2 / 9 7 3 2 / J 9 7 6? My firm conviction is that, in the first case, the H lead is mandatory, and in the second case the S lead is mandatory. Yes, maybe another lead is better. But how many (good) players would lead something else in the true world? Rui Marques From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 10 12:02:01 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:02:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <000f01c2e6fa$ce121820$733a81d9@netvisao.pt> Message-ID: <001a01c2e6fc$dbd79140$6900a8c0@WINXP> Rui Marques wrote: > > I am not going to enter in a long discussion about this one (even > because I was one of the TDs involved in the original discussion of the > case), but will give some food for thought... > > What should N lead with 6 5 2 / 9 6 / 9 7 3 2 / J 9 7 6? And with 6 5 / > 9 6 2 / 9 7 3 2 / J 9 7 6? > > My firm conviction is that, in the first case, the H lead is mandatory, > and in the second case the S lead is mandatory. Yes, maybe another lead > is better. But how many (good) players would lead something else in the > true world? As I have already indicated (at least I believe I have indicated): When I have reason to believe that my partner holds a stronger hand than mine I consistently lead from my shortest major suit (preferably singleton or doubleton, a three card suit is not that attractive), in particular if the declarer or dummy has not searched for a fit in majors or otherwise shown that one of them has that suit. The main exception is the strange case when I in spite of my weak hand see a realistic possibility to make my own suit (at least 5 cards) good and to cash it. To me nothing but a lead from the doubleton is any LA in the above examples. (And I do not claim to be that good a player!) Sven From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Mon Mar 10 12:07:35 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:07:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 References: Message-ID: <003f01c2e6fd$a50b97f0$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> I like others have read this thread with interest and I feel some despair at times - despair because of the name calling about players action and indeed about the opinions of other contributors to the list despair because one of our most basic principles of reading from the Law Book seems to have been overlooked as the first step in looking at a ruling Lets try 79C When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. Kaima says he is a player not a TD and with respect he argues like a player - "I would have lead a H every time so I will anyway" - but this is not what the law demands - it insists that we must carefully avoid taking any advantage .. All I can say is that if I was North I would not lead a H and I would not be pleased with my partner - the hesitation suggests that partner has a long suit - my major length suggests it's more likely to be Hs and in my opinion I must now carefully avoid taking any advantage - as someone else suggested doubling suggests that we lead a short suit - dither dither dither pass just simply wont do. If South wants North to lead a H, he must double or pass in tempo - surely chaps that's how we want this game to be played. I would not allow a H lead as a TD Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 11:09 PM Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 > Hi All > > This appeal has been circulating. Just wanted to get people's view on it > ... > > > Board 5 > N/S vul. > Dealer North > > NORTH > s 6 5 2 > h 9 6 > d 9 7 3 2 > c J 9 7 6 > > WEST ........... EAST > s Q J 10 ....... s K 8 7 3 > h K 10 4 ....... h 7 > d Q J 6 4 ...... d A K 10 5 > c Q 8 5 ........ c A 10 3 2 > > SOUTH > s A 9 4 > h A Q J 8 5 3 2 > d 8 > c K 4 > > bidding > W .... N ..... E ...... S > - .... pass .. 1d ..... dbl > 3NT .. pass .. pass ... (pause) pass > > lead: 9 of hearts, result 3NT -3 > > EW call the director and object to the heart lead which they claim could > have been influenced by Souths long pause before passing. > > your call... > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Mar 10 13:42:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:42 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <000801c2e6f6$a4a53930$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: > Surely the whole point Tim is the wording of Law 16. > , the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one > that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > extraneous information. > > If we agree that the hesitation demonstrably suggested a short suit > lead, then a short suit lead is an illegal choice. In which case we should require a minor lead. I just don't accept that a minor suit lead is a logical alternative on this auction+hand (nor did the TD, nor did the AC). Spades or hearts, hearts or spades, the lead matters only if *one* of them is partner's suit. The hesitation in no way (that I can discern) suggests that partner has longer hearts than spades. Change the hand slightly 964,964,973,J976. Does the hesitation suggest that hearts will be better than spades? I can't see it. The H/S choice is suggested purely by the holding - not the hesitation. Were my partner (absent the hesitation) to choose a spade on the actual hand I would assume that he/she did not understand bridge percentages. Were he to select a spade on the changed hand I would agree he had less to go on (actually a H is *still* better because partner with 5413 is more likely to start with a 1S overcall while pard with 4513 is more likely to start with a double). BTW adjusting to 3N= must be wrong if we say a spade lead is a non- suggested LA. If South wins and switches to the HQ it is trivial (and risk free) to throw him in for a tenth tick. If he plays neutrally the end position, declarer having 6 tricks, is: - K KTx x - - Qxx ATxx - AQJx - Kx The SK forces a H discard from south and declarer can always make 3 more. -430 or result stands please. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 10 14:38:02 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:38:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030310153444.0256d750@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:37 7/03/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ All players are on notice that UI may be created by a > >question asked. Nothing can exclude the possibility of > >it. A player who asks a question when he does not need to > >know flies in the face of this risk and may give the > >impression of having an ulterior motive in asking, so is > >liable to be judged more rigorously. > >A possibility is not an infraction. A risk is not an >infraction. An impression is not an infraction. In the >context of a gratuitous question, only a communication to >partner (or a deception of an opponent) is an infraction. > > >It is good teaching that educates players not to make > >their enquiries whilst the auction is progressing if they > >have no reason to do so. > >Actually, that is bad teaching. Law 73B1 refers to: >"questions asked or not asked". Never asking a gratuitous >question means that the non-asking of a question creates UI >that the non-asker is unreasoning. Players who randomly >intersperse gratuitous questions with need-to-know questions >create a higher noise-to-signal ratio, and therefore less UI, >than Grattanic players do. AG : absolutely right. However we TD judge on a case-per-case basis, and would be compelled to say that such-and-such question created UI, the fact that the same player sometimes asks unuseful questions being irrelevant to the case. The only UI-free attitude would be to signal to your opponents, as a kind of pre-alert : "we always ask", and do so. But I don't think it would be optimal in extacting information. From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Mar 10 14:26:12 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:26:12 GMT Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 Message-ID: <3e6ca084.2151.0@esatclear.ie> +++ Most of the views on this case have already been expressed and what it comes down to is which of 2 camps you are in. Camp 1 - South's pause after the double must indicate a long suit. North has LA leads, a spade or a club. Based on south's pause it is more likely that his suit is hearts so to lead it is acting on UI. Camp 2 - South's pause after the double is not clear cut. Maybe he is thinking of sacrificing in 4 of something or of doubling for penalties. North does indeed have La's of a club or spade .. BUT .. a club lead as an attempt to beat the contract for lots of reasons is extremely poor/Hopeless (I personally would never lead a club). The opponents have not bothered trying to find a major fit so we may assume they don't have one. Pd is marked with 4+ hearts and 3+ spades. As North's hand is useless - leading pd's "Presumed" suit is the best way to try and knock the contract. A heart on this basis is the best lead. These inferences and deductions are available regardless of the pause. Infact it may be argued that the pause may suggest a non heart lead !! IMO - If we are in camp one N/S have a no win case. If north leads a club or a spade and they turn out to be the winning lead, E/W call the cops and again argue that the pause indicated that suit (ie) why didn't North lead the "Normal" heart ?? I feel North is down to a heart or a spade and pretty much a 50/50 guess with a mild preference on hearts. Finally had a heart given the contract we would never hear of this case ... On the negative side, South really should see the likely bidding scenario and better use his time to decide his likey actions. How about a split decision ?? 3NT - 2 for N/S and 3NT making for E/W ?? >I have been watching this thread for a while and I am really surprised >how few comments (only one I believe) consider it automatic and obvious >to try finding partner rather than try a hopeless(?) invitation from own >"best suit" with such a weak hand (anything less than 7 HCP)? > >In North here after the quoted auction I would never even think of >leading anything else than a heart, my shortest suit in a major >denomination for which opponents have shown no interest. > >Sven > >> > > Board 5 >> > > N/S vul. >> > > Dealer North >> > > >> > > NORTH >> > > s 6 5 2 >> > > h 9 6 >> > > d 9 7 3 2 >> > > c J 9 7 6 >> > > >> > > WEST ........... EAST >> > > s Q J 10 ....... s K 8 7 3 >> > > h K 10 4 ....... h 7 >> > > d Q J 6 4 ...... d A K 10 5 >> > > c Q 8 5 ........ c A 10 3 2 >> > > >> > > SOUTH >> > > s A 9 4 >> > > h A Q J 8 5 3 2 >> > > d 8 >> > > c K 4 >> > > >> > > bidding >> > > W .... N ..... E ...... S >> > > - .... pass .. 1d ..... dbl >> > > 3NT .. pass .. pass ... (pause) pass >> > > >> > > lead: 9 of hearts, result 3NT -3 >> > > >> > > EW call the director and object to the heart lead which they claim >> could >> > > have been influenced by Souths long pause before passing. > -- http://www.iol.ie From jurgenr@t-online.de Mon Mar 10 14:38:22 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:38:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: [Sven:] [...] >> I am in doubt if this is of any interest for blml, but I would like to >> hear your opinion: >> >> When opponents have reached the contract 3NT through an apparently >> controlled auction, if I can see that I probably have less than half the >> outstanding strength - that is less than 6 or 7 HCP - and I have no >> attractive suit to lead (attractive in the way that it can probably both >> be established and cashed), but I have a doubleton or even a singleton >> in a major suit for which declarer and dummy has shown no interest then >> I almost automatically lead that suit. >> [...] [Herman:] >It certainly was the defence used. > >The reasoning in the committee room was as follows: > >The hesitation says "there is an interesting lead" It says nothing >about hearts or spades, true, but it does say there is a good lead. >Leading from a small suit is sometimes good, but sometimes not. If >partner is 4-4 in the majors, the spade lead is better. The knowledge >that partner is more likely to be 6-2 than 4-4 makes the lead from the >doubleton more indicated. >Thus the heart lead was the one that was indicated. >It was the opinion of the AC that the spade lead was a LA. >That is sufficient for a rectification. =========================================================================== The AC argument is actually quite good, but not good enough. Suppose that N has 3 Spades and 2 Hearts and the bidding is as given. The probabilities for Hearts to be longer, equal to, or shorter than Spades are approximately .47, .18, .35 respectively; i.e. Spades are at least as long as Hearts 53% of the time. However, the average heart length, on condition that hearts are longer is 4.61; the average spade length, on conditiont that Spades are at least as long as hearts is 4.14. In other words, in those case where the lead succeeds hearts provide an extra trick half the time. This is what makes it better, by a wide margin, to lead a heart. Jürgen From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Mar 10 15:11:24 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:11:24 GMT Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: <3e6cab1c.252c.0@esatclear.ie> [Snip] East/West considered that a fast pass would tell partner to choose, whereas a slow pass would indicate that the shortest suit should be led. +++ Amazing statement which I hope was binned and dealt with as self serving. So pretty much regardless of South's bidding pace the TD will be called and some case will be made against North's lead !! [Snip] >The Committee: >Considered the hesitation proven. " .... it is true that the hesitation carries no information regarding Hearts or Spades ..." +++ Ok now we are getting somewhere - so the committee has decided that a club lead is not a LA. This I agree with. They have also determined that the pause carries NO information as to which major South is presumed to have. Once again I agree. [Snip] it does carry the information that there is some interesting lead to be found +++ Guys this is such a cop out. Its lame and sad. Ya make the tough decisions and then do a U turn. The day you decide there isn't an interesting lead - hang up your pack of cards. The committe decided up to this point that N has a choice bewteen hearts and spades which is UNEFFECTED by the pause (excellent - big cheer) and then rule he can't lead a heart because .... well actually maybe the pause does indicate a heart ??? huh. Stop sitting on the fence - which is it !! [snip] and this inclines to suggest North's shorter major. +++ Rubbish - and what if he decided to lead a spade and that was the winning lead ?? Are we now going to say a spade is disallowed because a heart is normal ?? [snip] >When in possession of unauthorized information, a player should not >take the action that is demonstrably suggested by it, when there are >logical alternatives available to that action. >In this case, the action that has been suggested is to lead the >shorter suit, and since a Spade lead is certainly an alternative, >North should not have led a Heart. +++ ???? " ... it is true that the hesitation carries no information regarding Hearts or Spades" did someone actually say this and then just forget it or what .... As Anne said this case comes down to - "Does the pause suggest a short suit lead " ... fine ... but which can't be arrived at via legal deductions and reasoning. In this case, the committee decided no UI and then U turned and ruled UI against N/S anyawy. Either the pause indicated specifically a heart lead or it didn't. If you feel that it was unlikely but may have - then why not a split ruling ?? Answer me this - Is there anyway N/S could win this case ?? Was a group of peers asked what they would lead with no pause ?? I'd be amazed if the huge majority didn't pick a heart or a spade ... (ie) a 50/50 guess. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Mar 10 15:20:45 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:20:45 GMT Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 Message-ID: <3e6cad4d.25b5.0@esatclear.ie> {snip ...] >I like others have read this thread with interest and I feel some despair at >times > >- despair because of the name calling about players action and indeed about >the opinions of other contributors to the list > >despair because one of our most basic principles of reading from the Law >Book seems to have been overlooked as the first step in looking at a ruling > >Lets try 79C > >When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his >partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, >special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid >taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. > > >Kaima says he is a player not a TD and with respect he argues like a >player - "I would have lead a H every time so I will anyway" - but this is >not what the law demands - it insists that we must carefully avoid taking >any advantage .. All I can say is that if I was North I would not lead a H >and I would not be pleased with my partner - the hesitation suggests that >partner has a long suit - my major length suggests it's more likely to be Hs >and in my opinion I must now carefully avoid taking any advantage - as >someone else suggested doubling suggests that we lead a short suit - dither >dither dither pass just simply wont do. If South wants North to lead a H, >he must double or pass in tempo - surely chaps that's how we want this game >to be played. > >I would not allow a H lead as a TD > >Mike > +++ Fair enough !! You decided the pause suggests a heart lead. You made a decsion which I can live with (not necessarily agree with though). The actual committee did not. They 1st ruled the pause gave no information as to South's holding in the majors and then decided well actually it did, ignoring allowable deductions and logic. Having decided no information given in the majors and find it extremely hard to see how they now ruled against N/S in such a definitive manner !! K. -- http://www.iol.ie From gillp@bigpond.com Mon Mar 10 15:24:40 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:24:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: <003901c2e719$2bc19220$d6f18690@gillp.bigpond.com> Rui Marques wrote: >I am not going to enter in a long discussion about this one (even >because I was one of the TDs involved in the original discussion >of the case), but will give some food for thought... > >What should N lead with 6 5 2 / 9 6 / 9 7 3 2 / J 9 7 6? And with >6 5 / 9 6 2 / 9 7 3 2 / J 9 7 6? > >My firm conviction is that, in the first case, the H lead is mandatory, >and in the second case the S lead is mandatory. Yes, maybe >another lead is better. But how many (good) players would lead >something else in the true world? There are a lot of worlds out there. I just gave the first hand to three of Australia's best players, one of whom qualified yesterday as a member of the 2003 Australian Open Team. He rated C6, S5 and S6 as the only possible leads, with H9 worth 1 out of 10, being near to insane. His point was that, whenever a heart lead was best, partner should have overcalled 1H, ditto re spades, hence clubs looks best, but as the club suit might be better left alone, perahps a spade is best. He also pointed out that 9x is an ugly holding to lead from when partner is likely to have four cards in the suit as it picks up K10xx, A10xx etc. Is a huge section of BLML totally out of sync with the modern Kokish-influenced world, where overcalling the major on even very strong hands is considered preferable to the superseded omnibus Double? With Kokish being the world's leading bridge coach, in places influenced by him such as Indonesia, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel and parts of America the concept of overcalling the long major in preference to doubling is prevalent amongst those top players who have been the beneficiaries of such coaching. The other two thought S6 was best. One reasoned that their diamonds are fairly likely be 4-4 or 4-3, and that this combined with the club holding makes passivity reasonable. The other said that as it's IMPs, lots of inferior players will lead a heart or a spade because at matchpoints they don't like to risk conceding tricks, and such people have little idea of how to play Teams, but he personally doesn't like to lead from Jxxx if he can help it, so he would probably lead a spade anyway. Admittedly the standard of these players would probably be a little bit higher than of the players in the European Ladies Teams, but it should help enlighten those blind enough to think that any particular lead on this hand is the only logical alternative. Personally I love to disagree with Appeals Committee decisions. This appeal however seems to have nothing which could be objected to by any open-minded person who accepts that one's own opinions about bidding are not necessarily shared by the rest of the world. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 10 15:47:08 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:47:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: <002c01c2e592$1a56d780$2f2e6651@annescomputer> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030310160403.00ab9950@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:45 8/03/2003 +0000, Anne Jones wrote: >What a pity there are no procedural penalties available to this list. >Kaima's defamation of E/W for calling the TD is an abomination. > >In my opinion the hesitation indicates that S would like to double for a >short suit lead. It is not acceptable to pass this information in any other >way than to actually do so. >As Steve Wilner said - this is now down to bridge judgement as to the >logical elternatives that North has as to the lead he may choose. West has >more or less denied a 4 card major, so either may be a good lead.West is >marked with some D support so even a diamond lead is unlikely to give much >away. On the other hand, the only values North has are in clubs, it is >surely a logical alternative to tell partner this at trick one, by leading >one. >I would rule that the lead of the 9H has been chosen from among logical >alternatives, and that the result should be ammended to 3NT making 9 tricks. AG : IBTD. There are often many LAs. You have to choose one of these. If you aren't allowed to do so, there is no way out. Only if a LA has been suggested may the choice be an infraction. As the opening leader, I would rule out Jxxx of clubs (I always rule out Jxxx, doubly so if it rates to be RHO's main suit). The only LAs seem to be the majors, any of which might go "through dummy's strength". But perhaps diamonds are needed to avoid an endplay. Now, does the tempo suggest one or the other ? One might argue that it suggests spades, as doubles often are for a spade lead and the tempo was obviously linked to a possible double. One might argue that it suggest hearts, because partner wanted me to lead a short suit, but rejected the double because the double might be understood as spade-oriented. One might argue that it suggests diamonds, because of the absence of overcall (perhaps partner has 4.4.4.1). Since one might argue in favor of every LA, the double doesn't suggest any of them specifically, and thus one must rule no UI. This has been said before on blml. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 10 15:58:24 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:58:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: <200303091859.NAA14436@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030310165608.00abf9c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:59 9/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >I can buy your argument that a club is not a LA (especially in the EBU, >which has the least restrictive definition), but what about a spade? AG : indeed. As a matter of fact, the hesitation suggests spades, because that is what I would want to double with. Surely, if a strong 45 majors is a possibility, a strong 54 is, too. So I bend backwards, and lead a heart, the other LA. And I am told that I get a penalty fot it ?????? From gillp@bigpond.com Mon Mar 10 16:00:40 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:00:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: <007401c2e71e$32f446a0$d6f18690@gillp.bigpond.com> Jurgen Rennenkampf wrote: >The AC argument is actually quite good, but not good enough. > >Suppose that N has 3 Spades and 2 Hearts and the bidding is >as given. The probabilities for Hearts to be longer, equal to, or >shorter than Spades are approximately .47, .18, .35 respectively; >i.e. Spades are at least as long as Hearts 53% of the time. > >However, the average heart length, on condition that hearts are >longer is 4.61; the average spade length, on conditiont that Spades >are at least as long as hearts is 4.14. In other words, in those case >where the lead succeeds hearts provide an extra trick half the time. >This is what makes it better, by a wide margin, to lead a heart. This is completely out-of-touch with reality. International players do not go through needless mathematical calculations in order to decide what to do. They simply do what they feel is best based on their experience and knowledge. Your mumbo jumbo has no bearing on anything that the actual players would have been thinking or doing. In the real world, while a heart lead is obviously (without any unnecessary maths) more likely to find partner's length than a spade lead (hence the obvious AC decision), a heart lead is also more likely to cost a critical trick than the more passive spade lead, due to the possibility of the defenders' hearts being something like: 96 AJ53 96 A1042 96 KJ73 96 K1054 96 Q1053 96 Q752 96 J542 96 opposite various five card holdings. We can throw in that Jurgen's numbers might indicate that our side might average 7.14 spades and 6.61 hearts, ignoring highly relevant info such as partner's failure to overcall a major. It sort of follows (but not quite) that about half the time we will be setting up their heart tricks instead of ours. Thus Jurgen has produced some needless information, which probably argues the opposite way to the way he claims. Oh for the days when David Stevenson, Ton Kooijman and Kojak used to contribute to BLML and make it a valuable resource to so many of us. Combined with posts by the likes of Grattan, another David, Steve and a couple of others, it provided the likes of me with so much commonsense and wisdom that I learnt heaps from it. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From gillp@bigpond.com Mon Mar 10 16:03:52 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:03:52 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: <008101c2e71e$a5ddb200$d6f18690@gillp.bigpond.com> Tim West-Meads wrote: >BTW adjusting to 3N= must be wrong if we say a spade lead is a >non-suggested LA. While Tim is correct about the overtrick , his statement above is incorrect. He has omitted a second proviso that a club lead is not a LA. Peter Gill. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 10 16:40:54 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:40:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] What does "suggested" mean ?, was Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: References: <000801c2e6f6$a4a53930$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030310172815.00abe340@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:42 10/03/2003 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Surely the whole point Tim is the wording of Law 16. > > , the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one > > that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > > extraneous information. > > > > If we agree that the hesitation demonstrably suggested a short suit > > lead, then a short suit lead is an illegal choice. > >In which case we should require a minor lead. I just don't accept that a >minor suit lead is a logical alternative on this auction+hand (nor did the >TD, nor did the AC). Spades or hearts, hearts or spades, the lead matters >only if *one* of them is partner's suit. The hesitation in no way (that I >can discern) suggests that partner has longer hearts than spades. >Change the hand slightly 964,964,973,J976. Does the hesitation suggest >that hearts will be better than spades? I can't see it. AG : Tim has hit an important question here. I can't find any thread on this, but perhaps there is. There are two ways a LA might be suggested (thus creating UI, invoking L16 etc.) : a) the mannerism in itself suggests a LA (eg a slow penalty double) b) the mannerism, combined with your hand, suggests a LA (here, H are suggested over S, because we're short, but if we had 33 they wouldn't) Is this second, contingent, type of UI, included in the cases where L16 and L73 do apply ? >The H/S choice >is suggested purely by the holding - not the hesitation. Were my partner >(absent the hesitation) to choose a spade on the actual hand I would >assume that he/she did not understand bridge percentages. Were he to >select a spade on the changed hand I would agree he had less to go on >(actually a H is *still* better because partner with 5413 is more likely >to start with a 1S overcall while pard with 4513 is more likely to start >with a double). AG : of course, if partner's hand is a standard 4.4.3.2, a spade rates to be best than a heart (if partner has KQ10x in a major and enough strangth outside, it'd rather be sapdes). Let's put it another way : suppose that communication using tempo *was* admitted (horresco referens). Now I have to select a lead. Which suit ? One could argue for a spade (convention : double asks for spades, but partner didn't want to take the risk), for a heart (partner nearly doubled, but remembered the convention that double asks for spades) or for a diamond (the true 'surprise lead'). I'm nolt so sure that I would select a heart (BTA it depends on what you do with fairly strong 1-suited hands). I think I would try a diamond, playing partner for AQ and 3 unattackable outside tricks (or AKJ and two). If one doesn't know what to lead in this hypothetical scenario, it means that no LA is demonstrably suggested. EOT from me. Best regards, Alain. From gillp@bigpond.com Mon Mar 10 16:25:26 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:25:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 Message-ID: <00be01c2e721$a8af6840$d6f18690@gillp.bigpond.com> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : indeed. As a matter of fact, the hesitation suggests spades, >because that is what I would want to double with. and also is what you personally (but not necessarily others) would double with sometimes, which automatically makes a South having a heart suit more likely than a spade suit. However if you read the Committtee decision carefully, as some posters seem not to have managed, you will see that all that is irrelevant. What matters is that South was considering doing something, almost certainly either calling 4H or 4S or 4D or Double. 4D might be ruled out if Michaels can be strong, the meaning of Double varies from partnership to partnership, 4H shows hearts and 4S shows spades. As I have shorter hearts, the hesitation makes it more likely to me that the suit that South was considering bidding at the four level is hearts not spades. There is no mention in theCommittee decision of anything about a Double of 3NT. You seem to have missed the entire point of what is going on here. South did well not to bid 4H. Had the 3NT bid been based on long diamond support in a hand like Jx, Kx, AQxxxxx, xx, as it often is at the top level as a preemptive joust with a big upside, then 4H might well have been best. Note that those of you not used to playing top level international bridge may not be used to such a rather obvious, and most certainly commonplace all over the world at the highest levels, tactical 3NT call. You might well be looking at all the wrong things, and thinking about what the 3NT call might look like in a basic club game rather than a European Championship. Peter Gill. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 10 17:04:01 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:04:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <007401c2e71e$32f446a0$d6f18690@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030310175602.00ab7ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 03:00 11/03/2003 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >International players do >not go through needless mathematical calculations in order to decide >what to do. They simply do what they feel is best based on their >experience and knowledge. Your mumbo jumbo has no bearing on anything >that the actual players would have been thinking or doing. > >In the real world, while a heart lead is obviously (without any >unnecessary maths) more likely to find partner's length than a spade >lead (hence the obvious AC decision), a heart lead is also more likely >to cost a critical trick than the more passive spade lead, due to >the possibility of the defenders' hearts being something like: > >96 AJ53 >96 A1042 >96 KJ73 >96 K1054 >96 Q1053 >96 Q752 >96 J542 >96 opposite various five card holdings. > >We can throw in that Jurgen's numbers might indicate that our side >might average 7.14 spades and 6.61 hearts, ignoring highly relevant >info such as partner's failure to overcall a major. It sort of follows >(but not quite) that about half the time we will be setting up their >heart tricks instead of ours. AG : we can also throw in the fact that if mildly passive defence is needed, a spade would be useful, or that if we need to do a trick with the 13th of a suit, that suit is much more probable to be spades : opp's spades could well be 33, while hearts won't, because they'll usually have 7 of them. (NB : this changes slightly if they play weak NTs). FWIW, I think that Diamonds is the only lead that has a higher probability to be right after the tempo (eg partner holds KQJx - Axxx - AQ - xxx) ; but is a change from 0% to 15% enough to pretend the lead is suggested ? Anyway, I wouldn't quarrel anybody who would decide that the D lead be disallowed. I would, as far as hearts are concerned. Best regards, Alain. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 10 16:55:18 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:55:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 Message-ID: <200303101655.LAA28256@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Gordon Bower > The fact I have one more spade means partner has one less spade (and Tim words to the same effect) Well, somebody has one less spade. It may be partner. > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > The hesitation in no way (that I > can discern) suggests that partner has longer hearts than spades. Suppose partner has a standard 4414 takeout double. Which suit do you want to lead? Why shouldn't partner's spades be KQJx or KQTx with the J in dummy? Spades are likely 3343 around the table, and it may be important to establish partner's thirteenth. Now if I'm told that partner owns a long suit, the odds change! > Change the hand slightly 964,964,973,J976. Now, if a club is not a LA, either major is acceptable. >From the actual AC decision: > While it is true that the hesitation carries no information regarding > Hearts or Spades, it does carry the information that there is some > interesting lead to be found, and this inclines to suggest North's > shorter major. The last clause is the key point. People quoting the AC decision should be sure to quote the entire sentence. The UI didn't say "lead hearts," but it said "lead your shortest suit," at least in the AC's opinion. That is still UI with the usual consequences. > From: "Karel" > IMO - If we are in camp one N/S have a no win case. If north leads a club or > a spade and they turn out to be the winning lead, E/W call the cops and again > argue that the pause indicated that suit (ie) why didn't North lead the "Normal" > heart ?? EW may well so argue, but they shouldn't prevail if the AC is competent. Certainly a club lead is legal; how could the pause suggest that? If you think a club is a LA, then a spade is illegal. This is a matter of bridge judgment, and I think it is very close. There certainly has to be some legal lead from the North hand. Of course if South can manage to call in tempo, there will be no problem at all. I confess I have some thoughts about L73B1 at the Zonal Championship level, although not at the club level. Experienced players should have seen this situation before and be prepared to act in tempo. However "some thoughts" does not mean I would actually rule a 73B1 violation. It is North's actions that require scrutiny. Peter: I'd be interested in your thoughts about 73B1. Am I expecting too much from South, who was after all placed in a very difficult position? > From: "Peter Gill" > I just gave the first hand to three of Australia's best players ... > His point was that, > whenever a heart lead was best, partner should have overcalled > 1H, ditto re spades, hence clubs looks best... ... > The other two thought S6 was best. Thanks, Peter. To my mind, this proves two things: 1. It is _vital_ to consult on judgment rulings. 2. We should be _very_ reluctant to rule that some suit is not a LA. See The Bridge World's "Problem H" (opening lead problems) for more examples. Even when there is a strong majority for one lead, there are usually at least a few votes for all the other suits. > Is a huge section of BLML totally out of sync with the modern > Kokish-influenced world, where overcalling the major on even > very strong hands is considered preferable to the superseded > omnibus Double? We do have to know the NS style to produce a proper ruling. However, the actual hand suggests they are not much influenced by Kokish. The South hand looks like a pretty clear 1H overcall, not a takeout double, to me. By the way, Kokish is advocating a style that, as far as I can tell, was first suggested by Kaplan. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > There are two ways a LA might be suggested (thus creating UI, invoking L16 > etc.) : > a) the mannerism in itself suggests a LA (eg a slow penalty double) > b) the mannerism, combined with your hand, suggests a LA (here, H are > suggested over S, because we're short, but if we had 33 they wouldn't) > Is this second, contingent, type of UI, included in the cases where L16 and > L73 do apply ? Of course. If partner says "I have a long suit, but I'm not telling which it is," don't you think your leads are constrained? Surely you don't think this type of communication is legal! Of course a blatant statement such as the above is a 73B1 violation, but if a hesitation conveys the same message, how can 73C and 16A not apply? Do you really think a player is under no restrictions after receiving some illicit information from partner? > Now I have to select a lead. Which suit ? One could argue for a spade > (convention : double asks for spades, but partner didn't want to take the > risk), As noted above, if NS have special agreements, the ruling could be different. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 10 17:12:11 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:12:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: <00be01c2e721$a8af6840$d6f18690@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030310180549.02567ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 03:25 11/03/2003 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >What matters is that South was considering doing something, >almost certainly either calling 4H or 4S or 4D or Double. >4D might be ruled out if Michaels can be strong, the meaning of >Double varies from partnership to partnership, 4H shows hearts >and 4S shows spades. As I have shorter hearts, the hesitation >makes it more likely to me that the suit that South was considering >bidding at the four level is hearts not spades. There is no mention >in theCommittee decision of anything about a Double of 3NT. >You seem to have missed the entire point of what is going on here. > >South did well not to bid 4H. Had the 3NT bid been based on long >diamond support in a hand like Jx, Kx, AQxxxxx, xx, as it often is at >the top level as a preemptive joust with a big upside, then 4H might >well have been best. Note that those of you not used to playing top >level international bridge may not be used to such a rather obvious, >and most certainly commonplace all over the world at the highest levels, >tactical 3NT call. You might well be looking at all the wrong things, >and thinking about what the 3NT call might look like in a basic club >game rather than a European Championship. AG : I'm frightfully sorry I didn't understand this hand was played at the highest level. The double on this hand didn't look like it. But you've given us one more argument to decide a heart was not suggested : if the gamble is a possibility with the hand above, than partner's long suit could well be clubs ... after all, I would overcall with KQ10xx H or S and two aces, but double with the same in clubs. Partner's tempo tells us he's quite strong : thus declarer may well have tried these "commonplace tactical" gambit (your words), making the Club lead more attracting. In this case, a *club* is sugested by the tempo !! but not a heart ... >Peter Gill. > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 10 17:36:51 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:36:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 In-Reply-To: <200303101655.LAA28256@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030310183217.00abcd90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:55 10/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >EW may well so argue, but they shouldn't prevail if the AC is >competent. Certainly a club lead is legal; how could the pause suggest >that? AG : the pause could indeed suggest a club. If partner holds AKQxx of some suit, it rates to bze clubs. >Thanks, Peter. To my mind, this proves two things: >1. It is _vital_ to consult on judgment rulings. > >2. We should be _very_ reluctant to rule that some suit is not a LA. >See The Bridge World's "Problem H" (opening lead problems) for more >examples. Even when there is a strong majority for one lead, there >are usually at least a few votes for all the other suits. AG : absolutely right. However, the test for L73 application is not the fact that numerous LAs do exist, but whether one was *unmistakely* suggested. To this, my answer is a firm No. My own rule has always been "if every LA could have been suggested by the tempo, then none is suggested". It is the case here. > > Is a huge section of BLML totally out of sync with the modern > > Kokish-influenced world, where overcalling the major on even > > very strong hands is considered preferable to the superseded > > omnibus Double? > >We do have to know the NS style to produce a proper ruling. However, >the actual hand suggests they are not much influenced by Kokish. The >South hand looks like a pretty clear 1H overcall, not a takeout double, >to me. > >By the way, Kokish is advocating a style that, as far as I can tell, >was first suggested by Kaplan. > > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > There are two ways a LA might be suggested (thus creating UI, invoking L16 > > etc.) : > > a) the mannerism in itself suggests a LA (eg a slow penalty double) > > b) the mannerism, combined with your hand, suggests a LA (here, H are > > suggested over S, because we're short, but if we had 33 they wouldn't) > > Is this second, contingent, type of UI, included in the cases where L16 > and > > L73 do apply ? > >Of course. If partner says "I have a long suit, but I'm not telling >which it is," don't you think your leads are constrained? Surely you >don't think this type of communication is legal! > >Of course a blatant statement such as the above is a 73B1 violation, >but if a hesitation conveys the same message, how can 73C and 16A not >apply? Do you really think a player is under no restrictions after >receiving some illicit information from partner? > > > Now I have to select a lead. Which suit ? One could argue for a spade > > (convention : double asks for spades, but partner didn't want to take the > > risk), > >As noted above, if NS have special agreements, the ruling could be >different. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ziffbridge@t-online.de Mon Mar 10 16:26:33 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:26:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) References: <3e6cab1c.252c.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <3E6CBCB9.8000201@t-online.de> Karel schrieb: > [Snip] >>The Committee: >>Considered the hesitation proven. > > " .... it is true that the hesitation carries no information regarding Hearts > or Spades ..." > > +++ Ok now we are getting somewhere - so the committee has decided that a club > lead is not a LA. The AC did no such thing. They just decided that a heart was not not suggested over a spade, that`s all. > This I agree with. They have also determined that the pause > carries NO information as to which major South is presumed to have. Once again > I agree. > > [Snip] > The committe decided up to this point that N has a choice bewteen hearts and > spades No. > which is UNEFFECTED by the pause (excellent - big cheer) and then rule > he can't lead a heart because .... well actually maybe the pause does indicate > a heart ??? huh. Stop sitting on the fence - which is it !! > > [snip] > and this inclines to suggest North's shorter major. > > +++ Rubbish - and what if he decided to lead a spade and that was the winning > lead ?? Are we now going to say a spade is disallowed because a heart is normal > ?? > > > [snip] > >>When in possession of unauthorized information, a player should not >>take the action that is demonstrably suggested by it, when there are >>logical alternatives available to that action. >>In this case, the action that has been suggested is to lead the >>shorter suit, and since a Spade lead is certainly an alternative, >>North should not have led a Heart. > > > +++ ???? > " ... it is true that the hesitation carries no information regarding Hearts > or Spades" did someone actually say this and then just forget it or what .... > > > As Anne said this case comes down to - "Does the pause suggest a short suit > lead " ... fine ... but which can't be arrived at via legal deductions and reasoning. > In this case, the committee decided no UI and then U turned and ruled UI against > N/S anyawy. > > Either the pause indicated specifically a heart lead or it didn't. If you feel > that it was unlikely but may have - then why not a split ruling ?? > > It indicated that South had some long suit and that it would be a good idea to lead a card of that suit. > Answer me this - Is there anyway N/S could win this case ?? > No. They could have won the board by passing in tempo, after which North would undoubtedly have hit upon the lead of a heart, putting the contract three off without any TD or AC. Nobody would ever consider leading anything else but the shortest suit against 3NT. > Was a group of peers asked what they would lead with no pause ?? I'd be amazed > if the huge majority didn't pick a heart or a spade ... (ie) a 50/50 guess. > > What is your systemic bid when RHO opens 1D and you hold AJxx, Axxx, x, KTxx? Double, perhaps? Could East hold QJx, Kxxx, AJxx, Qx, leaving West with KTx, QTx, KQxx, Axx? Certainly looks possible, doesn`t it? I don`t want to discuss the merits of the different leads, this is very much a matter of personal style (and partner`s style, if he often doubles without clubs in this situation...), but how can a club not be a LA? Partner is marked with short diamonds, so a club will only seldom give away a fast trick. It may give away the tempo, though. Anyway, partner`s hesitation suggest a long suit ( he thought about sacrifing or about doubling for the lead, he needs a long suit in both cases. This suggests leading a short suit, so a major is suggested over a club. Best regards Matthias From jurgenr@t-online.de Mon Mar 10 17:52:46 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:52:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: >Jurgen Rennenkampf wrote: >>The AC argument is actually quite good, but not good enough. >> >>Suppose that N has 3 Spades and 2 Hearts and the bidding is >>as given. The probabilities for Hearts to be longer, equal to, or >>shorter than Spades are approximately .47, .18, .35 respectively; >>i.e. Spades are at least as long as Hearts 53% of the time. >> >>However, the average heart length, on condition that hearts are >>longer is 4.61; the average spade length, on conditiont that Spades >>are at least as long as hearts is 4.14. In other words, in those case >>where the lead succeeds hearts provide an extra trick half the time. >>This is what makes it better, by a wide margin, to lead a heart. [Peter Gill:] >This is completely out-of-touch with reality. International players do >not go through needless mathematical calculations in order to decide >what to do. Yes, I know that this is not done at the table, but it can be done away from the table as a check on intuition, if you are interested to know whether your judgment was accurate. >They simply do what they feel is best based on their >experience and knowledge. Your mumbo jumbo has no bearing on anything >that the actual players would have been thinking or doing. This mumbo jumbo is more accurate than any player's intuition - and it is much faster to develop "experience and knowledge" if you habitually check your spontaneous reaction against objectively correct odds - mumbo jumbo, if you prefer. >In the real world, while a heart lead is obviously (without any >unnecessary maths) more likely to find partner's length than a spade >lead (hence the obvious AC decision), Here you are missing the point, both regarding the odds and the decision. >a heart lead is also more likely >to cost a critical trick than the more passive spade lead, due to >the possibility of the defenders' hearts being something like: >96 AJ53 >96 A1042 >96 KJ73 >96 K1054 >96 Q1053 >96 Q752 >96 J542 >96 opposite various five card holdings. Yes, it is the riskier lead and also the one that is more likely to set the contract. >We can throw in that Jurgen's numbers might indicate that our side >might average 7.14 spades and 6.61 hearts, No, they do not; these are conditional means. > ignoring highly relevant >info such as partner's failure to overcall a major. True - we don't know about bidding style and treatments, and this may be decisive. > It sort of follows >(but not quite) that about half the time we will be setting up their >heart tricks instead of ours. >Thus Jurgen has produced some needless information, which >probably argues the opposite way to the way he claims. If so you haven't demonstrated it. >Oh for the days when David Stevenson, Ton Kooijman and Kojak >used to contribute to BLML and make it a valuable resource to >so many of us. Combined with posts by the likes of Grattan, another >David, Steve and a couple of others, it provided the likes of me with >so much commonsense and wisdom that I learnt heaps from it. From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Mar 10 18:51:31 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:51:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) References: <000f01c2e6fa$ce121820$733a81d9@netvisao.pt> Message-ID: <005b01c2e736$12b817a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Rui (and many others), I get the impression you mix up the sequences 1NT-3NT and 1D-x-3NT. Against 1NT-3NT it is rather normal to lead a short major from a weak hand. Actually I think it is better to lead three or four small than two small. Two small needs to find partner with the kind of hand with which he might well have doubled (or should have). The advantage of leading from three or four small is that if you hit partners suit you have some help (which he probably will need because he doesn't have something like KQJ10x with an Ace when he doesn't double). In other words, because partner didn't double it is kind of silly to lead the suit I would have led if partner doubled. Of course none of the above is set in stone, it is just opening lead theory, and some experts will disagree. But now the bidding is 1D-x-3NT. If partner wanted a major lead (or has a interesting major suit which amounts to the same thing) he could have overcalled either major. He didn't. End of argument. If you lead a short major against this sequence you simply didn't listen to the sequence or you didn't understand the sequence or you don't understand a lot about playing bridge with a serious partner. Now of course I know partner might have 54 major without anything special in clubs. Opening leads are kind of stochastic. Realize that when partner doubles with 5431/22 shape he is much more likely to have 5C than five of either major (with 5C431 you have an automatic double, with 5M4C you have an automatic overcall, and with 5M4M you sometimes double sometimes overcall). And the argument that the guy needs clubs for 3NT is plain rubbish. He might have any number of diamonds or he might easily have a four card major. If 80% of the world thinks you have to lead short majors against this sequence I am more than happy to bid 3NT with Q109x kind of major holdings. Get real. So I am not trying to sell club lead as a LA, of course it is, I am trying to explain that clubs is a normal lead against this sequence. But I might be wrong. I will tell you in two months time or so, I will give the lead to my bidding panel. And about the UI. If partner considers a bid in this sequence it is (given my hand) almost sure he has forgotten to bid his major the first time and cannot convince himself to bid it at the four level. In a way south is inexperienced. If you double with this kind of hand (not my cup of tea) you simply have to double 3NT (or bid 4H) the next time around, like it or not. But you are not supposed to solve this problem by breaking tempo and partner using this break in tempo. Jaap van der Neut ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rui Marques" To: "'blml'" Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:47 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) > > I am not going to enter in a long discussion about this one (even > because I was one of the TDs involved in the original discussion of the > case), but will give some food for thought... > > What should N lead with 6 5 2 / 9 6 / 9 7 3 2 / J 9 7 6? And with 6 5 / > 9 6 2 / 9 7 3 2 / J 9 7 6? > > My firm conviction is that, in the first case, the H lead is mandatory, > and in the second case the S lead is mandatory. Yes, maybe another lead > is better. But how many (good) players would lead something else in the > true world? > > Rui Marques > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 10 19:13:20 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:13:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 Message-ID: <200303101913.OAA28338@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : the pause could indeed suggest a club. If partner holds AKQxx of some > suit, it rates to bze clubs. The second sentence is true in the Kaplan/Kokish style, but I'm not so sure it's true for the pair in question. We don't have their bidding agreements on record, but based on the auction and South's hand, I expect they would double first holding any strong hand, including one with AKQxx in a major. However, the real issue is this: if South holds an ordinary takeout double, say 3325 or 3415 with those nice clubs (or indeed a similar hand pattern but with the good suit a major), what would she have to think about? Is any of these holdings consistent with a 60-s pause? > However, the test for L73 application is not the > fact that numerous LAs do exist, but whether one was *unmistakely* > suggested. Let's get this right. The exact words of L16A are "could demonstrably have been suggested over another." That is stronger than the 1987 version ("reasonably") but quite a bit weaker than what Alain is suggesting. > My own rule has always been "if > every LA could have been suggested by the tempo, then none is suggested". That's a fair enough rule, at least if you add "demonstrably." Different posters have different bridge judgment about how the rule applies to this case. From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Mar 10 21:54:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:54 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <003901c2e719$2bc19220$d6f18690@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: Peter asked: > Is a huge section of BLML totally out of sync with the modern > Kokish-influenced world, where overcalling the major on even > very strong hands is considered preferable to the superseded > omnibus Double? I would overcall 2H on the hand given since that is systemically correct under my agreements. You would overcall 1H since that is correct in yours. I assumed that this player doubled because double was systemically correct in her agreements. I see no point in asking anybody what LAs are best if you don't give them the bidding system in operation (which seems to be X of a minor includes all hands of the right strength where both majors are 3+). Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Mar 10 21:54:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:54 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <008101c2e71e$a5ddb200$d6f18690@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: Peter wrote: > >BTW adjusting to 3N= must be wrong if we say a spade lead is a > >non-suggested LA. > > While Tim is correct about the overtrick , his statement above is > incorrect. He has omitted a second proviso that a club lead is not a > LA. I don't think this is an omission (except of a step in reasoning). Even if *both* spades and clubs are LAs a spade lead is likely, and less successful than a club and so we would adjust on the basis of a spade lead rather than a club. Tim From jrhind@therock.bm Mon Mar 10 22:45:31 2003 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:45:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/10/03 3:29 AM, "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" wrote: > This deal was discussed by a panel in the > most recent Australian Directors Bulletin. > > State Championship > Board-A-Match (B-A-M) Teams. > Bd. 16 / W / EW > > 102 > QJ3 > 93 > QJ10873 > 7653 AQJ98 > 1064 852 > K1072 AQ8 > 64 A9 > K4 > AK97 > J654 > K52 > > West North East South > Pass Pass 1NT(1) All Pass > > (1) 17-19 HCP, Balanced > > The Play: > H9 - H4 - HJ - H5 > HQ - H8 - H7 - H6 > H3 - H2 - HK - H10 > HA - S3 - S2 - C9 > C2 > > After all the cards from the fourth trick had been > quitted, South asked North what she had discarded. > North then re-faced the S2. > Result: E/W - 300 > N/S were playing odd-even discards (the S2 being a > suit preference for clubs). East believes that without > South's illegal re-sighting of the North discard, South > may possibly have switched to either a diamond or > spade. South counters that a diamond switch is > pointless given dummy's holding and that the club > switch is both safer and more likely than a spade to > defeat the contract. > > * * * > > Question 1: > > How would you rule as TD if you were permitted to use > Law 12C3? I would disallow a club lead and award an adjusted score that would be an average of the likely result when either a spade or a diamond is led i.e. +150 or +180 to E/W. I am interested in others opinion as to whether it is correct to consider that clubs can be led 1/3 of the time when computing the score. > > > Question 2: > > One of the panel wrote: > >> Despite the Law, it is common for a player to ask to >> see the cards again, and opponents always accede to >> this request without comment. E/W may have right on >> their side, but their level of gamesmanship does >> nothing to encourage. > I think it is quite clear in this example that North and South are in breach of the laws and that this is clearly a case where the director MUST adjust the score. I believe that the panel comment above is without merit and totally disagree with any chastisement of E/W here. How can anyone regard this as gamesmanship? > [snip] > > Do you agree? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 10 23:13:44 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:13:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c2e75a$b2f63cf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jack Rhind > > This deal was discussed by a panel in the > > most recent Australian Directors Bulletin. > > > > State Championship > > Board-A-Match (B-A-M) Teams. > > Bd. 16 / W / EW > > > > 102 > > QJ3 > > 93 > > QJ10873 > > 7653 AQJ98 > > 1064 852 > > K1072 AQ8 > > 64 A9 > > K4 > > AK97 > > J654 > > K52 > > > > West North East South > > Pass Pass 1NT(1) All Pass > > > > (1) 17-19 HCP, Balanced > > > > The Play: > > H9 - H4 - HJ - H5 > > HQ - H8 - H7 - H6 > > H3 - H2 - HK - H10 > > HA - S3 - S2 - C9 > > C2 > > > > After all the cards from the fourth trick had been > > quitted, South asked North what she had discarded. > > North then re-faced the S2. > > Result: E/W - 300 > > N/S were playing odd-even discards (the S2 being a > > suit preference for clubs). East believes that without > > South's illegal re-sighting of the North discard, South > > may possibly have switched to either a diamond or > > spade. South counters that a diamond switch is > > pointless given dummy's holding and that the club > > switch is both safer and more likely than a spade to > > defeat the contract. > > > > * * * > > > > Question 1: > > > > How would you rule as TD if you were permitted to use > > Law 12C3? > > I would disallow a club lead and award an adjusted score that would be an > average of the likely result when either a spade or a diamond is led i.e. > +150 or +180 to E/W. I am interested in others opinion as to whether it is > correct to consider that clubs can be led 1/3 of the time when computing > the > score. Why engage in probabilities on alternative shifts? I think the tendency to always looking for a reason to calculate an average score has become a disease among many directors and appeal committees. Just use Law 12C2, play it simple and award +180 to EW effective for both sides. I find absolutely no reason for calculating an average score (nor different scores for the two sides). And I do not agree with South that a diamond switch is not at all probable or not likely (words used in L12C2). There is a moral in telling the offender that where reasonable doubt exists on what would have happened, the Director is bound to select the alternative that gives the non offending side the best result. The offenders will remember that story and be more eager to obey the laws in the future. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 00:01:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:01:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille Message-ID: In the thread "Appeal 666", Karel asked: >How about a split decision ?? 3NT - 2 >for N/S and 3NT making for E/W ?? Such a split decision is an illegal Reveley ruling. It is logically inconsistent to rule that because of an infraction of Law 16 E/W should have their score improved to 3NT making, but then also ruling that N/S did not infract Law 16, so N/S can keep their table score. In the case I posted on this thread there was a more subtle Reveley danger. N/S infracted Law 66A, so two of the panellists stated that (if they were the AC) they would use Law 12C3 to provide a score intermediate between 1NT making and 1NT failing by ruling what could have happened had the infraction of Law 66A not occurred. However, those panellists failed to note that there were actually two infractions - the infraction of Law 66A (which provided UI), and the consequent infraction of Law 16 (the use of the UI). The panel majority correctly ruled under Law 12C2 or Law 12C3 what would have happened if the first infraction (Law 66A) had occurred, but also if the second infraction (Law 16) had not occurred. As a result, the panel majority eliminated the demonstrably suggested club switch from its calculations of the adjusted score - and therefore ruled that 1NT should always make with an overtrick or two. Best wishes Richard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 10 23:51:30 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:51:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille Message-ID: <200303102351.SAA28514@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > The panel majority correctly > ruled under Law 12C2 or Law 12C3 what would > have happened if the first infraction (Law > 66A) had occurred, but also if the second > infraction (Law 16) had not occurred. This is another example of the correct procedure when there is more than one infraction (say A and B). The TD or AC should consider four results: result with infraction A only result with infraction B only (not possible here, of course) result with neither infraction result with both infractions (table result) Give the NOS the best of these and the OS the worst. Of course "result" means considering likely/at all probable per L12C2 or weighted score per L12C3 if appropriate. Usually it will be obvious which of these is best for the NOS, so there is no need to explicitly consider all four. Here it is A only. The procedure should not be either difficult or controversial, although of course bridge judgments can be difficult in many cases. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 00:58:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:58:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote: [snip] >Put another way, asking for the rules to be >bent, which SHOULD be called gamesmanship, has >become so common that asking for them to be >followed DOES get called gamesmanship. (Other >examples: a player's partner responding to a >request for a review, or starting to shuffle >and deal the boards for a team match before the >opponents arrive. Complaining about the latter, >in particular, is perceived as so close to an >outright accusation of cheating by the dealer >that it's guaranteed to sour the whole match.) There are two issues here; firstly, should obeying the current rules - even if the rule is a technicality - be called gamesmanship or sea- lawyering? In my opinion, the answer is a clear *no*. This is what the WBF Code of Practice says on Ethics: >>A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse >>of ethics where a player is in breach of the >>provisions of the laws in respect of the >>conduct of players. A player who has conformed >>to the laws and regulations is not subject to >>criticism. This does not preclude encouragement >>of a generous attitude to opponents, especially >>in the exchange of information behind screens. The second issue is whether dead-letter Laws should be amended or repealed in 2005. In my opinion, the answer to that is an equally clear *yes*. For example, take Law 6C, which can sour a match. This Law is currently written: >>>A member of each side should be present >>>during the shuffle and deal unless the >>>Director instructs otherwise. In 2005, Law 6C could be rewritten to read: >>>>If the Director so instructs, a member of >>>>each side should be present during the >>>>shuffle and deal. This simple change in default means that it is the TD announcing a rule, rather than an opponent being misinterpreted as implying cheating, so souring of a match will not be caused. Noted? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 00:58:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:58:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote: [snip] >Put another way, asking for the rules to be >bent, which SHOULD be called gamesmanship, has >become so common that asking for them to be >followed DOES get called gamesmanship. (Other >examples: a player's partner responding to a >request for a review, or starting to shuffle >and deal the boards for a team match before the >opponents arrive. Complaining about the latter, >in particular, is perceived as so close to an >outright accusation of cheating by the dealer >that it's guaranteed to sour the whole match.) There are two issues here; firstly, should obeying the current rules - even if the rule is a technicality - be called gamesmanship or sea- lawyering? In my opinion, the answer is a clear *no*. This is what the WBF Code of Practice says on Ethics: >>A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse >>of ethics where a player is in breach of the >>provisions of the laws in respect of the >>conduct of players. A player who has conformed >>to the laws and regulations is not subject to >>criticism. This does not preclude encouragement >>of a generous attitude to opponents, especially >>in the exchange of information behind screens. The second issue is whether dead-letter Laws should be amended or repealed in 2005. In my opinion, the answer to that is an equally clear *yes*. For example, take Law 6C, which can sour a match. This Law is currently written: >>>A member of each side should be present >>>during the shuffle and deal unless the >>>Director instructs otherwise. In 2005, Law 6C could be rewritten to read: >>>>If the Director so instructs, a member of >>>>each side should be present during the >>>>shuffle and deal. This simple change in default means that it is the TD announcing a rule, rather than an opponent being misinterpreted as implying cheating, so souring of a match will not be caused. Noted? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 01:34:51 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:34:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille Message-ID: Sven wrote: >Why engage in probabilities on alternative shifts? I >think the tendency to always looking for a reason to >calculate an average score has become a disease >among many directors and appeal committees. Partially disagree. Law 12C3 is necessary if "the mechanical application of Law 12C2 does not produce a fair answer for one or both of the sides involved." -WBF Code of Practice However, in this particular case, as TD I would rule that a simple application of Law 12C2 would be fair to both sides. >Just use Law 12C2, play it simple and award +180 This must be a typographical error; +180 is not legal, since N/S took four defensive tricks before any infraction occurred. >to EW effective for both sides. I find absolutely no >reason for calculating an average score (nor different >scores for the two sides). And I do not agree with >South that a diamond switch is not at all probable or >not likely (words used in L12C2). A diamond switch would lead to 120; a less likely spade switch would lead to 150; since Law 12C2 treats NOS and OS differentially it is conceivable that the TD could rule EW +120 and NS -150. An AC could use Law 12C3 to award an intermediate score between 120 and 150. (I agree with Sven that an AC should not include in its Law 12C3 calculation the result of the illegal club switch.) But, as TD and AC, I would rule that a spade switch was so unlikely that I would make the simple adjustment to EW+120/NS-120. >There is a moral in telling the offender that where >reasonable doubt exists on what would have happened, >the Director is bound to select the alternative that >gives the non offending side the best result. The >offenders will remember that story and be more eager to >obey the laws in the future. Quibble. Not the best result, merely the most favourable result that was likely. The TD is not permitted to be unfair to the OS when adjusting the score, although a lecture (or a PP) from the TD is definitely indicated in this case. Best wishes Richard From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Mar 11 01:43:33 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 01:43:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 12:58 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > For example, take Law 6C, which can sour a match. > This Law is currently written: > >>>> A member of each side should be present >>>> during the shuffle and deal unless the >>>> Director instructs otherwise. > > In 2005, Law 6C could be rewritten to read: > >>>>> If the Director so instructs, a member of >>>>> each side should be present during the >>>>> shuffle and deal. > > This simple change in default means that it is > the TD announcing a rule, rather than an > opponent being misinterpreted as implying > cheating, so souring of a match will not be > caused. On the contrary, this would be the cause of much ill-feeling. Perhaps you are assuming matches where there are lots of other people around? We often play matches in knockout events in people's homes. Imagine turning up to find our hosts have already dealt the boards, and subsequently judge every marginal decision well. I can't think of a better way of generating doubt. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Mar 11 01:51:45 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:51:45 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > In my opinion, the answer is a clear *no*. We agree there. How to achieve this is a puzzle, though. > The second issue is whether dead-letter Laws > should be amended or repealed in 2005. In my > opinion, the answer to that is an equally clear > *yes*. Yes. I'm just not sure I can think of any frequently-ignored laws which I actually wish to see removed from the book. > For example, take Law 6C, which can sour a match. > In 2005, Law 6C could be rewritten to read: > > >>>>If the Director so instructs, a member of > >>>>each side should be present during the > >>>>shuffle and deal. > > This simple change in default means that it is > the TD announcing a rule, rather than an > opponent being misinterpreted as implying > cheating, so souring of a match will not be > caused. In principle, yes, a TD announcement would solve the problem. In practice, this means that the announcement will almost never be made, and asking to see the boards shuffled will officially become an accusation of cheating. I am not sure I like that. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 05:57:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:57:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 6C & Law 74C8 (was Reveley reveille) Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote: [snip] >Imagine turning up to find our hosts have already >dealt the boards, and subsequently judge every >marginal decision well. I can't think of a better >way of generating doubt. I have played in many events where either myself or my opponents have violated Law 6C as a time-saving courtesy. When I do it, I often joke, "I have already stacked the boards." But myself and my opponents do *not* generate doubt that the other side are deliberate cheats. Bridge villains are a tiny minority, so myself and my opponents assume innocent-until-proven-guilty. True, there are Laws (such as Law 6C) designed to make it more difficult to successfully cheat. Another example is Law 74C8, designed to prevent peeking or eavesdropping of unplayed boards: >>The following are considered violations of >>procedure: leaving the table needlessly before >>the round is called. However, my opponents and I have frequently technically violated Law 74C8 - unless you consider getting a can of Coke needful. Law 6C and Law 74C8 are not uniformly enforced. When those Laws are enforced, they therefore have the implication of guilty-until-proven-innocent. I suggest that innocent-until-proven-guilty should be the basis of rewritten Laws 6C and 74C8 in 2005 - otherwise I may never be legally able to get a can of Coke again. :-) Best wishes Richard From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Tue Mar 11 05:55:01 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:55:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 6C & Law 74C8 (was Reveley reveille) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030311005253.0218f400@mail.fscv.net> At 12:57 AM 11/03/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >... my opponents and I have frequently technically violated Law 74C8 - >unless you consider getting a can of Coke needful. Very needful, Richard. There has been many a day when I would have been unable to finish a round without a jolt of caffeine from my Coke or Dr. Pepper. Walt From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 06:32:41 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:32:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question Message-ID: Grattan wrote: [snip] >>It is good teaching that educates players not to make >>their enquiries whilst the auction is progressing if they >>have no reason to do so. I replied: >Actually, that is bad teaching. Law 73B1 refers to: >"questions asked or not asked". Never asking a gratuitous >question means that the non-asking of a question creates UI >that the non-asker is unreasoning. Players who randomly >intersperse gratuitous questions with need-to-know questions >create a higher noise-to-signal ratio, and therefore less UI, >than Grattanic players do. [snip] On second thoughts, I believe that I have misinterpreted Law 73B1, and Grattan was right about good teaching. In my revised opinion, the "not asked" option in Law 73B1 should be applied to clearcut cases where the failure to ask a question is so unusual that it demonstrably creates UI. For example, suppose after 1NT - Pass - 2D (Alert) that Player A always asks about the Alert. But on a particular occasion Player A does not ask, holding AKQxxx of diamonds. Another example. EW are having a relay auction. Player A asks about the auction each time - except on one particular occasion in the middle of the auction. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 06:54:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:54:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] final law 49 case query Message-ID: Sven wrote: [snip] >>BTW: A curious side effect of this understanding >>could be that if a defender says "Here is the >>King . . . . Oops I mean the Queen" then he has >>apparently first designated the King and then >>changed the designation to the Queen in a way >>that is permitted under Law 45C4(b). >> >>Now, if he doesn't have the King, that card >>could of course not become a penalty card in any >>case, but what if he has it? Does Law 45C4(b) >>("without penalty") take precedence over Law 49 >>("exposure of a defender's cards)? And has the >>King really been exposed at all? >> >>I would tend to rule that the King is exposed if >>he has it, but this is definitely not an obvious >>case. Gordon Rainsford agreed: >I would agree. It seems obvious to me that Law 49 >should take precedence, but perhaps others can >provide a reason why it should be so (or an >argument that it should not). My reasoning: 1. Law 49 defines that a card named by a defender becomes a penalty card. 2. Without the application of Law 45C4(b), the King would have been the played card, and the Queen would have been the penalty card. 3. After the application of Law 45C4(b), the Queen is the played card and the King is the penalty card. 4. The Law 45C4(b) requirement of "without penalty" has been satisfied if that is deemed to have an equivalent meaning of "no net increase in penalty". After applying Law 45C4(b), the defender still has only one penalty card, albeit a penalty card with a different identity. Best wishes Richard From gillp@bigpond.com Tue Mar 11 07:10:57 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:10:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 Message-ID: <00b201c2e79d$60cfad60$498d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >But you've given us one more argument to decide a heart was not >suggested : No I haven't. >if the gamble is a possibility with the hand above, than partner's > long suit could well be clubs No, partner's suit is almost certainly not clubs, for that would give the opponents too many cards in the major suits for their bidding to make sense. If partner has a suit that she is thinking of bidding at the four level, it has to be seven or six cards long. With her presumed four hearts and three spades, it is exceedingly unlikely that partner has seven or six clubs. Thus your argument is fallacious. If you didn't realise this was top level bridge, perhaps you missed the post from Herman that specified that it was the European Ladies Teams. Peter Gill Australia. From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Tue Mar 11 07:30:26 2003 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:30:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: <003901c2e66f$32e015e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000101c2e7a0$15e66700$da3b81d9@netvisao.pt> Let=B4s see what comes from Jaap=B4s bidding poll on this one... Anyway, = as well as having my point of view on this one (and the TD=B4s consensus at the time, of course), I understand the reasoning of the AC and Jaap=B4s point of view.=20 From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Mar 11 07:27:31 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:27:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) References: Message-ID: <005501c2e79f$b58984a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Tim: > I don't think this is an omission (except of a step in reasoning). Even > if *both* spades and clubs are LAs a spade lead is likely, and less > successful than a club and so we would adjust on the basis of a spade lead > rather than a club. I am not quite sure about this 'omission' (spades was mentioned in the AC write-up, clubs was not). 1. It is quite likely that everybody (players,TD,AC) was too focussed on 3NT making or not that nobody thought of it (this kind of things happen quite often). 2. There might be some members on the AC that didn't 'understand' club lead is is a LA as well. Three out of five AC-members have no relevant playing skills for the level involved, this is the way the EBL thinks it should run its EC-AC's. But now your principle that we should adjust on the basis of the least succesful LA. Here I don't agree with you. People should pay for there infractions, we don't have to kill them. I prefer a weighted score in such cases. Here it is kind of academic. You might argue +410 instead of 400 or so (club lead is 400, spade lead might make one more, but then declarer might cash out anyway) but that kind of rulings serve no real purpose. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) > Peter wrote: > > > >BTW adjusting to 3N= must be wrong if we say a spade lead is a > > >non-suggested LA. > > > > While Tim is correct about the overtrick , his statement above is > > incorrect. He has omitted a second proviso that a club lead is not a > > LA. > > I don't think this is an omission (except of a step in reasoning). Even > if *both* spades and clubs are LAs a spade lead is likely, and less > successful than a club and so we would adjust on the basis of a spade lead > rather than a club. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Mar 11 07:04:47 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:04:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) References: Message-ID: <005401c2e79f$b54f88e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Tim: > I would overcall 2H on the hand given since that is systemically correct > under my agreements. You would overcall 1H since that is correct in > yours. I assumed that this player doubled because double was systemically > correct in her agreements. I see no point in asking anybody what LAs are > best if you don't give them the bidding system in operation Of course you are right. Some players double more often holding a major suit than others. Still all players will overcall most of the time holding a decent suit. So the absence of an overcall is a very strong indication against leading a major in this sequence whatever the style (system is not the right word here imo). Tim: > (which seems > to be X of a minor includes all hands of the right strength where both > majors are 3+). I wouldn't bet on that. Of course TD needed to ask system/style and it should be in the AC write-up. Lacking that my guess would be that this player just thought this hand was too good for 1H. Which it is in a way. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) > Peter asked: > > Is a huge section of BLML totally out of sync with the modern > > Kokish-influenced world, where overcalling the major on even > > very strong hands is considered preferable to the superseded > > omnibus Double? > > I would overcall 2H on the hand given since that is systemically correct > under my agreements. You would overcall 1H since that is correct in > yours. I assumed that this player doubled because double was systemically > correct in her agreements. I see no point in asking anybody what LAs are > best if you don't give them the bidding system in operation (which seems > to be X of a minor includes all hands of the right strength where both > majors are 3+). > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gillp@bigpond.com Tue Mar 11 07:41:51 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:41:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 Message-ID: <010a01c2e7a1$b1322680$498d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Steve Willner wrote: >Peter: I'd be interested in your thoughts about 73B1. Am I expecting >too much from South, who was after all placed in a very difficult >position? Here's what I think (assuming, as is likely, that the European Teams Championships use screens): South has a very tough decision over 3NT and did well to work out that Pass was likely to be more successful than 3NT. Alas for her, she took too much time to do so, and tipped off her partner about the atypical type of Double that she had (not 4=4=1=4). This made partner's heart lead inappropriate, whereas a spade or club lead would IMO have been allowed. Bad luck for N/S, but the AC decison seems to be clearly the best decision. South could have won the board by overcalling 1H [i.e she can blame her NCBO for not having employed Eric Kokish to coach her :) ] or by managing her time better. After her screenmate on her left bid 3NT, an alert South might realise that a bidding problem is looming and (per the newish Brad Moss-induced rules, if they're applicable in EBL as well as WBF events) might delay moving the tray to the other side of the screen until she'd written down to her screenmate "3NT = ?" when she was really stalling for time to plan whether to bid 4H over 3NT. This way she could have disguised her pause. By pausing in the passout seat at a time when her Pass was the sole action on her side of the screen, she transmitted UI to the other side of the screen. What I mean by all this obscure stuff is that South had several ways to save the day for her side. She stuffed it, and her partner should not be allowed to lead her shortest suit. Peter Gill Australia. From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Tue Mar 11 09:25:11 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:25:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 Message-ID: <008201c2e7b0$1e451760$444665d5@swipnet.se> There are a couple of point that are not much discussed. 1. What system do East-West play? If they play four card majors it is = less likely that East has a heart suit, but he might open 1 D with 4-4 = in diamonds and spades. If this is the case the chances are that South = has better hearts than spades, because it is more probable that East has = a spade suit than a heart suit. 2. What does South=B4s doble show. Can South have a strong one-suited = hand? Is it probable that South is 4-6 in the majors? With this I will say that South=B4s hesitation might make it more = probable that he has a heart suit. Regards=20 Hans-Olof From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Mar 11 09:42:04 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:42:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) References: <3e6cab1c.252c.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <3E6DAF6C.5040208@skynet.be> Come on Karel, this is not fair: Karel wrote: > >>The Committee: >>Considered the hesitation proven. >> > " .... it is true that the hesitation carries no information regarding Hearts > or Spades ..." > > +++ Ok now we are getting somewhere - so the committee has decided that a club > lead is not a LA. This I agree with. They have also determined that the pause > carries NO information as to which major South is presumed to have. Once again > I agree. > OK. > [Snip] > it does carry the information that there is some interesting lead to be found > > > +++ Guys this is such a cop out. Its lame and sad. Ya make the tough decisions > and then do a U turn. The day you decide there isn't an interesting lead - > hang up your pack of cards. > Don't you realize what is being said - there is a "better" lead and a "worse" one. In many hands there is no such thing. > The committe decided up to this point that N has a choice bewteen hearts and > spades which is UNEFFECTED by the pause (excellent - big cheer) and then rule > he can't lead a heart because .... well actually maybe the pause does indicate > a heart ??? huh. Stop sitting on the fence - which is it !! > NO, the pause does not suggest a heart over a spade. The pause does suggest that one lead will be very good, the other one being very bad. That is UI. The fact that partner can see from his cards which is the good and which is the bad lead does not change the UI. Indeed, if north had had 3-3, nothing would be said about the heart lead. It is not the heart lead which is suggested, it is the short suit lead. > [snip] > and this inclines to suggest North's shorter major. > > +++ Rubbish - and what if he decided to lead a spade and that was the winning > lead ?? Are we now going to say a spade is disallowed because a heart is normal > ?? > No, that does not make sense. The UI suggests a short suit lead, not a heart lead. > > > Either the pause indicated specifically a heart lead or it didn't. If you feel > that it was unlikely but may have - then why not a split ruling ?? > The pause indicated a short suit lead. > > Answer me this - Is there anyway N/S could win this case ?? > > Was a group of peers asked what they would lead with no pause ?? I'd be amazed > if the huge majority didn't pick a heart or a spade ... (ie) a 50/50 guess. > Which goes to prove that the spade lead is a LA. Or rather: that the long suit lead is a LA. When the short suit lead is suggested, and the long suit lead is a LA, the player should not choose the short suit lead. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Mar 11 11:24:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <005501c2e79f$b58984a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Jaap wrote: > But now your principle that we should adjust on the basis of the least > succesful LA. Here I don't agree with you. People should pay for there > infractions, we don't have to kill them. I prefer a weighted score in=20 > such cases. It's not *my* principle, it is required by law. If we consider a result=20 likely then we must assign it. Only if there is no one result that is=20 considered likely can we assign a weighted score. > Here it is kind of academic. You might argue +410 instead of 400 or > so (club lead is 400, spade lead might make one more, but then declarer > might cash out anyway) but that kind of rulings serve no real purpose. This is inconsistent Jaap. If you want us to rule on the basis of it=20 being an high-level event we must assume competent declarer play. An average declarer player in the =A35 game at my local club would make t= en=20 tricks on this hand (I think she would make the same ten tricks when=20 playing for the French ladies' team and I have no reason to assume that=20 the Swedish ladies are any worse). Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Mar 11 11:24:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Law 6C & Law 74C8 (was Reveley reveille) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > However, my opponents and I have frequently > technically violated Law 74C8 - unless you consider > getting a can of Coke needful. Marginal. Line of coke/beers/smoke/bathroom break (or any combination thereof) are obviously needful. Caffeine free Coke is obviously needless and diet Coke beyond the pale. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to ordinary Coke/coffee and let you get away with it. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Mar 11 11:24:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 In-Reply-To: <010a01c2e7a1$b1322680$498d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: Peter wrote: > South has a very tough decision over 3NT and did well to work > out that Pass was likely to be more successful than 3NT. Alas for > her, she took too much time to do so, and tipped off her partner > about the atypical type of Double that she had (not 4=4=1=4). Again you call the double "atypical". Again I feel that this double must be considered typical for the pair concerned unless evidence is presented to the contrary. What hand types are included in the double. Let us say: 4423/3424/4324 12+ 4414 11+ 5413/4513/3415 11 + 5404 type 11+ Hands too good for an immediate 1X/2X (Standard non-Kokish double I reckon) What would a double of 3N have meant (I consider by far the most likely reason for the hesitation as "nearly a double")? Maybe lead a spade, in which case it is likely that hesitator's spades are nearly, but not quite good enough for a double and a spade is suggested. More likely extra values (say 16+ in a 44 double). If pard is close to one of these then I'm not sure any lead is suggested. I mean you *want* to lead partner's more solid major, there is perhaps a faint indication (from the auction) that is H since opps with 7H and values in the suit might well have introduced it. If pard is 44xx and 11-14 it probably ain't going to matter a damn what you lead since opps are making 9+ tricks anyway. So we are left with "what is the best lead to cater to partner being 5404/5413/biggish single suiter?". I consider "a heart" the obvious answer to the above question, I believe well over 75% of my peers would come to the same conclusion. Now perhaps I don't understand teams, perhaps I don't understand the level of play (although I have played a fair amount of Chicago against European lady internationals without feeling out of depth), perhaps my logic is fundamentally flawed - but it seems sound to me. When consulting players about LAs do bear in mind that you should be asking Margarets, not Michaels. Tim From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Mar 11 11:33:20 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:33:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) References: <005501c2e79f$b58984a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <002901c2e7c2$052e7e80$25b54351@noos.fr> OOPS, I said: > Here it is kind of academic. You might argue +410 instead of 400 or > so (club lead is 400, spade lead might make one more, but then declarer > might cash out anyway) but that kind of rulings serve no real purpose. Of course 410 is nonsense. I just tried to say that to weigh two scores that close in teams is not worth the effort (and very often doesn't make a diference in the imp score). Jaap From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 11 12:09:15 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:09:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <3E6CBCB9.8000201@t-online.de> References: <3e6cab1c.252c.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030311130204.0251bcd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:26 10/03/2003 +0100, Matthias Berghaus wrote: ea to lead a card of that suit. >>Answer me this - Is there anyway N/S could win this case ?? > >No. They could have won the board by passing in tempo, after which North >would undoubtedly have hit upon the lead of a heart AG : there is a contradiction here. If the lead of a heart is as obvious as you suppose it, then there is no other LA, thus no reason to apply L73. However, some answers in this thread to imply that a spade or club lead could be seriously considered. *then* UI becomesa problem. >, putting the contract three off without any TD or AC. Nobody would ever >consider leading anything else but the shortest suit against 3NT. AG : some experts, consulted by blml members, preferred a spade. It is always dangerous to be dogmatic. >Anyway, partner`s hesitation suggest a long suit ( he thought about >sacrifing or about doubling for the lead, he needs a long suit in both >cases. This suggests leading a short suit, so a major is suggested over a club. AG : not really. Partner could have AKQxx clubs, but not AKQxx in a major. The probability that his long suit is clubs (leaving LHO perhaps with 4441 and RHO with 2353 or the like) is substantial. From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Mar 11 12:09:11 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:09:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) References: Message-ID: <000f01c2e7c7$33e307a0$c50fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 5:52 PM Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) > > > >Oh for the days when David Stevenson, Ton Kooijman > >and Kojak used to contribute to BLML and make it a > >valuable resource to so many of us. Combined with > >posts by the likes of Grattan, another David, Steve and > >a couple of others, it provided the likes of me with so > >much commonsense and wisdom that I learnt heaps > >from it. > +=+Recognizing the source of the hand, I have seen no reason to comment. The hesitation does indicate possession of a suit of a quality that the player would like partner to lead; it tends to qualify the double as having been of that type. The short suit lead is an effort to find such a suit: it is the type of lead that could indeed be very often attempted, particularly in teams, without the UI. It is a matter of opinion to what an extent such a lead is evident, but there are enough dissentients to the view that it is 'automatic' to establish that there are LAs. In these circumstances the Law requires for the player on lead that it is an effort he should forego, his partner having made it all too plain that there is treasure to be found - an assist to the choice of lead. It would be too easy and tempting for players to gain advantages from such hesitations if Directors and ACs were not quick to suppress them. I do not recall exactly what opinion I formed of the pair actually involved but the AC decision was without dissent. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 11 12:49:24 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:49:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 In-Reply-To: <200303101913.OAA28338@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030311134233.02517770@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:13 10/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > AG : the pause could indeed suggest a club. If partner holds AKQxx of some > > suit, it rates to bze clubs. > >The second sentence is true in the Kaplan/Kokish style, but I'm not so >sure it's true for the pair in question. AG : I don't know either, but you will surely be interested in the result of a 6-person panel chosen among "very good" to "expert" - level players in Belgium. Question : which of these hands is coherent with the sequence 1D - X - 3NT- p - p - X ? a) AQJxxx - KQx - Ax - xx b) KQx - AQJxxx - Ax - xx c) AKQ - Jxxx - AQ - xxxx d) Qxx - Kxx - xx - AKQxx 3 members answered c) 2 answered a) 1 answered a) or b) Conclusion : the short-suit lead is not specifically suggested by the quasi-double. Only diamonds, and to a lesser extent spades (regardless of whether short or nont) are suggested. Leading a heart is thus not only correct, it is the right type of "bending-backwards" behavior we expect. At least with Belgian bidding customs. Best regards, Alain. From ziffbridge@t-online.de Tue Mar 11 12:52:35 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:52:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) References: <3e6cab1c.252c.0@esatclear.ie> <5.1.0.14.0.20030311130204.0251bcd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E6DDC13.5000909@t-online.de> Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > At 17:26 10/03/2003 +0100, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > ea to lead a card of that suit. > >>> Answer me this - Is there anyway N/S could win this case ?? >> >> >> No. They could have won the board by passing in tempo, after which >> North would undoubtedly have hit upon the lead of a heart > > > AG : there is a contradiction here. If the lead of a heart is as obvious > as you suppose it, then there is no other LA, thus no reason to apply L73. > I am sorry. I fell into the same trap some others discovered the hard way. Irony and sarcasm don`t transmit well electronically. I do not consider the lead of a heart obvious. Possible, yes. I have made leads like this myself from time to time, but it surely is not obvious. Again, sorry. > However, some answers in this thread to imply that a spade or club lead > could be seriously considered. > *then* UI becomesa problem. > >> , putting the contract three off without any TD or AC. Nobody would >> ever consider leading anything else but the shortest suit against 3NT. > > See above. > AG : some experts, consulted by blml members, preferred a spade. It is > always dangerous to be dogmatic. > > > >> Anyway, partner`s hesitation suggest a long suit ( he thought about >> sacrifing or about doubling for the lead, he needs a long suit in both >> cases. This suggests leading a short suit, so a major is suggested >> over a club. > > > AG : not really. Partner could have AKQxx clubs, but not AKQxx in a > major. The probability that his long suit is clubs (leaving LHO perhaps > with 4441 and RHO with 2353 or the like) is substantial. There is a certain possibility that the suit is clubs, but a small one. Only with (43)15 or 4405 would a double be considered (instead of 2C). And what has partner to think about with these hands? How to direct a club lead? Not very probable. The hesitation suggests a long suit, so a short suit lead is a violation of Law 16. Best regards Matthias From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 11 13:14:42 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:14:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <3E6DAF6C.5040208@skynet.be> References: <3e6cab1c.252c.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030311141401.02523c30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:42 11/03/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >NO, the pause does not suggest a heart over a spade. The pause does >suggest that one lead will be very good, the other one being very >bad. That is UI. The fact that partner can see from his cards which is >the good and which is the bad lead does not change the UI. Indeed, if >north had had 3-3, nothing would be said about the heart lead. >It is not the heart lead which is suggested, it is the short suit lead. AG :according to my poll (see previous message), it is the diamond lead. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Mar 11 13:29:48 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:29:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: <2870622.1047389388252.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Matthias wrote: >There is a certain possibility that the suit is clubs, but a small one. Only with (43)15 or 4405 would a double be considered (instead of 2C). Many world-class players would routinely double 1D with 3-3-2-5. It is a bad idea for any contributor to this list to make any comment at all about what does or does not constitute expert bridge, or even good bridge. David Burn London, England From ziffbridge@t-online.de Tue Mar 11 14:53:45 2003 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:53:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) References: <2870622.1047389388252.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E6DF879.5050808@t-online.de> dalburn@btopenworld.com schrieb: > Matthias wrote: > > >>There is a certain possibility that the suit is clubs, but a small one. Only with (43)15 or 4405 would a double be considered (instead of 2C). > > > Many world-class players would routinely double 1D with 3-3-2-5. Since you have so much more experience against these players than I have I´ll take your word for it. Two days ago a German Woman`s World Champion told me she would rather shoot herself than double with this shape on some average hand where 2C is an alternative. Which of course proves nothing except that opinions differ at any level of the game. > It is a bad idea for any contributor to this list to make any comment > at all about what does or does not constitute expert bridge, or even > good bridge. Seems like you just did exactly that. Could it possibly be that the contributors to this list - not being blessed (if this could be called a blessing) eith something like a positronic brain or being born on Vulcan - cannot help but bring just a tad of personal opinion into the discussion? It`s not that you do not have a point, but I, for one, occasionally fail in my eternal quest for perfection. I will certainly continue to fail occasionally in future postings. I am sorry about that, but as Sir Walter Scott had Hubert say: "A man can do but his best". > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 11 15:59:57 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:59:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 Message-ID: <200303111559.KAA05195@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Peter Gill" > Here's what I think (assuming, as is likely, that the European Teams > Championships use screens): Thanks, Peter. Yes, the match was behind screens. It may be amusing to realize that had the screen happened to go the other way, there would have been no problem. The delay could well have been East considering whether to pull West's 3NT rather than South thinking about acting, but as usual North and East were on the same side of the screen, and it was clear that West had nothing to think about. > (per the newish Brad Moss-induced rules, if they're applicable > in EBL as well as WBF events) What are these? I'm guessing they weren't in effect in Tenerife. > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > What would a double of 3N have meant This is the right sort of question, although a suit bid is a possibility too. > More likely extra values (say 16+ in a 44 double). Is this really a 60-second problem? Seems doubtful to me. > So we are left with "what is the best lead to cater to partner being > 5404/5413/biggish single suiter?". > > I consider "a heart" the obvious answer to the above question, I believe > well over 75% of my peers would come to the same conclusion. Peter's survey suggests otherwise. Also, North told the AC that she took some time to consider her lead. That suggests a heart was not completely obvious. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : I don't know either, but you will surely be interested in the result > of a 6-person panel chosen among "very good" to "expert" - level players in > Belgium. This may be a decent panel to survey, but you have to ask the right question. You should show them the South hand, and you should tell them that the bidding methods in use allow a double with a hand that is "too strong to overcall," i.e., that Mr. Kokish's influence has not been felt. > Question : which of these hands is coherent with the sequence 1D - X - > 3NT- p - p - X ? > > a) AQJxxx - KQx - Ax - xx > b) KQx - AQJxxx - Ax - xx If your panel are saying that the sequence could show one of these two but not the other, they are assuming some special bidding methods for which we have no evidence. > c) AKQ - Jxxx - AQ - xxxx > d) Qxx - Kxx - xx - AKQxx In my own preferred methods (extreme Kaplan/Kokish), hands a and b are impossible. They would have overcalled, not doubled, on the first round. The double could well show c, whereas with d a final pass, not double, would be mandatory. However, it is obvious the pair in question were not playing anything like these methods, and inferences based on methods other than the ones in use are irrelevant. (Some people would overcall 1NT with c, for example.) From gillp@bigpond.com Tue Mar 11 16:14:56 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 03:14:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 Message-ID: <011d01c2e7e9$5f105fa0$5e8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Steve Willner wrote: >> (per the newish Brad Moss-induced rules, if they're applicable >> in EBL as well as WBF events) > >What are these? I'm guessing they weren't in effect in Tenerife. I was referring (fairly obliquely, i.e. in my usual style) to the rules about being allowed to delay passing the tray throught the screen in order to slow excessively fast tempo by the opponents. Admittedly I was suggesting possible abuse of such rules in order to give oneself time to think before the tray returns to you with the same problem that you can already see. By filling in the time asking in writing a question about what 3NT meant, South can gain thinking time while appearing to her screenmate not to be wasting time. Whether this is the way bridge should be played, I don't know. I tend to think it is not, but I was trying to respond to those who thought that N/S were denied any chance to get the hand right. . >Peter's survey suggests otherwise. I didn't exactly do a survey. I simply asked three locals at the pub after the local Mixed Pairs Championship the other night about the hand. Their answers were sufficient to show that whoever wrote that no expert would consider leading a club was wrong. By the way, because one or two blmlers have been questioning the standard of N/S, I think that Midskog and Gothe must have done pretty well in one or two recent world class events. My skimpy evidence for this thought is that I had heard of them before this appeal, presumably from my reading of the results of European or World events. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 11 16:39:31 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:39:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 In-Reply-To: <200303111559.KAA05195@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030311172448.00ab66c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:59 11/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > AG : I don't know either, but you will surely be interested in the result > > of a 6-person panel chosen among "very good" to "expert" - level > players in > > Belgium. > >This may be a decent panel to survey, but you have to ask the right >question. You should show them the South hand, and you should tell >them that the bidding methods in use allow a double with a hand that >is "too strong to overcall," i.e., that Mr. Kokish's influence has not >been felt. AG : everybody allows this. Only the limit changes. Mr Kokish's is perhaps around 21, my panel's is about 17 ; what was this pair's ? > > Question : which of these hands is coherent with the sequence 1D - X - > > 3NT- p - p - X ? > > > > a) AQJxxx - KQx - Ax - xx > > b) KQx - AQJxxx - Ax - xx > >If your panel are saying that the sequence could show one of these two >but not the other, they are assuming some special bidding methods for >which we have no evidence. AG : I've been told by my bridge teacher that, in case of doubt, the double of 3NT (or higher) when our side remained silent was either for spades or for dummy's first bid suit. Perhaps experts have other understandings, but if 1NT p 3NT X is usually intended as "spades" rather than hearts then 1D X 3NT p p X should be either S or D, not just "one long suit", lest partner lose all confidence in you when he's got 33 majors. I think that my panel reacted the same way. > > c) AKQ - Jxxx - AQ - xxxx > > d) Qxx - Kxx - xx - AKQxx > >In my own preferred methods (extreme Kaplan/Kokish), hands a and b are >impossible. They would have overcalled, not doubled, on the first >round. The double could well show c, whereas with d a final pass, not >double, would be mandatory. However, it is obvious the pair in >question were not playing anything like these methods, and inferences >based on methods other than the ones in use are irrelevant. (Some >people would overcall 1NT with c, for example.) AG : what would you have decided if the range for 1M overcalls was written down as 7-16 ? Now type c is heavily suggested, only partner had type b. Let's go to the end of the reasoning. I play 7-16 overcalls (or 9-17), like many Belgians. For some reason partner doubled (non-systemic) with this hand. He then doubled 3NT. The double is for diamonds in this style. After the slow pass, I know that he most probably wanted to double, which suggests diamonds. I have a solid sense of ethics, thus I select the normal lead (not the one suggested), ie a major, perhaps the shortest one at IMPs. Now TDs, ACs and blml members tell me that I took partner's tempo into consideration and penalize me. All this means that we can decide there was use of UI if, and ONLY IF, the double is systemic on sound hands with a 6-card major. Somehow, I doubt it is. But, as Steve insisted on it, this shows that the decision depends heavily on the pair's methods. Best regards, Alain. From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Mar 11 20:25:13 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:25:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) References: Message-ID: <001f01c2e80c$92369f20$25b54351@noos.fr> Tim: > It's not *my* principle, it is required by law. If we consider a result > likely then we must assign it. Only if there is no one result that is > considered likely can we assign a weighted score. For a TD that is although even that evolves. To 12C2 or to 12C3. Most AC's I know tend to 12C3. Tim: >This is inconsistent Jaap. If you want us to rule on the basis of it >being an high-level event we must assume competent declarer play. >An average declarer player in the £5 game at my local club would make ten >tricks on this hand (I think she would make the same ten tricks when >playing for the French ladies' team and I have no reason to assume that >the Swedish ladies are any worse). It is not inconsistent. Throw-in's require perfect count and even when it is available people sometimes mis it. Spade lead, HQ switch. You cash your winners. Is your count on the hand good enough to risk one down in 3NT? They might bare the CK you know. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) Jaap wrote: > But now your principle that we should adjust on the basis of the least > succesful LA. Here I don't agree with you. People should pay for there > infractions, we don't have to kill them. I prefer a weighted score in > such cases. It's not *my* principle, it is required by law. If we consider a result likely then we must assign it. Only if there is no one result that is considered likely can we assign a weighted score. > Here it is kind of academic. You might argue +410 instead of 400 or > so (club lead is 400, spade lead might make one more, but then declarer > might cash out anyway) but that kind of rulings serve no real purpose. This is inconsistent Jaap. If you want us to rule on the basis of it being an high-level event we must assume competent declarer play. An average declarer player in the £5 game at my local club would make ten tricks on this hand (I think she would make the same ten tricks when playing for the French ladies' team and I have no reason to assume that the Swedish ladies are any worse). Tim _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Mar 11 20:26:57 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:26:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 References: Message-ID: <002001c2e80c$92922ca0$25b54351@noos.fr> Tim: > If pard is 44xx and > 11-14 it probably ain't going to matter a damn what you lead since opps > are making 9+ tricks anyway. Yes, but partner might also be 14-16 or so with 'normal' take-out shape (4432,4441,5431 or so). And if they don't have a 5th diamond the contract might easily go down if I lead a black suit (spades are often 4333, in clubs I have more help, partner is more likely to have 5C than 5S but he is more likely to have 4S than 4C ..........). Leading an agressive heart might easily give the contract in that case. Don't forget the guy might also bid 3NT on a 12 count with 4D333 or so and sometimes he finds a bad dummy. Tim: > So we are left with "what is the best lead to cater to partner being > 5404/5413/biggish single suiter?". > I consider "a heart" the obvious answer to the above question, I believe > well over 75% of my peers would come to the same conclusion. 75% is a lot, just check any bidding/leading poll. And now you want 75% for leading xx in a suit partner could but didn't overcall. You must have lost contact with reality. And yes I know there are hands with a good suit that he might double rather than overcall. But this is a very small minority. And as I said before, if you have a biggish onesuiter you should either double or pass in tempo. If you play this kind of doubles these problems do happen so at an EC you are not going to claim innocent with me. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 > Peter wrote: > > > South has a very tough decision over 3NT and did well to work > > out that Pass was likely to be more successful than 3NT. Alas for > > her, she took too much time to do so, and tipped off her partner > > about the atypical type of Double that she had (not 4=4=1=4). > > Again you call the double "atypical". Again I feel that this double must > be considered typical for the pair concerned unless evidence is presented > to the contrary. > > What hand types are included in the double. Let us say: > 4423/3424/4324 12+ > 4414 11+ > 5413/4513/3415 11 + > 5404 type 11+ > Hands too good for an immediate 1X/2X > (Standard non-Kokish double I reckon) > > > What would a double of 3N have meant (I consider by far the most likely > reason for the hesitation as "nearly a double")? > Maybe lead a spade, in which case it is likely that hesitator's spades are > nearly, but not quite good enough for a double and a spade is suggested. > More likely extra values (say 16+ in a 44 double). > If pard is close to one of these then I'm not sure any lead is suggested. > I mean you *want* to lead partner's more solid major, there is perhaps a > faint indication (from the auction) that is H since opps with 7H and > values in the suit might well have introduced it. If pard is 44xx and > 11-14 it probably ain't going to matter a damn what you lead since opps > are making 9+ tricks anyway. > > So we are left with "what is the best lead to cater to partner being > 5404/5413/biggish single suiter?". > > I consider "a heart" the obvious answer to the above question, I believe > well over 75% of my peers would come to the same conclusion. Now perhaps > I don't understand teams, perhaps I don't understand the level of play > (although I have played a fair amount of Chicago against European lady > internationals without feeling out of depth), perhaps my logic is > fundamentally flawed - but it seems sound to me. > > When consulting players about LAs do bear in mind that you should be > asking Margarets, not Michaels. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Mar 11 20:58:09 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:58:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030311172448.00ab66c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005e01c2e811$44b81d00$25b54351@noos.fr> Alain: > AG : I've been told by my bridge teacher that, in case of doubt, the double > of 3NT (or higher) when our side remained silent was either for spades or > for dummy's first bid suit. Lead spades is typically French. French teachers like dumb rules. Lead spades is easier then 'lead my major' (the most common meaning against 1NT-3NT). You have mentioned a couple of times double might be for diamonds. In this sequence that is almost ridiculous because diamonds tend to be their main suit and only in weird constructions you really need to lead that suit. We don't develop bidding/lead-systems for weird exceptions. Besides you can almost always tell from your own shape what is going on. Actually now I think of it, the normal meaning of the second double is probably just take-out. 3NT is very often diamond based and partner must be able to double with a good hand. So double of 3NT is not so clear. But it doesn't matter. The (long) pause and then pass suggested that south had a serious problem she couldn't solve. In reality south is never thinking about whether she is a Jack short of a second double (you just make up your mind) or how to direct a minor lead (impossible). A long pause means she wants to bid something. This strongly suggest a short lead of course. > All this means that we can decide there was use of UI if, and ONLY IF, the > double is systemic on sound hands with a 6-card major. Somehow, I doubt it > is. But, as Steve insisted on it, this shows that the decision depends > heavily on the pair's methods Come on. Don't dramatize. Everybody plays the same basis. You double if you think you are too strong to overcall. But this applies to relative normal shape only. What you do with a seven card suit in a medium strength hand is just tactics. You overcall some number of hearts or you double. Everything can work. But don't tell me that south HAD TO double with this hand because of system. I simply don't buy that kind of crap. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 > At 10:59 11/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > > AG : I don't know either, but you will surely be interested in the result > > > of a 6-person panel chosen among "very good" to "expert" - level > > players in > > > Belgium. > > > >This may be a decent panel to survey, but you have to ask the right > >question. You should show them the South hand, and you should tell > >them that the bidding methods in use allow a double with a hand that > >is "too strong to overcall," i.e., that Mr. Kokish's influence has not > >been felt. > > AG : everybody allows this. Only the limit changes. Mr Kokish's is perhaps > around 21, my panel's is about 17 ; what was this pair's ? > > > > > > Question : which of these hands is coherent with the sequence 1D - X - > > > 3NT- p - p - X ? > > > > > > a) AQJxxx - KQx - Ax - xx > > > b) KQx - AQJxxx - Ax - xx > > > >If your panel are saying that the sequence could show one of these two > >but not the other, they are assuming some special bidding methods for > >which we have no evidence. > > AG : I've been told by my bridge teacher that, in case of doubt, the double > of 3NT (or higher) when our side remained silent was either for spades or > for dummy's first bid suit. Perhaps experts have other understandings, but if > 1NT p 3NT X > is usually intended as "spades" rather than hearts > then > 1D X 3NT p p X > should be either S or D, not just "one long suit", lest partner lose all > confidence in you when he's got 33 majors. I think that my panel reacted > the same way. > > > > c) AKQ - Jxxx - AQ - xxxx > > > d) Qxx - Kxx - xx - AKQxx > > > >In my own preferred methods (extreme Kaplan/Kokish), hands a and b are > >impossible. They would have overcalled, not doubled, on the first > >round. The double could well show c, whereas with d a final pass, not > >double, would be mandatory. However, it is obvious the pair in > >question were not playing anything like these methods, and inferences > >based on methods other than the ones in use are irrelevant. (Some > >people would overcall 1NT with c, for example.) > > AG : what would you have decided if the range for 1M overcalls was written > down as 7-16 ? Now type c is heavily suggested, only partner had type b. > > Let's go to the end of the reasoning. > I play 7-16 overcalls (or 9-17), like many Belgians. > For some reason partner doubled (non-systemic) with this hand. > He then doubled 3NT. > The double is for diamonds in this style. After the slow pass, I know that > he most probably wanted to double, which suggests diamonds. > I have a solid sense of ethics, thus I select the normal lead (not the one > suggested), ie a major, perhaps the shortest one at IMPs. > Now TDs, ACs and blml members tell me that I took partner's tempo into > consideration and penalize me. > > All this means that we can decide there was use of UI if, and ONLY IF, the > double is systemic on sound hands with a 6-card major. Somehow, I doubt it > is. But, as Steve insisted on it, this shows that the decision depends > heavily on the pair's methods. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From HarrisR@missouri.edu Tue Mar 11 21:19:52 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:19:52 -0600 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: <000101c2e7a0$15e66700$da3b81d9@netvisao.pt> References: <000101c2e7a0$15e66700$da3b81d9@netvisao.pt> Message-ID: Here's a vote from the bottom of the expertise pool. Without the hesitation, I would always lead a heart. If there is any hope here, it must be in partner's hand, and the best bet is to set up a long suit there. (Of course, this all assumes we have not ever played together or against each other, so I have no idea of what the double really means. That's the position I'd be in with one of my long-tine partners. We play "the weak no trump system" which means he can bid whatever he wants to. So his doubles show some values, unless he has psyched! In that case, the opponents may have missed a slam. Not likely.) Maybe, for this pair, it suggests a longer major than promised by the double. I'd need to know about their style of doubles. To come back to the present case, I think the hesitation suggests leading something. And if it works out well for us, we appear before the appeals committee. Since a major would be my choice without the hesitation, and since a club would have been my mother's lead (hesitation or not) I'll lead a club, since it should be the wrong lead. (My mother was not a good bridge player.) I tried the call for the 7=3=1=2 hand of a few days ago on my most regular partner, a player of considerable skill and high ethical standards. He would not open 1 spade on that hand. If, some-how, he had opened one spade, he said he would remove the double to 5 hearts, "no choice." Then I told him the double came after a hesitation. He said he'd have to pass in that case. So a call he would never make (and to my mind, therefore, not a logical alternative) became the compelled choice after the pause. I don't understand the words "logical alternative actions." REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Mar 11 22:24:35 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:24:35 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have been intrigued by the wide range of opinions on this case. I at least have the comfort of knowing I am not the only one who thinks a heart is a standout choice. Given the number of good players who have suggested other leads are reasonable I can begin to understand why the score was adjusted. Many of the early comments, including mine, were made before we knew the level of the players involved - so please don't think we were attacking the ability of the particular players since we didn't know who they were for the first 2 days of discussion. That said ... my impression is that among mediocre players the double and the 3NT will be more or less textbook (non-Kokish-textbook, that is)... while as the players get better the likelihood of 3NT being gambling increases. My reaction to the auction 1D-X-3NT, in fact, was something along the lines of "hmm - it looks like partner has 5 hearts but didn't overcall - so obviously my partner has a big hand and the opps are trying to slide a 24-point notrump past us." That's before my partner hesitates, of course. If I ask myself "now, why did partner hesitate?", the first thing that comes to mind is "he knows the opps don't have the values for 3NT but he can't tell if they have a running minor for 9 fast winners." Well - I am looking at a club stopper so at this point I think my partner has diamonds covered but is scared dummy can cash 5 or 6 fast clubs, maybe he has Qx or Kx or xxx or worse in clubs." Given that line of reasoning, I can see I have UI that says "a club lead won't be good, and might blow the contract if partner doesn't have a club honour." Unlike some on the list, thought, if I were North I would be quite satisfied that a club wasn't a LA, and would go ahead with my normal heart lead. Curious that some spoke of confusion between this auction and 1NT-P-3NT. In the 1NT auction there is a real possibility of the 1NT opener having 5 hearts.. I probably would still try a heart but now it seems less clear. I find it strange, re Robert Harris's post that people who can comfortably say "without the hesitation, I would always lead a heart" are unwilling to still lead a heart after receiving UI. > leading something. And if it works out well for us, we appear > before the appeals committee. Since a major would be my choice > without the hesitation, and since a club would have been my mother's > lead (hesitation or not) I'll lead a club, since it should be the > wrong lead. (My mother was not a good bridge player.) I admire the sense of ethics behind this - but it seems like going much farther than the law requires, to deliberately make the worst lead you can find just because you don't know what lead might be best, even when you've already decided you have no LAs. In summary, had I been North, I would have led a heart with a clear conscience and been quite offended at the ACs judgment. Had I been on the AC I would have been a vocal dissenter early in the hearing, anyway, but might have been persuaded to not dissent at the end if I heard several respected voices say they didn't think the heart lead was clear. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 23:13:11 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:13:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: [snip] >It is a bad idea for any contributor to this list to >make any comment at all about what does or does not >constitute expert bridge, or even good bridge. > >David Burn However, I am eminently qualified to comment on what contitutes irrational bridge. (Such as the time I thought declarer had a diamond stopper because I also thought that there were 14 diamonds in the deck.) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 23:37:39 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:37:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 Message-ID: >AG : I've been told by my bridge teacher that, in >case of doubt, the double of 3NT (or higher) when >our side remained silent was either for spades or >for dummy's first bid suit. Perhaps experts have >other understandings, but if >1NT p 3NT X >is usually intended as "spades" rather than hearts >then >1D X 3NT p p X >should be either S or D, not just "one long suit", >lest partner lose all confidence in you when he's >got 33 majors. I think that my panel reacted the >same way. "Perhaps experts have other understandings" is an understatement; in almost all areas of bidding theory experts disagree, and the theory of Lightner Doubles is no exception. Originally the auction 1NT - Pass - 3NT - X asked for the lead of the shortest suit. This style occasionally has an accident when the leader has a 4333 shape. Therefore, some experts reduce the frequency of the Double to 25%, but avoid ambiguity, by agreeing that the Double asks for a spade lead. Of course, if the expert pair in Tenerife 26 also have an agreement that they play spade-oriented Lightner Doubles, then that is a further argument in favour of the AC decision - since a Double would suggest a spade lead, a slow Pass is more likely to be UI for a heart lead. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 23:59:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:59:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] L73B1 vs L73D1 (was Tenerife 26) Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: >Peter: I'd be interested in your thoughts >about 73B1. Am I expecting too much from >South, who was after all placed in a very >difficult position? Law 73B1 states that it is an infraction to "communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made". However, Law 73D1 contrarily states that "inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety". To resolve this paradox, in 2005 should Law 73B1 have the adjective "advertently" placed before the word "communicate"? Noted? Best wishes Richard From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 12 01:45:48 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:45:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 References: Message-ID: <001301c2e839$37815d40$3c5f87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott Cc: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 10:24 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Appeal 666 > > > I find it strange, re Robert Harris's post that > people who can comfortably say "without the > hesitation, I would always lead a heart" are > unwilling to still lead a heart after receiving UI. > +=+ Perhaps because it is not a valid basis for leading a heart. The basis needs to be that "amongst my peer players with no UI such a majority would lead a heart as to deny the existence of any logical alternative for me." ~ G ~ +=+ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Mar 12 02:18:30 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:18:30 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: <001301c2e839$37815d40$3c5f87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, grandeval wrote in reply to me: > > I find it strange, re Robert Harris's post that > > people who can comfortably say "without the > > hesitation, I would always lead a heart" are > > unwilling to still lead a heart after receiving UI. > > > +=+ Perhaps because it is not a valid basis for > leading a heart. The basis needs to be that > "amongst my peer players with no UI such a > majority would lead a heart as to deny the > existence of any logical alternative for me." Hmm. Can someone enlighten me on where our usage differs? To me, that is precisely what "I would always lead a heart" means: "a person in my situation probably wouldn't even give serious thought to any other lead." If I say "I would probably lead a heart but would at least consider a spade," or similar, then I am saying I can imagine some few of my peers would try leading the spade and I need to worry about LAs. "I would always lead a heart" is a substantially *stronger* conviction than "there is no LA to a heart", by a margin of about 25%, is it not? In fact, as a personal rule of thumb, I wait for "would always" situations to do things in the presence of UI, expecting that if I am wavering at all about it, most likely someone out there wavers even more. I suppose it depends who one feels one's peer players are. I know people with the same number of masterpoints as I have who do all sorts of crazy things all the time, but I don't feel happy to accept "a singleton is always an LA against any suit contract, regardless of hand strength or trump holding" despite knowing a few people who seem to always lead them. GRB From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 12 02:41:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:41 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 In-Reply-To: <002001c2e80c$92922ca0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: > 75% is a lot, just check any bidding/leading poll. And now you want 75% > for leading xx in a suit partner could but didn't overcall. Fine. But I am not playing with a partner who "could but didn't overcall" - I am playing with a partner who is systemically required to double on Axx,AQJxxxx,x,Kx. I don't like the system, I wouldn't play it by choice, it is almost certainly inferior but *that* is the system in operation at the table. I am going to base my judgement on LAs on the system being played - not on the system I would like to be playing. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 12 02:41:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:41 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <001f01c2e80c$92369f20$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: > Tim: > > It's not *my* principle, it is required by law. If we consider a=20 > > result > > likely then we must assign it. Only if there is no one result that i= s > > considered likely can we assign a weighted score. >=20 > For a TD that is although even that evolves. To 12C2 or to 12C3. Most=20 > AC's I > know tend to 12C3. >=20 > Tim: > >This is inconsistent Jaap. If you want us to rule on the basis of it > >being an high-level event we must assume competent declarer play. > >An average declarer player in the =A35 game at my local club would mak= e=20 > >ten tricks on this hand (I think she would make the same ten tricks=20 > >playing for the French ladies' team and I have no reason to assume tha= t > >the Swedish ladies are any worse). >=20 > It is not inconsistent. Throw-in's require perfect count and even when=20 > it is available people sometimes mis it. Spade lead, HQ switch. You cas= h=20 > your winners. Is your count on the hand good enough to risk one down in= =20 > 3NT? They might bare the CK you know. So what if they bare the club king, you still get nine tricks if you=20 attempt a throw-in, it is *risk-free*. This is a completely routine play= =20 for a competent declarer. As such it should be considered "likely" for=20 adjustment purposes. Even if we think the chance of it happening is 50/5= 0=20 (or indeed 60/40 against) we are required to adjust to 430. Now if EW=20 were the *offending* side I could, just about, accept that not finding th= e=20 line was also "likely". Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 12 03:55:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:55:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] I would always (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote: >Hmm. Can someone enlighten me on where our usage >differs? To me, that is precisely what "I would >always lead a heart" means: "a person in my >situation probably wouldn't even give serious >thought to any other lead." > >If I say "I would probably lead a heart but would >at least consider a spade," or similar, then I am >saying I can imagine some few of my peers would >try leading the spade and I need to worry about >LAs. "I would always lead a heart" is a >substantially *stronger* conviction than "there >is no LA to a heart", by a margin of about 25%, >is it not? [snip] I disagree. Gordon's usage is correct in Gordon's personal case, because it is apparent that Gordon makes a serious effort to avoid self-deception. However, the common bridge usage of "I would always..." is, in practice, often substantially *weaker* than "there is no LA..." In my experience, a player often inadvertently fools themself into infracting Law 16 by convincing themself that "I would always..." choose the demonstrably suggested action - when in actuality they would consider other actions if there was no UI. And the relatively objective way of determining whether self-deception has occurred is to judge what the LAs are for a player's peers. Best wishes Richard From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Mar 12 07:07:31 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:07:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 References: Message-ID: <003c01c2e868$1a6896e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Tim: I already said that despite not bidding 1H partner might have a heart suit. But since he bids 1H at least 95% of the time with a good heart suit I am not playing him for a good heart suit when he doesn't double. Or are you telling me this pair doesn't overcall 1H on hands like Axx AQJxx xxx Kx. At the EC level I don't believe that. I will give the lead to my biddingpanel (only very good players). I will be suprised if heart lead gets more than just a few votes. And this panel doesn't tell them which system or style to play. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 3:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 > > 75% is a lot, just check any bidding/leading poll. And now you want 75% > > for leading xx in a suit partner could but didn't overcall. > > Fine. But I am not playing with a partner who "could but didn't overcall" > - I am playing with a partner who is systemically required to double on > Axx,AQJxxxx,x,Kx. I don't like the system, I wouldn't play it by choice, > it is almost certainly inferior but *that* is the system in operation at > the table. I am going to base my judgement on LAs on the system being > played - not on the system I would like to be playing. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Mar 12 07:22:10 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:22:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) References: Message-ID: <003d01c2e868$1a9af180$25b54351@noos.fr> Tim: >So what if they bare the club king, you still get nine tricks if you >attempt a throw-in, it is *risk-free*. This is a completely routine play >for a competent declarer. Sorry, you are right about that one. I didn't give it enough attention when wording it. Double dummy this is a baby end play but single dummy is always different. Declarer doesn't know about the extreme distribution and strength in this sequence. Of course he can deduce a lot from Norths not leading hearts but whether this gives him enough confidence to risk his contract is an open question. It is quite human to be happy about not getting a heart lead and taking zero risk. The end play fails if North has the CK you know (or north has 5 hearts and pulled the wrong card when leading). I concede North cannot really have CK if he has a 'normal' spade lead but then spades is not a normal lead from declarers point of view. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 3:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) > Tim: > > It's not *my* principle, it is required by law. If we consider a > > result > > likely then we must assign it. Only if there is no one result that is > > considered likely can we assign a weighted score. > > For a TD that is although even that evolves. To 12C2 or to 12C3. Most > AC's I > know tend to 12C3. > > Tim: > >This is inconsistent Jaap. If you want us to rule on the basis of it > >being an high-level event we must assume competent declarer play. > >An average declarer player in the £5 game at my local club would make > >ten tricks on this hand (I think she would make the same ten tricks > >playing for the French ladies' team and I have no reason to assume that > >the Swedish ladies are any worse). > > It is not inconsistent. Throw-in's require perfect count and even when > it is available people sometimes mis it. Spade lead, HQ switch. You cash > your winners. Is your count on the hand good enough to risk one down in > 3NT? They might bare the CK you know. So what if they bare the club king, you still get nine tricks if you attempt a throw-in, it is *risk-free*. This is a completely routine play for a competent declarer. As such it should be considered "likely" for adjustment purposes. Even if we think the chance of it happening is 50/50 (or indeed 60/40 against) we are required to adjust to 430. Now if EW were the *offending* side I could, just about, accept that not finding the line was also "likely". Tim _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk@ripe.net Wed Mar 12 09:58:44 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:58:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) Message-ID: Hi all, ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:18:58 -0000 From: Grattan Endicott Subject: Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations Dear Henk, I am copying this to you because you may think it is something that would be of interest on blml. If so you will no doubt put it into circulation. The event is, of course, transnational and open to players from the whole wide world. A major initiative in Zone 1. Regards, Grattan +=+ ---- End of forwarded message -------- Rather forwarding 700 kb binaries, I've put the file on the blml site, in 2 formats (pdf or html), URL's are: http://www.rtflb.org/menton.pdf http://www.rtflb.org/menton.html respectively. Enjoy, Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 12 10:41:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:41 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 In-Reply-To: <003c01c2e868$1a6896e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Jaap: > > I already said that despite not bidding 1H partner might have a heart > suit. But since he bids 1H at least 95% of the time with a good heart > suit I am not playing him for a good heart suit when he doesn't double. > Or are you telling me this pair doesn't overcall 1H on hands like Axx > AQJxx xxx Kx. They might, they might not. However I assumed that the 3N bid showed a diamond fit (maybe I'm wrong - but surely if West had the values for 3N and *short* diamonds she would redouble first). I think we have to place partner with at most 1 diamond when considering our options. > At the EC level I don't believe that. I will give the lead to my > biddingpanel (only very good players). I will be suprised if heart lead > gets more than just a few votes. And this panel doesn't tell them which > system or style to play. This is a ruling situation. You *must* give the panel the methods they are presumed to be playing or any answers they give are meaningless. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 12 14:23:41 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:23:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 In-Reply-To: <005e01c2e811$44b81d00$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030311172448.00ab66c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030312151702.00acaec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:58 11/03/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Alain: > > AG : I've been told by my bridge teacher that, in case of doubt, the >double > > of 3NT (or higher) when our side remained silent was either for spades or > > for dummy's first bid suit. > >Lead spades is typically French. French teachers like dumb rules. Lead >spades is easier then 'lead my major' (the most common meaning against >1NT-3NT). AG : a) he was not French, he didn't even speak good French. b) such rules help avert catastrophes (eg when partner has 22 / 33 majors). Same thing for Lightner doubles. Okay, the course wasn't intended for elite players, and this may be linked th that. However, in my (admittedly small) panel of Belgian players, made of two French-speaking, one Dutch-speaking, one bilinguial with Flemish origins, one Anglo-Saxon and one from a weirder country, two people assumed 'spades', only one assumed 'my major'. c) I might be wrong, but I remember having read it in at least two books written in English. If absolutely needed, I can try and find it back. d) why do you need to be rude ? From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 12 14:26:08 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:26:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: References: <000101c2e7a0$15e66700$da3b81d9@netvisao.pt> <000101c2e7a0$15e66700$da3b81d9@netvisao.pt> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030312152452.00acd8c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:19 11/03/2003 -0600, Robert E. Harris wrote: >To come back to the present case, I think the hesitation suggests leading >something. AG : and a pass in tempo suggests not to lead anything %-P From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 12 14:33:25 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:33:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: References: <001301c2e839$37815d40$3c5f87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030312152935.00accc60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:18 11/03/2003 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: >On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, grandeval wrote in reply to me: > > > > I find it strange, re Robert Harris's post that > > > people who can comfortably say "without the > > > hesitation, I would always lead a heart" are > > > unwilling to still lead a heart after receiving UI. > > > > > +=+ Perhaps because it is not a valid basis for > > leading a heart. The basis needs to be that > > "amongst my peer players with no UI such a > > majority would lead a heart as to deny the > > existence of any logical alternative for me." > >Hmm. Can someone enlighten me on where our usage differs? To me, that is >precisely what "I would always lead a heart" means: "a person in my >situation probably wouldn't even give serious thought to any other lead." AG : IBTD. Being a notoriously aggressive opening leader, I would lead from AJxxx against 1S-3S-4S rather than from 109xx or a trump. Always. This doesn't mean that nobody would think of leading the 109xx suit or a trump. If you say 'I would always' when you mean 'everybody would', you might feel embarrassed when you _do_ mean '*I* would always'. Best regards, Alain. From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Wed Mar 12 14:18:08 2003 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:18:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030312141808.1B7A52B3F3@www.fastmail.fm> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:41 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), "Tim West-Meads" said: > Jaap: > > > > I already said that despite not bidding 1H partner might have a heart > > suit. But since he bids 1H at least 95% of the time with a good heart > > suit I am not playing him for a good heart suit when he doesn't double. > > Or are you telling me this pair doesn't overcall 1H on hands like Axx > > AQJxx xxx Kx. > > They might, they might not. However I assumed that the 3N bid showed a > diamond fit (maybe I'm wrong - but surely if West had the values for 3N > and *short* diamonds she would redouble first). I think we have to place > partner with at most 1 diamond when considering our options. > > > At the EC level I don't believe that. I will give the lead to my > > biddingpanel (only very good players). I will be suprised if heart lead > > gets more than just a few votes. And this panel doesn't tell them which > > system or style to play. > > This is a ruling situation. You *must* give the panel the methods they > are presumed to be playing or any answers they give are meaningless. > The problem with this line of reasoning harkens back to "the old black magic" problem. When playing an inferior system, you can get good results by using hesitations to your advantage. In the given situation you pass smoothly with Qxxx Axxx x AKQx (partner leads a C and you quickly cash out for down 1) and you hesitate with the given hand (partner leads his short major and you eventually cash out for down 3). It's a simple game. -- David Kent -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Consolidate POP email and Hotmail in one place From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 12 14:36:30 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:36:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 In-Reply-To: <003c01c2e868$1a6896e0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030312153508.00acbac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:07 12/03/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Tim: > >I already said that despite not bidding 1H partner might have a heart suit. >But since he bids 1H at least 95% of the time with a good heart suit I am >not playing him for a good heart suit when he doesn't double. Or are you >telling me this pair doesn't overcall 1H on hands like Axx AQJxx xxx Kx. At >the EC level I don't believe that. I will give the lead to my biddingpanel >(only very good players). I will be suprised if heart lead gets more than >just a few votes. AG : indeed. That's why a double can't mean 'long major', and should mean 'lead a diamond', and why the *diamond* lead, not any other, should be disallowed. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 12 14:46:49 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:46:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 In-Reply-To: <20030312141808.1B7A52B3F3@www.fastmail.fm> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030312154156.00abf180@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:18 12/03/2003 -0500, David Kent wrote: > > This is a ruling situation. You *must* give the panel the methods they > > are presumed to be playing or any answers they give are meaningless. > > > >The problem with this line of reasoning harkens back to "the old black >magic" problem. When playing an inferior system, you can get good >results by using hesitations to your advantage. In the given situation >you pass smoothly with Qxxx Axxx x AKQx (partner leads a C and you >quickly cash out for down 1) AG : seems like a heart lead would work here, too. Speaking of the club lead from Jxxx ... this kind of lead, into a hand which has a 50+% chance of holding 4-5 clubs, doesn't seem enough of a LA. The French new wave has somewhat rehabilitated this lead, but Jaap should not consider this, since he pretends that French are fond of dumb rules :-( From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 12 14:48:15 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:48:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) Message-ID: <200303121448.JAA13560@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > http://www.rtflb.org/menton.pdf > http://www.rtflb.org/menton.html Thanks, Grattan and Henk. A few comments and questions: The eligibility rules don't seem to be limited to players from Zone 1. Are players from other zones allowed to enter? > Information from withdrawn calls is unauthorized for any partnership > one or both of whom is/are at fault but authorized for a partnership > neither of whom has committed an irregularity. If the Director > determines that the unauthorized information from withdrawn calls > precludes normal bidding, he shall award an artificial adjusted score. The first sentence is just L16C, but does the second sentence strike anyone else as very odd? Especially the "shall." Why not an assigned score? > When the screen has been raised after a faced opening lead out of turn - > through no fault of the declaring side: > b) and, the other side has also led face up, the card becomes a > major penalty card. "The card" in b) is unclear. I expect the intention is that the incorrect lead becomes a penalty card, but the text as written seems to say that the incorrect lead is accepted, and the proper lead is a penalty card. > LAW 73D: > During the auction period, after an opponent has acted quickly, it is > proper to adjust the tempo back to normal by either delaying one's own > call (place the bidding card faced, in front of, but not on the tray) > or by waiting before passing the tray. > A delay of the bidding tray on one side of the screen of up to 15 > seconds (at any time during the auction and whether or not out of > tempo) shall not give rise to any inference of unauthorized > information. Players are advised to vary the time the tray is passed so > that pauses up to 15 seconds can be considered normal. In the case of > a 'hot seat ruling' (when a player is confronted with a wholly > unanticipated situation) a hesitation may be found not to suggest one > action over another if the delay may represent time spent in > considering what options the player has, rather than in choosing among > them. The above look very helpful. (And the first paragraph seems to answer my question to Peter about "Brad Moss rules.") The last sentence should be normal in all play, but it is can't hurt to spell things out. > [Until the end of the correction period, spectators] have a > responsibility not to call attention to any error or irregularity they > believe they may have observed. An interesting idea. Not enforceable in practice, of course. I'm curious why the organizers would think it is a good idea. > The procedures provided by the Antidoping Policy of the International > Olympic Committee will be followed and enforced. Good grief! Also, doping is apparently allowed as long as a doctor writes a prescription for the otherwise banned substance. From gester@lineone.net Wed Mar 12 14:32:08 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:32:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 References: Message-ID: <000401c2e8a6$59fa8280$ab182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott Cc: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 2:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal 666 > > > Hmm. Can someone enlighten me on where > our usage differs? +=+ Just leave yourself, Gordon, out of the equation. What you would do is irrelevant. The matter is judged by what your peers would be expected to do. So speak only to what you believe about that. regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 12 15:02:52 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:02:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 Message-ID: <200303121502.KAA13659@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > >Lead spades > From: Alain Gottcheiner > c) I might be wrong, but I remember having read it in at least two books > written in English. If absolutely needed, I can try and find it back. Robert Ewen's book (something like _Opening Leads and Signals_, but my copy seems to have disappeared) recommended "lead hearts." I'm not sure which meaning is superior, but neither one is universal. From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 12 15:47:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 In-Reply-To: <20030312141808.1B7A52B3F3@www.fastmail.fm> Message-ID: > The problem with this line of reasoning harkens back to "the old black > magic" problem. When playing an inferior system, you can get good > results by using hesitations to your advantage. In the given situation > you pass smoothly with Qxxx Axxx x AKQx (partner leads a C and you > quickly cash out for down 1) and you hesitate with the given hand > (partner leads his short major and you eventually cash out for down 3). > It's a simple game. Too simple for me. I don't care what partner leads from his hand when I hold this. He can lead a S/D and we take the last 5 tricks or he can lead a C/H and we take the first 5. Personally I consider the hand you give above as much closer to a hesitation pass than the one actually held. TBH I can't imagine what South spent 60 seconds "thinking" about. It might take quite a while to get a good explanation of the 3NT bid, particularly if there are language issues, but without spending time on getting such an explanation what is the benefit of thinking? Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 12 15:47:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Appeal 666 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030312152935.00accc60@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > AG : IBTD. Being a notoriously aggressive opening leader, I would lead > from AJxxx against 1S-3S-4S rather than from 109xx or a trump. Always. > This doesn't mean that nobody would think of leading the 109xx suit or > a trump. If you say 'I would always' when you mean 'everybody would', > you might feel embarrassed when you _do_ mean '*I* would always'. If you are a "notoriously aggressive opening leader" then your peers are also "notoriously aggressive opening leaders". If such beings would always lead from this holding then other leads are not LAs. It doesn't matter a damn what "some people" would consider - only your peers. "I would always.." as shorthand for "Players with similar ability, style and system to me would always.." is reasonable. Either statement is somewhat self-serving and should be treated with caution. Notoriety may be an advantage here since it will help a TD/AC refine their judgement as to who your peers might be:) However, it is a two way street, if you had UI against that lead a TD would not accept you saying it wasn't an LA whereas he might decide otherwise if the same claim was made by a notorious safety-kid. Tim From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 12 16:37:14 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:37:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] More SAYC history Message-ID: <200303121637.LAA15543@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> I have found a bit more information but can't answer the original question of when Jacoby 2NT first appeared in SAYC. The 1987 October ACBL Bulletin (p. 129) has an article "What is ACBL Standard?" It refers to side games held at the 1987 Spring and Summer NABC's and claims that the "The event has proved to be most popular -- nine sections were in competition in Baltimore." It isn't exactly clear to me what this means, but if it's one section per session for nine sessions, as seems plausible, then it's less than an overwhelming endorsement. About 30 sessions are played at an NABC, not counting the midnight games. At this stage of the system, there were only two defensive carding options. Later on, there will be five. "Yellow card" does not seem to have made its appearance yet. No real system details are given, and thus there is no mention of Jacoby 2NT one way or the other. Eric Rodwell is credited with having chosen the methods. The 1988 June Bulletin (p. 24) has the article "Goodbye Goren system -- hello ACBL Standard." This article claims "In tournaments where both ACBL Standard and the general convention chart can be used, nearly half the competitors choose the ACBL Standard approach." This apparently refers mostly to the 9 AM side games. Still no "yellow card," but we do see mention of the GCC. Again no details of the methods are given. Below is a sampling of the advance schedules for NABC's as printed in the ACBL Bulletin. Actual events played may, of course, have differed from what was announced. Month and page number in the Bulletin are in parentheses, and the information about other events is from Conditions of Contest printed elsewhere in the same Bulletin. (I've ignored novice/limited games, which always had strict limits on conventions.) 1986 Fall (Oct. p. 12): no Standard Card games. Class A-F convention classification used in other events. (There is also reference to Class G, which I had never heard of, but this class is forbidden in all events.) 1987 Spring (Feb. p. 14): Standard Card offered one day; couldn't find CoC for other events. 1987 April Bulletin (p. 21) describes "Experimental list of conventions," precursor to GCC. 1987 May Bulletin (p. 20) gives minor corrections. 1987 Summer (Jun. p. 18): Standard Card offered one day. SuperChart precursor allowed in national events, experimental list allowed in all other events. 1987 Fall (Oct. p. 34): Standard Card offered two days, but all 9 AM side games use it. Major event finals use a precursor of SuperChart; other open games use the "20+ list," which I don't remember at all. 1988 Spring (Feb. p. 82): Standard Card offered one day, mandatory for all 9 AM side games. Vanderbilt uses Superchart. Conventions otherwise from "20+ list." 1988 Summer (Jun. p. 66): Standard Card two days plus all 9 AM games. GCC makes its first appearance, used in all except SuperChart and Standard Card games. 1988 Fall (Oct. p. 66): Standard Card offered two days. 9 AM games are either ACBL Standard or "Class A," even though the A-F classification is obsolete. (The LCC was printed on p. 16 of the Oct. Bulletin but apparently not planned for use until later.) Other games SuperChart or GCC. 1989 Spring (Feb. p. 66): First "Yellow Card" events, offered three days. 9AM events are Class A or ACBL Standard (still using obsolete terminology.) Others are GCC or SuperChart. 1989 Summer (Jun. p. 26): Standard Card offered two days; "yellow" is gone, oddly enough. Couldn't find CoC for other events. OK, enough. I give up unless someone has a specific suggestion of where to look further. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 12 17:29:24 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:29:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 In-Reply-To: <200303121502.KAA13659@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030312182235.00aca0b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:02 12/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > >Lead spades > > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > c) I might be wrong, but I remember having read it in at least two books > > written in English. If absolutely needed, I can try and find it back. > >Robert Ewen's book (something like _Opening Leads and Signals_, but my >copy seems to have disappeared) recommended "lead hearts." I'm not sure >which meaning is superior, but neither one is universal. AG : why not ? I don't think either is superior by far, but perhaps this has to do with system, eg if you play weak 2s in spades only (eg cum Flannery 2H ), then a double after pass will be "hearts", not spades ; it is thus convenient to decide that *all* such doubles will be "hearts". Anyway, this means that, even outside France, "dumb" lead doubles for specific suits do exist, and suggested by one of the best bridge authors. Look here, Jaap ! From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Mar 12 19:16:12 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:16:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030311172448.00ab66c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005e01c2e811$44b81d00$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <008c01c2e8cc$be8058d0$9f24e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; "Alain Gottcheiner" Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 > Everything can work. But don't tell me that > south HAD TO double with this hand because > of system. I simply don't buy that kind of crap. > > Jaap > +=+ That is rather disrespectful of pairs I have met. Is it possible, Jaap, that your knowledge of other players is incomplete? ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Mar 12 19:21:43 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:21:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) References: Message-ID: <008e01c2e8cc$c3b9eeb0$9f24e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) > > However, I am eminently qualified to comment on what > constitutes irrational bridge. (Such as the time I > thought declarer had a diamond stopper because I > also thought that there were 14 diamonds in the deck.) > +=+ And were you right? +=+ From moranl@netvision.net.il Wed Mar 12 21:31:55 2003 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:31:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) In-Reply-To: <200303121448.JAA13560@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20030312232329.00a0eec0@mail.netvision.net.il> At 09:48 12/03/03 -0500, you wrote: > > http://www.rtflb.org/menton.pdf > > http://www.rtflb.org/menton.html > >Thanks, Grattan and Henk. > >A few comments and questions: > >The eligibility rules don't seem to be limited to players from Zone 1. >Are players from other zones allowed to enter? Yes, including transnational pairs/teams. Further info at http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b9/zone1/menton/default.asp From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 12 23:29:47 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:29:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) Message-ID: Menton slow play regulation for removal of a partly-played board - "8.1.2 If a partly-played board is removed: (i) The offending pair or pairs shall be awarded the lesser of 40% of the matchpoints available for the board and the match-point score for the result on the board which the Chief Tournament Director adjudges to be likely in the light of the bidding and play up to the time the board is removed, and (ii) If the Chief Tournament Director determines that one pair did not contribute to the slow play, the non-offending pair shall be awarded the greater of 60% of the match-points available for the board and the match-point score for the result the Chief Tournament Director adjudges to be likely in the light of the bidding and play up to the time the board is removed." This regulation appears to be doubly illegal. If Law 12C2 is read literally, then Law 12C2 requires "a result actually obtained" before an assigned adjusted score can be awarded. Also, Law 12C1 and Law 12C2 are logically interpreted as mutually exclusive adjustment rules for mutually exclusive determinations of fact. The Merton regulation calculates both Law 12C1 and Law 12C2 score adjustments, and gives the NOS the highest one. Best wishes Richard From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 12 22:37:39 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:37:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] L73B1 vs L73D1 (was Tenerife 26) References: Message-ID: <003201c2e8e8$c6a11f60$7c2c87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L73B1 vs L73D1 (was Tenerife 26) > Law 73B1 states that it is an infraction > to "communicate through the manner in > which calls or plays are made". > > However, Law 73D1 contrarily states that > "inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner > in which a call or play is made does not > in itself constitute a violation of > propriety". > > To resolve this paradox, in 2005 should > Law 73B1 have the adjective "advertently" > placed before the word "communicate"? > > Noted? > +=+ If my colleagues find a problem here the kind of solution I favour is a single statement such as: "Whilst inadvertently ...... calls or plays are made does not in itself........propriety, it is an infraction to communicate through the manner.... ...etc.... when this may benefit the player's side." However, in conjunction with the qualification 'Otherwise', the presence of 'in itself' in the 1997 law does clarify in my view that inadvertence does not stand in the way of 73B1 when the position is one that may work to the benefit of the player's side. In such a position the player is at risk if the manner of his play or call sends a communication to partner. The position should be expressed with more clarity, but to insert 'advertently' would alter the focus of the law . ~ Grattan ~+=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 13 00:17:03 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:17:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) Message-ID: Menton regulation modifying Law 41A for use behind screens - >LAW 41A: >Opening Lead out of Turn: >The offender's screenmate should attempt >to prevent any opening lead out of turn. [snip] I am not sure whether this regulation is consistent with the Laws. Law 72A4: >>When these Laws provide the innocent >>side with an option after an irregularity >>committed by an opponent, it is >>appropriate to select that action most >>advantageous. However, technically a requirement for an opponent to prevent an irregularity occurring is not *directly* contrary to the option of an opponent being permitted to benefit from a completed irregularity - although it does *diminish* the chance of the NOS being able to exercise an option under Law 72A4. A related question is the extent of the power given to an SO to establish special conditions by Law 80E. Can an SO use Law 80E to overrule all the other Laws? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 13 02:42:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:42:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) Message-ID: Menton regulation: >>Information from withdrawn calls is unauthorized >>for any partnership one or both of whom is/are at >>fault but authorized for a partnership neither of >>whom has committed an irregularity. If the >>Director determines that the unauthorized >>information from withdrawn calls precludes normal >>bidding, he shall award an artificial adjusted >>score. Steve Willner asked: >The first sentence is just L16C, but does the second >sentence strike anyone else as very odd? Especially >the "shall." Why not an assigned score? Yes, very odd. My understanding is that UI *never* "precludes normal bidding"; an ethical player who is in receipt of UI merely avoids choosing from amongst LAs any LA which is demonstrably suggested. The second sentence of the Menton regulation may have been inspired by an EBU regulation requiring an artificial adjusted score after the use of an illegal convention. However, withdrawn calls and illegal conventions are as dissimilar as fish and bicycles, so I see no basis for such a Menton inspiration. All other bridge events use Laws 23 to 39 to cope with withdrawn calls. In effect, for *only* the Menton event Law 39 & 1/2 has been added to the Laws. Why is the Menton event so much more special than all other bridge events? Best wishes Richard From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 13 00:25:22 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:25:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) References: Message-ID: <003401c2e90a$7e66b440$c0b1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) > Menton slow play regulation for removal of > a partly-played board - > ------------------ \x/ ------------------ > > This regulation appears to be doubly illegal. > > If Law 12C2 is read literally, then Law 12C2 > requires "a result actually obtained" before > an assigned adjusted score can be awarded. > > Also, Law 12C1 and Law 12C2 are logically > interpreted as mutually exclusive adjustment > rules for mutually exclusive determinations > of fact. The Merton regulation calculates > both Law 12C1 and Law 12C2 score adjustments, > and gives the NOS the highest one. > +=+ I agree that an assigned adjusted score is only assessed to replace a score actually obtained. I note that for an artificial adjusted score to be assessed there must have been deviation from the correct procedures set out in the laws. Alternatively a law other than Law 12C1 or 12C2 may specify the assessment of one type of score adjustment or the other. I do not think we are in the territory of score adjustment at all. As far as I am concerned the quoted regulation is made in pusuance of Law 78D. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 13 02:37:35 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 02:37:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) References: <200303121448.JAA13560@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003501c2e90a$7f26f700$c0b1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) > > http://www.rtflb.org/menton.pdf > > http://www.rtflb.org/menton.html > > Thanks, Grattan and Henk. > > A few comments and questions: > > The eligibility rules don't seem to be limited to players from Zone 1. > Are players from other zones allowed to enter? > +=+ Yes. Trans-national, too.+=+ > > > Information from withdrawn calls is unauthorized for any partnership > > one or both of whom is/are at fault but authorized for a partnership > > neither of whom has committed an irregularity. If the Director > > determines that the unauthorized information from withdrawn calls > > precludes normal bidding, he shall award an artificial adjusted score. > > The first sentence is just L16C, but does the second sentence strike > anyone else as very odd? Especially the "shall." Why not an assigned > score? > +=+ I think this enjoins the Director to exercisehis power under Law 12A2. +=+ > > > When the screen has been raised after a faced opening lead out of turn - > > through no fault of the declaring side: > > b) and, the other side has also led face up, the card becomes a > > major penalty card. > > "The card" in b) is unclear. I expect the intention is that the > incorrect lead becomes a penalty card, but the text as written seems to > say that the incorrect lead is accepted, and the proper lead is a > penalty card. > +=+ I think the construction of the sentence makes the faced opening lead out of turn the penalty card, the other lead is a condition for the designated action and subordinate to the main statement. +=+ < > > LAW 73D: > > During the auction period, after an opponent has acted quickly, it is > > proper to adjust the tempo back to normal by either delaying one's own > > call (place the bidding card faced, in front of, but not on the tray) > > or by waiting before passing the tray. > > > A delay of the bidding tray on one side of the screen of up to 15 > > seconds (at any time during the auction and whether or not out of > > tempo) shall not give rise to any inference of unauthorized > > information. Players are advised to vary the time the tray is passed so > > that pauses up to 15 seconds can be considered normal. In the case of > > a 'hot seat ruling' (when a player is confronted with a wholly > > unanticipated situation) a hesitation may be found not to suggest one > > action over another if the delay may represent time spent in > > considering what options the player has, rather than in choosing among > > them. > > The above look very helpful. (And the first paragraph seems to answer > my question to Peter about "Brad Moss rules.") The last sentence > should be normal in all play, but it is can't hurt to spell things out. > > > [Until the end of the correction period, spectators] have a > > responsibility not to call attention to any error or irregularity they > > believe they may have observed. > > An interesting idea. Not enforceable in practice, of course. I'm > curious why the organizers would think it is a good idea. > +=+ Not *universally* enforceable, perhaps, but spectators are reminded they are not participants and should not be interfering in the result of a board. That a spectator has done so will sometimes come to light in the fact-finding of the Director. Compare Laws 76B and 11B. +=+ < > > The procedures provided by the Antidoping Policy of the International > > Olympic Committee will be followed and enforced. > > Good grief! > > Also, doping is apparently allowed as long as a doctor writes a > prescription for the otherwise banned substance. > +=+ Not an area in which I can comment, other than to say that a Zone is a limb of the WBF and this is an international tournament. +=+ ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 13 05:51:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:51:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/10/03, Gordon Bower wrote: >It is an unfortunate situation... but it is only the people who are >already known for being rude in all aspects of the table manner who >refuse late requests to re-expose their own card. I was not aware that I am "known for being rude in all aspects of the table manner" - particularly by people who I have never met. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 13 06:10:27 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 01:10:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Reveley reveille In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/11/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >In 2005, Law 6C could be rewritten to read: > >>>>>If the Director so instructs, a member of >>>>>each side should be present during the >>>>>shuffle and deal. > >This simple change in default means that it is >the TD announcing a rule, rather than an >opponent being misinterpreted as implying >cheating, so souring of a match will not be >caused. Erm. Given that TDs around here fail to do such simple and necessary things as announce the end of the round consistently, asking them to announce that a member of each side should be present during the shuffle and deal seems a bit much. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 13 07:23:57 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:23:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) References: Message-ID: <001801c2e931$b6c30a60$21f3193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 2:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) > > Yes, very odd. My understanding is that UI *never* > "precludes normal bidding"; > +=+ You could maybe find something under Law 16B. More widely than that I reserve my position whilst medittating on the question. ~ G ~ +=+ From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Thu Mar 13 07:25:45 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 08:25:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) Message-ID: <004401c2e931$c45e9f40$b94765d5@swipnet.se> As I see it, the EBL are entitled to make rules that are against the = law. If there is a discrepancy, The Rules and Regulations prevail. Regards=20 Hans-Olof From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Mar 13 08:15:50 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 08:15:50 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) Message-ID: <002201c2e939$33f6b890$2445e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 7:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) > > > > Yes, very odd. My understanding is that UI *never* > > "precludes normal bidding"; > > > +=+ You could maybe find something under Law 16B. > More widely than that I reserve my position whilst > medittating on the question. ~ G ~ +=+ +=++=+ or even meditating. sorry I sttutttered!. +=++=+ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 13 08:37:16 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:37:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2e93b$c1342ec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills > Menton slow play regulation for removal of > a partly-played board - >=20 > "8.1.2 If a partly-played board is removed: > (i) The offending pair or pairs shall be > awarded the lesser of 40% of the matchpoints > available for the board and the match-point > score for the result on the board which the > Chief Tournament Director adjudges to be > likely in the light of the bidding and play > up to the time the board is removed, and > (ii) If the Chief Tournament Director > determines that one pair did not contribute > to the slow play, the non-offending pair > shall be awarded the greater of 60% of the > match-points available for the board and the > match-point score for the result the Chief > Tournament Director adjudges to be likely in > the light of the bidding and play up to the > time the board is removed." >=20 > This regulation appears to be doubly illegal. >=20 > If Law 12C2 is read literally, then Law 12C2 > requires "a result actually obtained" before > an assigned adjusted score can be awarded. >=20 > Also, Law 12C1 and Law 12C2 are logically > interpreted as mutually exclusive adjustment > rules for mutually exclusive determinations > of fact. The Merton regulation calculates > both Law 12C1 and Law 12C2 score adjustments, > and gives the NOS the highest one. Triply illegal: Law 8B: ....., but if a table has not completed play by that time, the = round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players. I cannot see any way a Director is allowed to remove a partly played = board from any table. Once they have begun the auction they are entitled to complete both the auction and the play. But the Director is of course empowered to awarding PP for late play. Regards Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Mar 13 08:43:29 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:43:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) Message-ID: > > Menton slow play regulation for removal of > > a partly-played board - > > > ------------------ \x/ ------------------ > > > > This regulation appears to be doubly illegal. > > > > If Law 12C2 is read literally, then Law 12C2 > > requires "a result actually obtained" before > > an assigned adjusted score can be awarded. > +=+ I agree that an assigned adjusted score is > only assessed to replace a score actually obtained. > I note that for an artificial adjusted score to be assessed > there must have been deviation from the correct > procedures set out in the laws. Alternatively a law > other than Law 12C1 or 12C2 may specify the > assessment of one type of score adjustment or the > other. > I do not think we are in the territory of score > adjustment at all. As far as I am concerned the > quoted regulation is made in pusuance of Law 78D. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Quite inventive but you are not serious I hope? Why is this not a score adjustment? Artificial scores are often given when a board is not played, which is the case here. And we consider those artificial scores as score adjustments, do we? Why then is an assigned score not an adjustment? In the first place we should avoid taking away boards from the table, once play of it has started. But to keep control it might be needed to take such measure as a last rescue. I consider the question of legality as an important one. Let us try to find a base. L12 A1 supports this possibility, makes it legal so to say. So all we have to do is not to take L12 C1 and 2 as an exhaustive description of all the possibities that can happen. Which is a reasonable approach, I think. If 12C1 and 2 were exhaustive we wouldn't need L12A1 at all! Proven. But if you are still not convinced let us take L12C3. You remember that the LC gave sponsoring organizations the possibility to give their TD's the authority to use 12C3. And then the sponsoring organization can prescibe situations in which the TD has to do so. Which is what happened here. You have noticed that 12C3 doesn't speak about the circumstances under which it may or may not be applied. i have to admit that I just constructed this expalnation and that probably nobody tried to find any justification in the laws for this regulation, but it is there! Which is another proof for the quality and flexibility of our laws (the explosions of laughter will reach me). ton From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 13 22:40:02 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:40:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) In-Reply-To: <004401c2e931$c45e9f40$b94765d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: On 3/13/03, Hans-Olof Hall=E9n wrote: >As I see it, the EBL are entitled to make rules that are against the >law. If there is a discrepancy, The Rules and Regulations prevail. I'm curious. On what do you base this position? From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 14 07:29:06 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 07:29:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) References: Message-ID: <001201c2e9fb$9a46f5c0$e3b6193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "'grandeval'" ; Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:43 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) > > > > > Menton slow play regulation for removal of > > > a partly-played board - > > > Quite inventive but you are not serious I hope? Why is > this not a score adjustment? Artificial scores are often > given when a board is not played, which is the case here. > And we consider those artificial scores as score > adjustments, do we? Why then is an assigned score not > an adjustment? > +=+ Well, at least we both find grounds for supporting the regulation. But it would be a little odd if I were to deal frivolously with any related subject after having reviewed the Rules and Regulations three times - first draft (Feb 14), redraft (Feb 28) after the Four Horsemen had submitted their thoughts, and proposed final draft (March 6) after our second round of submissions. My view being that it is a lawful exercise of 78D powers, this provision provoked no comment from me throughout. Nor from any of my three co-anatomists. [I offered 19 suggestions for revision of the text, 16 adopted, 1 not adopted, 1 put forward in error because I failed to see what was under my nose, and one remains for possible use otherwise than in the R&R/s. I have offered, since publication , one further thought for future use, so call it a score. :-)] ********************************************** There is, of course, the point Sven makes - but the Director orders a progression of the players at the slow table and they must leave their unfinished business. Undesirable, I agree, but we are talking about a weapon of last resort. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Fri Mar 14 09:14:29 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:14:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) In-Reply-To: <001201c2e9fb$9a46f5c0$e3b6193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000501c2ea0a$1e361ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > grandeval ......... > There is, of course, the point Sven makes - but the Director > orders a progression of the players at the slow table and > they must leave their unfinished business. Undesirable, I > agree, but we are talking about a weapon of last resort. I am surprised of this argument: When the Director orders a progression of players it is "the signal for = the start of the new round" as mentioned in Law 8B, which explicitly states = that the round for any late table continues until they have completed the = board they are at that moment playing. Can the Director (in my opinion contrary to this law) order any play in progress to be terminated without completion? I cannot find anywhere in the laws that the Director can be empowered to such actions? A regulation to this effect would in my opinion be in = conflict with Law 8B and as such not supported by Law 80F. What I have sometimes seen done in Norway is a regulation forbidding any table starting on a new board after the signal that progression will = take place in (for instance) 5 minutes is sounded. But as I said: The Director is free to issue a procedure penalty of any magnitude he finds justified (to teach the pairs involved in late play a lesson). =20 Regards Sven From gester@lineone.net Fri Mar 14 13:10:24 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:10:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) References: <000501c2ea0a$1e361ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002601c2ea2b$36fc6880$0e242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 9:14 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) > grandeval ......... > There is, of course, the point Sven makes - but the Director > orders a progression of the players at the slow table and > they must leave their unfinished business. Undesirable, I > agree, but we are talking about a weapon of last resort. I am surprised of this argument: When the Director orders a progression of players it is "the signal for the start of the new round" as mentioned in Law 8B, which explicitly states that the round for any late table continues until they have completed the board they are at that moment playing. Can the Director (in my opinion contrary to this law) order any play in progress to be terminated without completion? I cannot find anywhere in the laws that the Director can be empowered to such actions? A regulation to this effect would in my opinion be in conflict with Law 8B and as such not supported by Law 80F. +=+ That argument is circular. The round only continues for that table until "there has been a progression of players"; the Director can *require* a progression of players - generally, individually, or from/to a particular table - by direction under Law 5B. 'Each player' must comply. As I said before we are only considering what may be done 'in extremis' and the Director will struggle as hard as he can to "ensure the orderly progress of the game" (81C4) without any such measure. But the interests of the contestants generally override the selfish pleasure of the players at one particular table. During a duplicate bridge life of some fifty-three years I have known it to happen on quite a number of occasions at club, national and international level, and I do consider it proper for the regulations to provide for the possibility. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 14 19:28:44 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:28:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) In-Reply-To: <002601c2ea2b$36fc6880$0e242850@pacific> Message-ID: On 3/14/03, gester@lineone.net wrote: >That argument is circular. The round only continues for >that table until "there has been a progression of players"; the >Director can *require* a progression of players - generally, >individually, or from/to a particular table - by direction >under Law 5B. 'Each player' must comply. By this argument, the provision of Law 8B that "if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players" can *never* apply, for when the Director calls "move for the next round, please", all players must, by your argument, *immediately* move. I don't buy it. It's impractical, and it is not in accordance with the way I've seen this handled at *every* duplicate game I've ever seen. As has been pointed out here before, the laws are full of contradictions, inconsistencies, and unclear statements. If we are to administer this game at all, then, one of two things must occur. Either the laws must be changed to remove all contradictions, etc., or we must make *practical* judgements as to how to apply them. > As I said before we are only considering what may be >done 'in extremis' and the Director will struggle as hard as >he can to "ensure the orderly progress of the game" (81C4) >without any such measure. But the interests of the contestants >generally override the selfish pleasure of the players at one >particular table. During a duplicate bridge life of some >fifty-three years I have known it to happen on quite a number >of occasions at club, national and international level, and I do >consider it proper for the regulations to provide for the >possibility. Okay, it's happened. As I said, I've never seen it, but then I haven't been playing nearly as long as you. However, that a thing has happened doesn't make it right. As for "selfish pleasure" well, my "selfish pleasure" would be to compete against the other pairs in the field. If you stop a pair from completing a board they've already started, then you've denied me *my* pleasure, for I won't be able to compare my results to theirs on that board. If a pair (or pairs) disrupt the movement severely, then they should be severely penalized. But I don't buy that the TD has the authority to stop them from finishing a board they've started. Note: there is authority, and there is power. Certainly the TD has the *power* to do this. I just don't buy that he has the authority. And where power conflicts with authority, I commend to the reader the words of Lord Acton: "Power corrupts." From svenpran@online.no Fri Mar 14 23:22:24 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 00:22:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c2ea80$921be3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Ed Reppert > On 3/14/03, Sven Pran wrote: .......... > >But as I said: The Director is free to issue a procedure penalty of > >any magnitude he finds justified (to teach the pairs involved in late > >play a lesson). > > If that's the purpose of procedural penalties, then it seems to me a lot > more ought to be issued, because I see an awful lot of procedural errors > that players ought to be taught not to make. You will find all you need in Law 90. Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Mar 15 00:08:00 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 00:08:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) References: Message-ID: <000601c2ea8b$a956ffc0$a23087d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 7:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) > > > Note: there is authority, and there is power. Certainly the > TD has the *power* to do this. I just don't buy that he has > the authority. And where power conflicts with authority, I > commend to the reader the words of Lord Acton: "Power > corrupts." > +=+ In the present instance he is given the power by the Laws and the authority by the regulations. And, of course, notice of this has been given to the players (see Law 78D). More generally I would say that the Director is given authority in the laws to use the powers the laws afford him to ensure the orderly progress of the game, and to suppress behaviour that might cause annoyance to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. Excessive slow play may well do this for other players in the tournament. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Mar 15 00:20:08 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 00:20:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) References: Message-ID: <000701c2ea8b$aa3a5ae0$a23087d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 7:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) > On 3/14/03, gester@lineone.net wrote: > > > By this argument, the provision of Law 8B that "if any > table has not completed play by that time, the round > continues for that table until there has been a progression > of players" can *never* apply, for when the Director calls > "move for the next round, please", all players must, by > your argument, *immediately* move. I don't buy it. It's > impractical, and it is not in accordance with the way I've > seen this handled at *every* duplicate game I've ever seen. > +=+ If that is your view. Mine is that the general signal to move is a signal for the end of the round and creates the position in Law 8B. The Director who wishes to act in the case of a late table issues a specific instruction to the players concerned. +=+ From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Mar 15 03:33:54 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:33:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] 14-12 (Philadelphia Appeal 5) Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030314220116.00b55988@mail.comcast.net> In a KO match, South had 14 cards, and East had 12. South was dummy, and nobody noticed the 14-card dummy, with play ending in a claim after eight tricks. The other table discovered the 14-12 and called the TD. Both players at the offending table were sure they did not have the missing card. The AC (actually a panel) ruled that "the preponderance of the evidence suggested that the conditions of Law 13C... should not apply. "All the players had seen the dummy and nobody at the table had called attention to the extra card. Thus, both sides were deemed responsible for the problem." Can you find justification for this? One possible justification is that the missing card was not in South's hand during the first auction, and it belonged to East. In that case, the table result should have stood (L14; East never had a chance to revoke by failing to play the card), but the panel should have mentioned L14, and should probably have assigned fault only to E-W. The match was a KO, so procedural penalties wouldn't have mattered and there was no field to protect. Still, this seems like a case to give average to both sides, and probably a -3 IMP procedural penalty to both sides, although it wouldn't have affected the results. From adam@tameware.com Sat Mar 15 04:03:20 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:03:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] 14-12 (Philadelphia Appeal 5) In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030314220116.00b55988@mail.comcast.net> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030314220116.00b55988@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: >In a KO match, South had 14 cards, and East had 12. 1. Please provide a URL when possible. I'm reading the case from a hard-copy of the daily bulletin. 2. As I read the case the 14-12 discrepancy was discovered only after the board was passed to the other table. It is possible that it was played as 13-13. The writeup may be clumsy in reporting that the panel ignored the law. One other possibility is that EW, who had a terrible result on the board, moved a card from one hand to another, either accidentally or deliberately, after the board was played. The panel may not have wanted to suggest this possibility. I think it may be a flaw in the laws that this possibility is not taken into account. I recall hearing about a hand at a world championship that was found to be fouled only after one pair had left the table. The directors threw it out and a committee reinstated it. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 15 08:17:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:17:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) In-Reply-To: <002601c2ea2b$36fc6880$0e242850@pacific> Message-ID: <000001c2eacb$56bb95b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > gester@lineone.net > Grattan Endicott > From: "Sven Pran"=20 > > grandeval > ......... > > There is, of course, the point Sven makes - but the Director > > orders a progression of the players at the slow table and > > they must leave their unfinished business. Undesirable, I > > agree, but we are talking about a weapon of last resort. >=20 > I am surprised of this argument: >=20 > When the Director orders a progression of players it is "the > signal for the start of the new round" as mentioned in Law 8B, > which explicitly states that the round for any late table > continues until they have completed the board they are at that > moment playing. >=20 > Can the Director (in my opinion contrary to this law) order > any play in progress to be terminated without completion? >=20 > I cannot find anywhere in the laws that the Director can be > empowered to such actions? A regulation to this effect would > in my opinion be in conflict with Law 8B and as such not > supported by Law 80F. >=20 > +=3D+ That argument is circular. The round only continues for > that table until "there has been a progression of players"; the > Director can *require* a progression of players - generally, > individually, or from/to a particular table - by direction > under Law 5B. 'Each player' must comply. I just don't get this: Sure the Director can give almost any order he = wants and even require obedience, but if this order is in conflict with the = laws I would expect him to have a law 82C case against him (Director's error). My problem here is this: Why is Law 8B written the way it is if not to = allow the completion of any board on which play has been started but not = completed at the time the Director gives his signal? I would have agreed completely with Grattan had Law 8B simply stated something like: "A round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round" and maybe even included some instructions = on how late play should be handled (Terminated, Artificial adjusted scores, responsibility etc.?). As it is we have a clause in Law 8B (following the semicolon) which = indeed is an instruction on how to handle late play (the way I understand Law = 8B): This instruction is that the round shall be continued for such tables allowing late play to be completed.=20 > As I said before we are only considering what may be > done 'in extremis' and the Director will struggle as hard as > he can to "ensure the orderly progress of the game" (81C4) > without any such measure. But the interests of the contestants > generally override the selfish pleasure of the players at one > particular table. During a duplicate bridge life of some > fifty-three years I have known it to happen on quite a number > of occasions at club, national and international level, and I do > consider it proper for the regulations to provide for the > possibility. ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ I completely agree, and the tool the Director has to "fight" late play = is Law 90 (but definitely not L90B8 if the regulation or instruction is in conflict with the laws). Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 15 17:14:09 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:14:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Gratuitous question Message-ID: <200303151714.MAA05758@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ted Ying > If the player knew that the question and/or timing could communicate > information to partner, she should word the question so as to get > the same information without implying any interest in a particular > suit. There is always the generic, "what do the bids in the auction > mean?" While this is true, it doesn't address the problem being discussed, which is that the _answers_ to questions can put opponents into a UI position. If you want to win and think the opponents might be having a misunderstanding, one effective strategy is to ask questions about the auction. This forces the opponents to create UI for each other, and the UI restricts their options. Without the UI, they might have landed on their feet, but with it, it will be much harder for them to do so. Many of us think this strategy is undesirable, but it is far from clear how to prevent it. From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Mar 16 09:46:07 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:46:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) References: <000001c2eacb$56bb95b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E7447DF.2080801@skynet.be> You are missing one point, Sven: Sven Pran wrote: >> > > I just don't get this: Sure the Director can give almost any order he wants > and even require obedience, but if this order is in conflict with the laws I > would expect him to have a law 82C case against him (Director's error). > That is true, but is the order against the Laws ? Surely not in the way you argue: > My problem here is this: Why is Law 8B written the way it is if not to allow > the completion of any board on which play has been started but not completed > at the time the Director gives his signal? > Law 8B defines the word "round". Certain things change at the end of the round (acquiescence, revokes, ...) If the round would change half way through a board, that would create problems. But I see nothing in L8B that says that play has to continue. Of course, I see nothing that can allow a play to be curtailed, but that simply means that there is no basis in the laws for judging the directors powers to curtail play would be inadmissible. > I would have agreed completely with Grattan had Law 8B simply stated > something like: "A round ends when the Director gives the signal for the > start of the following round" and maybe even included some instructions on > how late play should be handled (Terminated, Artificial adjusted scores, > responsibility etc.?). > > As it is we have a clause in Law 8B (following the semicolon) which indeed > is an instruction on how to handle late play (the way I understand Law 8B): > This instruction is that the round shall be continued for such tables > allowing late play to be completed. > "Allowing", but not necessarily "forcing". > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Mar 16 04:32:18 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 04:32:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] 14-12 (Philadelphia Appeal 5) References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030314220116.00b55988@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <000201c2ebac$e3b97680$503de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "David J. Grabiner" Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 4:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 14-12 (Philadelphia Appeal 5) > > 2. As I read the case the 14-12 discrepancy was > discovered only after the board was passed to the > other table. It is possible that it was played as 13-13. > The writeup may be clumsy in reporting that the panel > ignored the law. < +=+ I read it as saying the AC found no evidence that the board had been played abnormally at the first table. +=+ < > One other possibility is that EW, who had a > terrible result on the board, moved a card from > one hand to another, either accidentally or deliberately, > after the board was played. The panel may not have > wanted to suggest this possibility. > > I think it may be a flaw in the laws that this possibility > is not taken into account. I recall hearing about a hand > at a world championship that was found to be fouled > only after one pair had left the table. The directors > threw it out and a committee reinstated it. > +=+ Law 7B2 applies; also Laws 74A2 and 72B2. There is likely to be something in the regulations such as the clause in the WBF General Conditions of Contest that deals with the authority of the Appeals Committee. Without evidence to the contrary there is no basis for ruling that the disposition of the cards was abnormal when the hand was played at the first table. How a card managed subsequently to drift from one hand to another may be difficult to discover. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Mar 16 11:38:43 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:38:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) References: <000001c2eacb$56bb95b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E7447DF.2080801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001a01c2ebbb$fc94d820$503de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) > > > > > As it is we have a clause in Law 8B (following > > the semicolon) which indeed is an instruction on > > how to handle late play (the way I understand > > Law 8B): This instruction is that the round shall > > be continued for such tables allowing late play > > to be completed. > > > > > "Allowing", but not necessarily "forcing". > +=+ It is not 'how to handle' the situation that 8B sets out, it specifies what the situation is and the Director acts within the scope of that situation. A crucial aspect of 8B is that the round only continues for that table until there is a progression of players. This is something the Director can order under 5B when he is no longer prepared to wait for the players. When directed 'each player' must move. Is it seriously suggested that if they take thirty minutes after he has signalled the end of the round the Director must allow them to continue until they have finished the board? Sven does need to get with it; the Director is in absolute charge; the wording in Law 90B8 says "any instruction", not "any lawful instruction" - the player does not have discretion to decide whether an instruction is lawful or not, this is for the Director (81C5)and the AC to decide. Law 91A may also be invoked if a player persists in refusal to obey an instruction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Mar 16 17:13:36 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:13:36 -0800 Subject: [blml] I would always (was Appeal 666) References: Message-ID: <001601c2ebdf$62ded400$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > Gordon Bower wrote: > > And the relatively objective way of determining > whether self-deception has occurred is to judge > what the LAs are for a player's peers. > Objective? L16A doesn't refer to "player's peers" or even "class of player involved." LAs should be judged in relation to the event. What what would a typical player in this event consider to be an LA? The principle is that all contestants in an event should be treated as equals under the Laws. Having just returned from the Cradle of Liberty, Philadelphia, the Jeffersonian idea of equality has been even more strongly reinforced in my thinking. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Mar 16 19:09:14 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:09:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030311172448.00ab66c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030312151702.00acaec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004501c2ebf2$e4cf5080$25b54351@noos.fr> Alain, It wasn't intended as rude. Dumb rules tend to be good ones. Specially for teaching situations where you have to assume the student has some limitations. You are right that lead my major can cause problems if partner has equal length. Doesn't happy very often, but it might be a good idea to avoid doubling in borderline cases where you have length in the other major as well. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 > At 21:58 11/03/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >Alain: > > > AG : I've been told by my bridge teacher that, in case of doubt, the > >double > > > of 3NT (or higher) when our side remained silent was either for spades or > > > for dummy's first bid suit. > > > >Lead spades is typically French. French teachers like dumb rules. Lead > >spades is easier then 'lead my major' (the most common meaning against > >1NT-3NT). > > AG : > > a) he was not French, he didn't even speak good French. > b) such rules help avert catastrophes (eg when partner has 22 / 33 majors). > Same thing for Lightner doubles. Okay, the course wasn't intended for elite > players, and this may be linked th that. However, in my (admittedly small) > panel of Belgian players, made of two French-speaking, one Dutch-speaking, > one bilinguial with Flemish origins, one Anglo-Saxon and one from a weirder > country, two people assumed 'spades', only one assumed 'my major'. > c) I might be wrong, but I remember having read it in at least two books > written in English. If absolutely needed, I can try and find it back. > d) why do you need to be rude ? > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Mar 16 19:11:27 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:11:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030312154156.00abf180@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004601c2ebf2$e5a1e2c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Alain, The French are fond of dumb rules when teaching or playing with sponsors. Not when they are playing serious bridge. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 > At 09:18 12/03/2003 -0500, David Kent wrote: > > > > > > This is a ruling situation. You *must* give the panel the methods they > > > are presumed to be playing or any answers they give are meaningless. > > > > > > >The problem with this line of reasoning harkens back to "the old black > >magic" problem. When playing an inferior system, you can get good > >results by using hesitations to your advantage. In the given situation > >you pass smoothly with Qxxx Axxx x AKQx (partner leads a C and you > >quickly cash out for down 1) > > AG : seems like a heart lead would work here, too. > Speaking of the club lead from Jxxx ... this kind of lead, into a hand > which has a 50+% chance of holding 4-5 clubs, doesn't seem enough of a LA. > The French new wave has somewhat rehabilitated this lead, but Jaap should > not consider this, since he pretends that French are fond of dumb rules :-( > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Mar 16 19:44:35 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:44:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030311172448.00ab66c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005e01c2e811$44b81d00$25b54351@noos.fr> <008c01c2e8cc$be8058d0$9f24e150@endicott> Message-ID: <006001c2ebf4$8b6e3b80$25b54351@noos.fr> Grattan, Of course my knowledge of other players is incomplete, by definition it is. But no player at the EC level will seriously dispute that this hand might overcall 1H or 4H (or 2H if not weak) whatever the agreements on style are. You make your agreements for frequent distributions, nobody has a system for freaks. By the way, knowing a lot of Scandinavian players quite well I would not be surprised if her captain (or coach or partner) was not very happy with her choice of intervention over 1D. Want to make a bet ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " I always know when to stop being bossy. > I can tell when you are no longer listening." > ~ Anonymous. > ============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: ; > "Alain Gottcheiner" > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:58 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 > > > > Everything can work. But don't tell me that > > south HAD TO double with this hand because > > of system. I simply don't buy that kind of crap. > > > > Jaap > > > +=+ That is rather disrespectful of pairs I have > met. Is it possible, Jaap, that your knowledge of > other players is incomplete? ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Mar 16 20:38:02 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:38:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) References: Message-ID: <006101c2ebfb$f1b84820$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton: > [....] Which is another proof for the quality and flexibility of our > laws (the explosions of laughter will reach me). 1. Laughter you deserve although this is not funny. 2. Quality and flexibility are contradictionary in a laws context. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'grandeval'" ; Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:43 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) > > > > > Menton slow play regulation for removal of > > > a partly-played board - > > > > > ------------------ \x/ ------------------ > > > > > > This regulation appears to be doubly illegal. > > > > > > If Law 12C2 is read literally, then Law 12C2 > > > requires "a result actually obtained" before > > > an assigned adjusted score can be awarded. > > > > > > +=+ I agree that an assigned adjusted score is > > only assessed to replace a score actually obtained. > > I note that for an artificial adjusted score to be assessed > > there must have been deviation from the correct > > procedures set out in the laws. Alternatively a law > > other than Law 12C1 or 12C2 may specify the > > assessment of one type of score adjustment or the > > other. > > I do not think we are in the territory of score > > adjustment at all. As far as I am concerned the > > quoted regulation is made in pusuance of Law 78D. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Quite inventive but you are not serious I hope? Why is this not a score > adjustment? Artificial scores are often given when a board is not played, > which is the case here. > And we consider those artificial scores as score adjustments, do we? Why > then is an assigned score not an adjustment? > > In the first place we should avoid taking away boards from the table, once > play of it has started. But to keep control it might be needed to take such > measure as a last rescue. I consider the question of legality as an > important one. > > Let us try to find a base. > L12 A1 supports this possibility, makes it legal so to say. So all we have > to do is not to take L12 C1 and 2 as an exhaustive description of all the > possibities that can happen. Which is a reasonable approach, I think. If > 12C1 and 2 were exhaustive we wouldn't need L12A1 at all! Proven. > > But if you are still not convinced let us take L12C3. You remember that the > LC gave sponsoring organizations the possibility to give their TD's the > authority to use 12C3. And then the sponsoring organization can prescibe > situations in which the TD has to do so. Which is what happened here. You > have noticed that 12C3 doesn't speak about the circumstances under which it > may or may not be applied. > > i have to admit that I just constructed this expalnation and that probably > nobody tried to find any justification in the laws for this regulation, but > it is there! Which is another proof for the quality and flexibility of our > laws (the explosions of laughter will reach me). > > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Mar 16 20:49:16 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:49:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) References: <000001c2eacb$56bb95b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E7447DF.2080801@skynet.be> <001a01c2ebbb$fc94d820$503de150@endicott> Message-ID: <007701c2ebfd$83b62200$25b54351@noos.fr> Gratten c.s. When I read all this silly 'arguments' about halting a board once started I can only conclude the laws suck big time. 1. Of course a TD should be able to halt a table as a 'weapon of last resort'. I disagree completely with the concept they have to right to finish a board whatever the tempo in a pairs style of event. It is just insane. Giving PP's doesn't adress the principal issue which is running the movement in a limited amount of time. 2. This should be clearly stated in the laws. The guys attacking the legality of halting a board seem to have a point. I don't have to check the laws myself (I am no specialist), just looking at the clumsy defence so far will do. 3. The laws should be purged of all contradictions etc. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " I always know when to stop being bossy. > I can tell when you are no longer listening." > ~ Anonymous. > ============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:46 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) > > > > > > > > > > As it is we have a clause in Law 8B (following > > > the semicolon) which indeed is an instruction on > > > how to handle late play (the way I understand > > > Law 8B): This instruction is that the round shall > > > be continued for such tables allowing late play > > > to be completed. > > > > > > > > > "Allowing", but not necessarily "forcing". > > > +=+ It is not 'how to handle' the situation that 8B > sets out, it specifies what the situation is and the > Director acts within the scope of that situation. > A crucial aspect of 8B is that the round only > continues for that table until there is a progression > of players. This is something the Director can order > under 5B when he is no longer prepared to wait for > the players. When directed 'each player' must move. > Is it seriously suggested that if they take thirty > minutes after he has signalled the end of the round > the Director must allow them to continue until they > have finished the board? Sven does need to get > with it; the Director is in absolute charge; the > wording in Law 90B8 says "any instruction", not > "any lawful instruction" - the player does not have > discretion to decide whether an instruction is > lawful or not, this is for the Director (81C5)and the > AC to decide. Law 91A may also be invoked if a > player persists in refusal to obey an instruction. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Mar 17 00:29:31 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:29:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) References: <000001c2eacb$56bb95b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E7447DF.2080801@skynet.be> <001a01c2ebbb$fc94d820$503de150@endicott> <007701c2ebfd$83b62200$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001d01c2ec1c$73e0b1a0$271ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 8:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) > > 2. This should be clearly stated in the laws. > The guys attacking the legality of halting a board seem to have a point. I > don't have to check the laws myself (I am no specialist), just looking at > the clumsy defence so far will do. > > 3. The laws should be purged of all contradictions etc. > +=+ Sounds like the door I came in through. I am not *defending*, stone age though it may be. ~ G ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 17 04:52:04 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:52:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) In-Reply-To: <000601c2ea8b$a956ffc0$a23087d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On 3/15/03, grandeval wrote: >n the present instance he is given the >power by the Laws and the authority by the >regulations. And, of course, notice of this >has been given to the players (see Law 78D). > More generally I would say that the >Director is given authority in the laws to use >the powers the laws afford him to ensure the >orderly progress of the game, and to suppress >behaviour that might cause annoyance to >another player or might interfere with the >enjoyment of the game. Excessive slow play >may well do this for other players in the >tournament. Mm. I'm gonna have to think about that. :-) As for "excessive slow play" that's not quite the same thing as "excessively slow play", which is what we're talking about here. Though I admit that either is likely to annoy *someone*. I like Sven's method: announce at some point (5 minutes remaining?) that no new board may be started in this round, and then make sure they don't start one. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 17 04:46:53 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:46:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) In-Reply-To: <000201c2ea80$921be3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 3/15/03, Sven Pran wrote: >You will find all you need in Law 90. I know. Yet there is a school which says that PPs should be rare - and in lower level games practically nonexistant. I'm not at all sure I buy that - but I'd had to buy a bridge club, and find people leaving in droves because I issue PPs. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Mar 17 05:38:03 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:38:03 +1200 Subject: [blml] What lead do you make? Message-ID: <000001c2ec47$64a47d90$209637d2@Desktop> This hand occurred in the qualifying stages of an IMP teams tournament. I was at the table. An appeal was lodged but withdrawn because the result of this board made no difference to the winner of the match nor to the qualifying positions and there was no carry forward. Nevertheless I am curious as to which leads you would consider to be logical alternatives etc W N E S P 1NT* X** 2D*** P 2H^ X^^ P 3C^^^ P 3NT All Pass * 10-13 ** Penalties normally 16+ *** Diamonds and a Major ^ Preference for the majors ^^ takeout ^^^ shows values 2nt would be Lebensohl denying values The 2D bidder and leader has: 8762 Q1084 QJ543 - What would you lead? If partner has incorrectly explained 2D as a transfer to hearts would you disallow a diamond lead based on the unauthorised information that partner does not necessarily have preference for the majors? TIA Wayne From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Mar 17 06:55:44 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:55:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] What lead do you make? References: <000001c2ec47$64a47d90$209637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000401c2ec52$b65396c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Wayne, First question; what do I lead. Hearts seems normal. Although there is an argument for leading spades if partner can bid 2S with a real heart fit. But since this is a scrambling situation that argument is not that good. Diamonds is out if partner doesn't pas 2D. Second question; diamond after misexplanation. Out of the question, should draw a PP if the level is sufficiently high. By the way, I am not fond of PP's at all but at say national championship level and up I wouldn't tolerate it. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 6:38 AM Subject: [blml] What lead do you make? > This hand occurred in the qualifying stages of an IMP teams tournament. > > I was at the table. > > An appeal was lodged but withdrawn because the result of this board > made no difference to the winner of the match nor to the qualifying > positions and there was no carry forward. > > Nevertheless I am curious as to which leads you would consider to be > logical alternatives etc > > W N E S > P > 1NT* X** 2D*** P > 2H^ X^^ P 3C^^^ > P 3NT All Pass > > * 10-13 > ** Penalties normally 16+ > *** Diamonds and a Major > ^ Preference for the majors > ^^ takeout > ^^^ shows values 2nt would be Lebensohl denying values > > The 2D bidder and leader has: > > 8762 > Q1084 > QJ543 > - > > What would you lead? > > If partner has incorrectly explained 2D as a transfer to hearts > would you disallow a diamond lead based on the unauthorised information > that partner does not necessarily have preference for the majors? > > TIA > > Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 17 08:29:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:29:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) In-Reply-To: <007701c2ebfd$83b62200$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000001c2ec5f$66855ea0$6900a8c0@WINXP> The question I have addressed in this thread is not what the rules = should be on late plays, it is what I understand the rules are (and why). My opinion is that the rule should be: The round ends when the Director gives the signal to that effect, at that moment any ongoing play must = cease and the result of any board still in play must be adjudicated by the Director as equitable as possible to both sides.=20 I am however, not particularly happy with my own opinion here. A change = like that will add duties for the Director at the times when he is usually = most busy during any arrangement. One major reason for my opinion is that the players at a late table take themselves an advantage not available to those players who finish on = time: They get more time. Had law 8B simply stated: "A round ends when the Director gives the = signal for the start of a new round" there would have been no reason for discussion; the only question had been how to score a board that was not finished on time. This is not what Law 8B says, it includes a "but" telling us that the = round continues for any table that is late. So in the interest of a timely arrangement we(?) now go searching for = laws giving the Director the power to legally end the round also for late = tables before they have completed their play. Let me quote from the commentaries (Endicott and Keith Hansen 1992): "The general condition is that the round ends when the Director calls = the move, but obviously not for any table that is still struggling with a = hand -for that table the round ends when the agreed score of the last board = is entered on the score slip. (Or if the score is found not to have been entered, at the time when correct procedure required this to be done)." And: "If the table has not started the last board of the round the Director = is recommended to ..... award an artificial score ..." Nothing here to indicate any way the Director can request the play of a board in progress to be terminated. I am still of the opinion that claiming Laws 5B, 81C5, 91A (or any other = law that may have been quoted) as empowering the Director to order the termination of a board in play is stretching these laws beyond their purposes. If the Director shall have such powers then rewrite Law 8B. And a final comment on how I once handled one extreme case when a table threatened to upset the entire time schedule with an exceptionally late = play on one board: I told them they had the choice between immediately canceling the board themselves and take A- (both sides) or play it out for their result but = then be given a PP to the amount of 100% of a board score (again for both = sides). Naturally we became able to progress with a minimum delay. This was one single case; normally my experience is that with some = firmness by the Director combined with a bit humanity things will sort themselves = out and the involved pairs will usually catch up anyway during the next = round. Sven Jaap van der Neut > When I read all this silly 'arguments' about halting a board=20 > once started I can only conclude the laws suck big time. >=20 > 1. Of course a TD should be able to halt a table as a 'weapon=20 > of last resort'. I disagree completely with the concept they > have to right to finish a board whatever the tempo in a pairs > style of event. It is just insane. Giving PP's doesn't address > the principal issue which is running the movement in a limited > amount of time. >=20 > 2. This should be clearly stated in the laws. > The guys attacking the legality of halting a board seem to have > a point. I don't have to check the laws myself (I am no > specialist), just looking at the clumsy defence so far will do. >=20 > 3. The laws should be purged of all contradictions etc. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 12:38 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) >=20 ......... > > > > As it is we have a clause in Law 8B (following > > > > the semicolon) which indeed is an instruction on > > > > how to handle late play (the way I understand > > > > Law 8B): This instruction is that the round shall > > > > be continued for such tables allowing late play > > > > to be completed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Allowing", but not necessarily "forcing". > > > > > +=3D+ It is not 'how to handle' the situation that 8B > > sets out, it specifies what the situation is and the > > Director acts within the scope of that situation. > > A crucial aspect of 8B is that the round only > > continues for that table until there is a progression > > of players. This is something the Director can order > > under 5B when he is no longer prepared to wait for > > the players. When directed 'each player' must move. > > Is it seriously suggested that if they take thirty > > minutes after he has signalled the end of the round > > the Director must allow them to continue until they > > have finished the board? Sven does need to get > > with it; the Director is in absolute charge; the > > wording in Law 90B8 says "any instruction", not > > "any lawful instruction" - the player does not have > > discretion to decide whether an instruction is > > lawful or not, this is for the Director (81C5)and the > > AC to decide. Law 91A may also be invoked if a > > player persists in refusal to obey an instruction. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Mar 17 08:35:06 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:35:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] 14-12 (Philadelphia Appeal 5) Message-ID: > >In a KO match, South had 14 cards, and East had 12. > > 1. Please provide a URL when possible. I'm reading the case from a > hard-copy of the daily bulletin. > > 2. As I read the case the 14-12 discrepancy was discovered only after > the board was passed to the other table. It is possible that it was > played as 13-13. The writeup may be clumsy in reporting that the > panel ignored the law. One other possibility is that EW, who had a > terrible result on the board, moved a card from one hand to another, > either accidentally or deliberately, after the board was played. The > panel may not have wanted to suggest this possibility. > > I think it may be a flaw in the laws that this possibility is not > taken into account. I recall hearing about a hand at a world > championship that was found to be fouled only after one pair had left > the table. The directors threw it out and a committee reinstated it. Reading L13C it sounds to me that the lawmakers did take into account the posibility that for some unexplainable reason cards are moved from one to another pocket after the board has been played. It says clearly that the director only may cancell the board after having established the fact that it contained 12 - 14 from the beginning. I do remember such case in the Rhodes Olympiad (1996) in a slam board resulting in a terrible score. The final decision, if I remember well, was not to cancell the board since it couldn't be proven that the 12 - 14 was there from the start on. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Mar 17 08:50:21 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:50:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) Message-ID: > > > > > > > > Menton slow play regulation for removal of > > > > a partly-played board - > > ton: > > > > Quite inventive but you are not serious I hope? Why is > > this not a score adjustment? Artificial scores are often > > given when a board is not played, which is the case here. > > And we consider those artificial scores as score > > adjustments, do we? Why then is an assigned score not > > an adjustment? > > > +=+ Well, at least we both find grounds for supporting > the regulation. But it would be a little odd if I were to deal > frivolously with any related subject after having reviewed > the Rules and Regulations three times - first draft (Feb 14), > redraft (Feb 28) after the Four Horsemen had submitted > their thoughts, and proposed final draft (March 6) after > our second round of submissions. My view being that it > is a lawful exercise of 78D powers, this provision provoked > no comment from me throughout. Nor from any of my > three co-anatomists. > [I offered 19 suggestions for revision of the text, > 16 adopted, 1 not adopted, 1 put forward in error because > I failed to see what was under my nose, and one remains > for possible use otherwise than in the R&R/s. I have > offered, since publication , one further thought for future > use, so call it a score. :-)] It is not uncommon to concentrate on procedures more than on content, even when content is the issue. The amount of labour put into a job is no guarantee for the quality of that job, so please explain the meaning of your answer. Using 78D sounds quite Kaplanian to me: we want it that way so let us find a law which doesn't contradict it. For the moment my conclusion is that I found grounds and you took a law. What we agree about is that we need the possibility to award an assigned score in case a board has to be removed. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Mar 17 09:29:58 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:29:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) Message-ID: > > I like Sven's method: announce at some point (5 minutes > remaining?) that > no new board may be started in this round, and then make sure > they don't > start one. That really is a terrible solution. My experience tells me that there is only one way to deal with this problem: penalize slow play. We are talking about pair events with 2 boards on a table in most cases. A player should be allowed to use more than 10 minutes in a difficult board once in a while, not being penalized by removing the second board, which could be played within 3 minutes. And if not he gets a second chance in the next round. And that is it. The problem is that TD's don't give those penalties after which they loose control. And then a board is removed, both pairs claiming not to be responsible (since it happened three tables ago somewhere else) so both pairs getting average plus (being brave it could be average/average plus). Not an approach to encourage players to play faster. ton From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 17 10:31:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:31:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2ec70$50023750$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Kooijman, A. > To: 'Ed Reppert'; Bridge Laws > > I like Sven's method: announce at some point (5 minutes > > remaining?) that > > no new board may be started in this round, and then make sure > > they don't > > start one. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > That really is a terrible solution. My experience tells me that there = is > only one way to deal with this problem: penalize slow play. We are = talking > about pair events with 2 boards on a table in most cases. A player = should > be > allowed to use more than 10 minutes in a difficult board once in a = while, > not being penalized by removing the second board, which could be = played > within 3 minutes. And if not he gets a second chance in the next = round. > And > that is it. The problem is that TD's don't give those penalties after > which > they loose control. And then a board is removed, both pairs claiming = not > to > be responsible (since it happened three tables ago somewhere else) so = both > pairs getting average plus (being brave it could be average/average = plus). > Not an approach to encourage players to play faster. Terrible or not, I have seen it in use, but I do not normally use it = myself, for one reason because nobody can tell in advance whether the table = would finish its second board in say two minutes, particularly when they know = they are late. The Norwegian championships for pairs are played as barometer over 81 = rounds with two boards each round. The players have exactly 16 minutes per = round, everything included. (There is no exchange of boards; at the beginning = of each round each table has been given its own set of two boards to be = played in that round, something which of course means that we have 41 sets of = each board dealt in advance). If a table is late they (both sides) get a warning and this warning is recorded in the secretary. On any subsequent late play involving a pair which already has a warning there is an automatic PP unless that pair = has summoned the Director early in the same round and recorded a complaint = on slow play by opponents. Similar procedures are usually adapted at other events. But we do not (to my knowledge) ever cancel a board which is in progress because of slow play. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 17 13:07:34 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:07:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] What lead do you make? In-Reply-To: <000001c2ec47$64a47d90$209637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317140557.024418a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:38 17/03/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >This hand occurred in the qualifying stages of an IMP teams tournament. > >I was at the table. > >An appeal was lodged but withdrawn because the result of this board >made no difference to the winner of the match nor to the qualifying >positions and there was no carry forward. > >Nevertheless I am curious as to which leads you would consider to be >logical alternatives etc > >W N E S > P >1NT* X** 2D*** P >2H^ X^^ P 3C^^^ >P 3NT All Pass > >* 10-13 >** Penalties normally 16+ >*** Diamonds and a Major >^ Preference for the majors >^^ takeout >^^^ shows values 2nt would be Lebensohl denying values > >The 2D bidder and leader has: > >8762 >Q1084 >QJ543 >- > >What would you lead? AG : based on the information that partner has 43+ in majors, I think that all three leads are possible. >If partner has incorrectly explained 2D as a transfer to hearts >would you disallow a diamond lead based on the unauthorised information >that partner does not necessarily have preference for the majors? AG : I would. However, the wrong explanation doesn't in itself suggest either H or S, so the player whould be free to choose between these two. From gillp@bigpond.com Mon Mar 17 14:11:20 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:11:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] What lead do you make? Message-ID: <002201c2ec8f$18e90cc0$dc8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Wayne Burrows wrote: >IMP teams >Nevertheless I am curious as to which leads you would consider >to be logical alternatives etc > >W N E S > P >1NT* X** 2D*** P >2H^ X^^ P 3C^^^ >P 3NT All Pass > >* 10-13 >** Penalties normally 16+ >*** Diamonds and a Major >^ Preference for the majors >^^ takeout >^^^ shows values 2nt would be Lebensohl denying values > >The 2D bidder and leader has: > >8762 >Q1084 >QJ543 >- > >What would you lead? I would lead H4, with S7 or S8 as my second choice, diamonds being a distant third choice. >If partner has incorrectly explained 2D as a transfer to hearts >would you disallow a diamond lead based on the unauthorised >information that partner does not necessarily have preference >for the majors? Yes, without even needing to add the usual proviso about "definition of LA in this particular jurisdiction". Peter Gill Australia. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 17 14:35:23 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:35:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] cause of bad result Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317152552.039c0ca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, I would like to read your opinion about this case, from a recent tournament (Belgian pair Championship, 1st stage). NS : very good players, not quite a fitted pair EW : above average, pretend they are a fitted pair N/S vul, East dealer Kxx x Ax A10xxxxx xxxx AJx Q10xx Jx 10xxxx KQJxx --- KJx Qxx AK10xxx x Qxx W N E S 1D 1C 2N* 3C** 3D*** 4H@ * in E/W's methods, shows long clubs (weak/strong ; 2C is about 8-11) but West intended it as diamonds (weak/strong) [it would have been a raise had the opening been 1C] ** North asked about the 2N bid, got the right explanation (no screens), and bid 3C *** strong hand with 5+ diamonds (assuming 2NT = clubs) @ Taking 3C as a cue in this context. E/W's explanations : the explanation given was correct. Proved by the CC. North's explanations : North's culture is full of psyches, thus of anti-psyche bids ; 3D would have been the cue ; 3C should be natural. South's explanation : I've been fooled ... but by whom or what ? And invokes the 'convention dusruption' principle. North was namely sure that 2NT was a psyche, and disliked such a 'no-risk psyche' (you may always correct C to D). E/W's card mentions 'very uncommon' in the 'psyches' box, and it is the truth. My questions : a) we've spoken about 'convention disruption' and possible countermeasures to it. Do you think the case is severe enough to invoke disruption ? b) do you think North's 3C was the source of NS's bad result ? c) is North's 3C an 'egregious error' ? d) the TD and AC maintained the score, based on their conviction of misbid, not MI. Do you agree ? e) if the AC had thought West did a 'no-risk psyche', what should they rule ? Thank you for your help. Alain. From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Mar 17 14:57:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:57 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] cause of bad result In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317152552.039c0ca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > a) we've spoken about 'convention disruption' and possible > countermeasures to it. Do you think the case is severe enough to invoke > disruption ? I think convention disruption is a reasonable description of what happened. Thankfully there are never grounds for adjustment on that basis. > b) do you think North's 3C was the source of NS's bad result ? No. It is the systemic bid - albeit South misunderstood. > c) is North's 3C an 'egregious error' ? No. Although X and lead a club might be better. > d) the TD and AC maintained the score, based on their conviction of > misbid, not MI. Do you agree ? Yes, on the evidence you gave. > e) if the AC had thought West did a 'no-risk psyche', what should they > rule ? Can they rule "Nice psyche - well done"? Tim From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 17 15:17:24 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:17:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) Message-ID: <200303171517.KAA10640@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > My experience tells me that there is > only one way to deal with this problem: penalize slow play. Kaplan was a big advocate of conduct penalties rather than score penalties for slow play. Is there any way to apply that in a pair game? (In a team game, at least up to the final round, you can forbid a slow pair to play as a partnership in the next round.) Of course the threat of penalties, whether score or conduct, is aimed at prevention. There's a separate question of how to get the game back on track when a table is found to be running late. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 17 15:17:48 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:17:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] cause of bad result References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317152552.039c0ca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E75E71C.4040702@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > I would like to read your opinion about this case, from a recent > tournament (Belgian pair Championship, 1st stage). > > NS : very good players, not quite a fitted pair > EW : above average, pretend they are a fitted pair > N/S vul, East dealer > > Kxx > x > Ax > A10xxxxx > xxxx AJx > Q10xx Jx > 10xxxx KQJxx > --- KJx > Qxx > AK10xxx > x > Qxx > > W N E S > > 1D 1C Alain very probably forgot to translate a C of Coeur into H of Heart here. It's probably not an accepted club underbid. > 2N* 3C** 3D*** 4H@ > > * in E/W's methods, shows long clubs (weak/strong ; 2C is about 8-11) > but West intended it as diamonds (weak/strong) [it would have been a > raise had the opening been 1C] > ** North asked about the 2N bid, got the right explanation (no screens), > and bid 3C > *** strong hand with 5+ diamonds (assuming 2NT = clubs) > @ Taking 3C as a cue in this context. > > E/W's explanations : the explanation given was correct. Proved by the CC. > North's explanations : North's culture is full of psyches, thus of > anti-psyche bids ; 3D would have been the cue ; 3C should be natural. > South's explanation : I've been fooled ... but by whom or what ? And > invokes the 'convention dusruption' principle. > > North was namely sure that 2NT was a psyche, and disliked such a > 'no-risk psyche' (you may always correct C to D). E/W's card mentions > 'very uncommon' in the 'psyches' box, and it is the truth. > > My questions : > > a) we've spoken about 'convention disruption' and possible > countermeasures to it. Do you think the case is severe enough to invoke > disruption ? see below. > b) do you think North's 3C was the source of NS's bad result ? yes, combined with the non-understanding by South of the same bid. I'm not going to apportion the blame to North or South here - let them sort that out for themselves. > c) is North's 3C an 'egregious error' ? That would only come into consideration if we believe East-West to have done something wrong. If they have (see below), then 3Cl can become a correct bid once again. So it's certainly not an egregious error in the sense of breaking the link between infraction and damage. Repeat: If there is an infraction. > d) the TD and AC maintained the score, based on their conviction of > misbid, not MI. Do you agree ? How can we agree or not? The AC used the CC and determined that the explanation was correct. We don't even have the CC, so how can we judge this? If your question is "was the AC correct in not changing the score if they decided it was a misbid", I think that question is too easy to answer. Of course there is no rectification if it is a misbid. > e) if the AC had thought West did a 'no-risk psyche', what should they > rule ? > Now that is a more interesting question. Let us suppose that indeed West has perpetrated this psyche before. Let us suppose that East is judged to know about this (whether or not he actually does know is not important). Then the real explanation should be: "transfer to clubs, sometimes done with weak hand with diamonds". Then I still have to be convinced, by South, that he might understand the 3Cl as a possible uncovering of the psyche. I would then accept a pass/3He in South and a 4Cl bid in North and adjust to something. But that is a lot of "ifs". I think the real culprit is North, who sees psyches everywhere. > Thank you for your help. > > 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 HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Mar 17 19:42:06 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:42:06 -0600 Subject: [blml] What lead do you make? In-Reply-To: <000001c2ec47$64a47d90$209637d2@Desktop> References: <000001c2ec47$64a47d90$209637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: >This hand occurred in the qualifying stages of an IMP teams tournament. > >I was at the table. > >An appeal was lodged but withdrawn because the result of this board >made no difference to the winner of the match nor to the qualifying >positions and there was no carry forward. > >Nevertheless I am curious as to which leads you would consider to be >logical alternatives etc > >W N E S > P >1NT* X** 2D*** P >2H^ X^^ P 3C^^^ >P 3NT All Pass > >* 10-13 >** Penalties normally 16+ >*** Diamonds and a Major >^ Preference for the majors >^^ takeout >^^^ shows values 2nt would be Lebensohl denying values > >The 2D bidder and leader has: > >8762 >Q1084 >QJ543 >- > >What would you lead? > >If partner has incorrectly explained 2D as a transfer to hearts >would you disallow a diamond lead based on the unauthorised information >that partner does not necessarily have preference for the majors? > Correct explanation, H4. Wrong explanation, H4. Knowing partner has mis-explained is UI for me. the AI is he has shown preference for hearts over diamonds, and that's what I can use. Absent any explanation of any bid, D4, my mother's lead. Welcome back to Marv. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From jvickers@fish.co.uk Mon Mar 17 23:42:20 2003 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:42:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: <003501c2ecdf$1c339580$6b78bc3e@oemcomputer> The following occurred at a Swiss Teams in the UK last week (love all, dealer W): Q 7 6 - 10 9 7 6 3 K Q 10 6 5 5 2 J 10 3 Q J 10 5 3 A K 8 7 4 A K 8 5 Q J J 7 A 9 3 A K 9 8 4 9 6 2 4 2 8 4 2 W N E S P P 1H 1S 2NT(1) 3S X P 4H(2) 4S X(3) P P P (1) East reached for the alert card, then remembered that they had recently agreed that 2NT by a passed hand is natural in this sequence, rather than showing a good raise to 3H, and made it clear to the opponents that he was not alerting. (2) North got rather agitated when West bid 4H, called the director and said he was suspicious that his opponents were having a misunderstanding and asked to speak to the director away from the table. The TD consented reluctantly, and when North returned the auction continued as shown. NS were told to recall the TD if they felt they had been damaged. (3) To double again may seem unwise here, but East was unsure of the ethical constraints he might be under, and had to make a decision quickly. It certainly looks as if North's suspicions are correct, but East was not certain he was allowed to assume this. 4SX made ten tricks, and NS seemed content. East informed them that the director might adjust to 3SX+1 if they called him back. North considered this for a moment, then shrugged and continued with the next board. After a few more boards had been played he called the director back and asked for an adjusted score on the lines that East had suggested. While the TDs were deliberating NS withdrew their request for a ruling, so nothing came of the matter, but my questions are: 1. What do you think of North's antics? 2. What do you think of the director's response? 3. Would you allow West's 4H call? 4. Would you allow East to pass 4S? 5. Is North's song and dance AI for East, i.e. is he allowed to use information from North's behaviour to deduce that it is really partner who has misbid, and so avoid a disastrous result? 6. Would you as director entertain North's request for an adjusted score several boards later, or are they out of time? (If you think EW's decisions are trivial in this case, I'm still interested in the general principles, so would appreciate some answers.) James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 18 00:10:36 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:10:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) References: Message-ID: <003601c2ece2$ecafbf60$513d87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "'grandeval'" ; Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 8:50 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) > > The amount of labour put into a job is no guarantee for > the quality of that job, < +=+ Those who sought my views and received my input are the judges of its usefulness. +=+ < > please explain the meaning of your answer. < +=+ I look for the basis of overriding 8B; having established how the Director may do this I then agree that the Regulation provides for the entry of a score on the board. I regard this as a very simple position, less convoluted and insecure than the one you have laid out. +=+ < > What we agree about is that we need the possibility to > award an assigned score in case a board has to be removed. > +=+ Not exactly. You seek to 'assign' a score, I allow that 78D gives the SO authority to determine how the board shall be scored. But this is a barren discussion, given that it is laid down what score is to be entered however we interpret the procedure. ~ G ~ +=+ From john@asimere.com Tue Mar 18 00:40:41 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:40:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: <003501c2ecdf$1c339580$6b78bc3e@oemcomputer> References: <003501c2ecdf$1c339580$6b78bc3e@oemcomputer> Message-ID: In article <003501c2ecdf$1c339580$6b78bc3e@oemcomputer>, James Vickers writes >The following occurred at a Swiss Teams in the UK last week (love >all, dealer W): > > Q 7 6 > - > 10 9 7 6 3 > K Q 10 6 5 >5 2 J 10 3 >Q J 10 5 3 A K 8 7 4 >A K 8 5 Q J >J 7 A 9 3 > A K 9 8 4 > 9 6 2 > 4 2 > 8 4 2 > > W N E S > > P P 1H 1S >2NT(1) 3S X P > 4H(2) 4S X(3) P > P P > >(1) East reached for the alert card, then remembered that they had recently >agreed that 2NT by a passed hand is natural in this sequence, rather than >showing a good raise to 3H, and made it clear to the opponents that he was >not alerting. >(2) North got rather agitated when West bid 4H, called the director and said >he was suspicious that his opponents were having a misunderstanding and >asked to speak to the director away from the table. The TD consented >reluctantly, and when North returned the auction continued as shown. NS were >told to recall the TD if they felt they had been damaged. >(3) To double again may seem unwise here, but East was unsure of the ethical >constraints he might be under, and had to make a decision quickly. It >certainly looks as if North's suspicions are correct, but East was not >certain he was allowed to assume this. > >4SX made ten tricks, and NS seemed content. East informed them that the >director might >adjust to 3SX+1 if they called him back. North considered this for a moment, >then shrugged and continued with the next board. After a few more boards had >been played he called the >director back and asked for an adjusted score on the lines that East had >suggested. > >While the TDs were deliberating NS withdrew their request for a ruling, so >nothing came of the matter, but my questions are: > >1. What do you think of North's antics? What antics? he is seeking as best he can interpretation of the law. >2. What do you think of the director's response? He is carrying out his duties. If a player wishes to have a point of law clarified away from the table then the TD is *obliged* to do so. >3. Would you allow West's 4H call? totally routine. >4. Would you allow East to pass 4S? No. Double is automatic, if the agreement is "2N is Natural". >5. Is North's song and dance AI for East, i.e. is he allowed to use >information from North's behaviour to deduce that it is really partner who >has misbid, and so avoid a disastrous result? IMO No. It is arguable. >6. Would you as director entertain North's request for an adjusted score >several boards later, or are they out of time? You may seek a ruling until the end of the correction period, normally half an hour after the results are posted. > >(If you think EW's decisions are trivial in this case, I'm still interested >in the general principles, so would appreciate some answers.) I think the case is trivial, but it contains many points of interest. cheers John > >James Vickers >Wolverhampton, UK > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 18 02:32:17 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:32:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Down in the dumps Message-ID: At the end of last year I noted the inappropriate nature of the conditions of contest for the Australian playoffs, especially since teams were given incentives to dump matches. The playoffs were held recently, below is a link to mostly negative comments by the participants: http://www.abf.com.au/events/pqp/03Questionnaire.pdf In an email conversation with myself and Jeff Rubens, Ron Klinger wrote: [snip] >>>Team C had no real benefit in winning the quarter-final >>>match as it was guaranteed a semi-final berth >>>regardless of the outcome of its match. With Team B >>>well-clear in its match, it was in Team C's interest >>>to lose their match and meet Team B with a +16 c/f >>>rather than Team E where C had a -0.7 c/f. It would >>>have made an interesting case if Team C had conceded >>>the match when up by 68 imps. At the end of the event, >>>it certainly would have been in Team C's interest to >>>play Team F into the semi-finals - see later. [snip] I observed: >>I have been reliably informed that a member of Team C >>approached the Director to enquire whether Team C could >>legally concede its quarter-final match when 68 imps up. >> >>The Director replied to the hypothetical question by >>stating that such a concession would also disqualify >>Team C from the following session, ie Team C would also >>forfeit its semi-final match. Jeff Rubens asked: >What if both teams in a match try to concede? Does it >matter which one speaks to the director first? Or does >the team that is behind get priority? Best wishes Richard From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <005701c2ecf6$02e383d0$2f2e6651@annescomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Vickers" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:42 PM Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD > The following occurred at a Swiss Teams in the UK last week (love > all, dealer W): > > Q 7 6 > - > 10 9 7 6 3 > K Q 10 6 5 > 5 2 J 10 3 > Q J 10 5 3 A K 8 7 4 > A K 8 5 Q J > J 7 A 9 3 > A K 9 8 4 > 9 6 2 > 4 2 > 8 4 2 > > W N E S > > P P 1H 1S > 2NT(1) 3S X P > 4H(2) 4S X(3) P > P P > > (1) East reached for the alert card, then remembered that they had recently > agreed that 2NT by a passed hand is natural in this sequence, rather than > showing a good raise to 3H, and made it clear to the opponents that he was > not alerting. Fine. The call was not alerted. West has the unauthorised information that he has made a mistake. That East is playing him for a balanced 11 count. It is likely that the double of 3S is a penalty double based on this. West is not allowed to know this and must make great effort to bid as though he does not. The 4H bid is in my opinion mandated. > (2) North got rather agitated when West bid 4H, called the director and said > he was suspicious that his opponents were having a misunderstanding and > asked to speak to the director away from the table. There are players that like doing this. It isn't necessary in this case. These players seem to think that they can tell the TD something he can't work out for himself. The TD consented > reluctantly, and when North returned the auction continued as shown. NS were > told to recall the TD if they felt they had been damaged. Yes - that is standard practice. > (3) To double again may seem unwise here, but East was unsure of the ethical > constraints he might be under, and had to make a decision quickly. It > certainly looks as if North's suspicions are correct, but East was not > certain he was allowed to assume this. > East is under no ethical constraints that I can see. He has no UI > 4SX made ten tricks, and NS seemed content. East informed them that the > director might > adjust to 3SX+1 if they called him back. If N/S were a very weak pair I think East is correct to be helpful. This N/S I don't think needed it. They are strong enough to address the TD in a competent manner. North considered this for a moment, > then shrugged and continued with the next board. After a few more boards had > been played he called the > director back and asked for an adjusted score on the lines that East had > suggested. > > While the TDs were deliberating NS withdrew their request for a ruling, so > nothing came of the matter, but my questions are: > > 1. What do you think of North's antics? (It happens) > 2. What do you think of the director's response? (Was correct IMO) > 3. Would you allow West's 4H call? (Yes) > 4. Would you allow East to pass 4S? (Yes) > 5. Is North's song and dance AI for East, i.e. is he allowed to use > information from North's behaviour to deduce that it is really partner who > has misbid, and so avoid a disastrous result? (Certainly - but he does so at his peril) > 6. Would you as director entertain North's request for an adjusted score > several boards later, or are they out of time? (They are in time. The facts were reported to the TD at the time, so are not in dispute. This is normally the reason that late requests for rulings are refused.Law 81C6 says that TD must sort it out as long as he hears about the request before the end of the correction period - normally 30 mins after results are posted. In Swiss Teams it's usually at the start of the next match unless it's the last match. > > (If you think EW's decisions are trivial in this case, I'm still interested > in the general principles, so would appreciate some answers.) > No - decisions are not trivial. East certainly made an effort to be super ethical - I believe to his cost. Had I been the TD, and N/S had recalled me I would have ruled that the table result should stand. Anne --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 18 04:51:00 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:51:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: James Vickers wrote: [big snip] >(2) North got rather agitated when West bid >4H, called the director and said he was >suspicious that his opponents were having a >misunderstanding and asked to speak to the >director away from the table. The TD >consented reluctantly, and when North >returned the auction continued as shown. NS >were told to recall the TD if they felt they >had been damaged. [big snip] >1. What do you think of North's antics? Disapprove. North has called the TD prematurely, contrary to the timing laid out in the footnote to Law 16A2. It is also possible that North may have infracted Law 74B5, which prohibits any discourteous summoning of the TD. >2. What do you think of the director's response? Partly correct. The TD should not have given even a reluctant consent to North's extraneous request. In my opinion, the only time the TD should require a player to leave the table during the auction or play (apart from disciplinary reasons) is to prevent that player from receiving UI when their partner is correcting MI. For example, South makes a call, North is asked its partnership meaning, North says, "I forgot," the TD removes North from the table, South describes the partnership meaning. [snip] >5. Is North's song and dance AI for East, i.e. is >he allowed to use information from North's >behaviour to deduce that it is really partner who >has misbid, and so avoid a disastrous result? Yes and no. Yes, North singing is AI to East, but *not* South - North has infracted Law 73B1. Does the AI from North to East outweigh the UI from West to East? In my opinion, no. Other respected blmlers have the opposite opinion. >6. Would you as director entertain North's >request for an adjusted score several boards >later, or are they out of time? I would find it very entertaining. :-) However, technically North's request is in time (Law 81C6 and Law 79C). >(If you think EW's decisions are trivial in this >case, I'm still interested in the general >principles, so would appreciate some answers.) As a general principle, the TD should be summoned as soon as attention is drawn to an irregularity. In practice, players often do not bother, with occasional dire results. But this is the case which tests the rule; in this particular case IMHO it was North's summoning of the TD which was the irregularity. IMHO East has handled the UI correctly in accordance with Law 73D1, Law 73C and Law 16. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 18 05:16:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:16:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Slooow play Message-ID: In the Menton Rules and Regulations thread, Steve Willner wrote: >Kaplan was a big advocate of conduct penalties rather than score >penalties for slow play. Is there any way to apply that in a pair >game? (In a team game, at least up to the final round, you can forbid >a slow pair to play as a partnership in the next round.) I believe that in the early 70s a slooow pair won a major ACBL pairs championship. As a conduct penalty for their slooow play, the ACBL refused to accept their entry the following year. >Of course the threat of penalties, whether score or conduct, is aimed >at prevention. There's a separate question of how to get the game >back on track when a table is found to be running late. Use Law 90B2 => Law 12A2 => Law 12C1 => Law 88. Cancel any partially played board, give the OS Ave- and the NOS Ave+. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 18 06:19:34 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:19:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: Imps Vul: All Dlr: West The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Pass 1H Dble 3H Dble(1) Pass 4H Pass 5C Pass ? (1) Responsive, at least 4-4 minors You, East hold: AK7 A62 K9 KQ854 What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Mar 18 06:22:58 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:22:58 +1200 Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c2ed16$d5871b60$b29637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2003 6:20 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] WBF documents > > > Imps > Vul: All > Dlr: West > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > Pass 1H Dble > 3H Dble(1) Pass 4H > Pass 5C Pass ? > > (1) Responsive, at least 4-4 minors > > You, East hold: > > AK7 > A62 > K9 > KQ854 > > What are your logical alternatives? I think 6C is fair an ace and a stiff heart and I can't be much worse than 50% and partner should have more than that to offer the 4-level. It is hard to construct a hand without an Ace worth a double of 3H. The opponent's think they have a nine-card heart fit so I am willing to believe them if I am stuck. The issue for me is whether partner would bid only 5C with Qxx x Axxxx Axxx or the like so that 7C is a good prospect. And therefore do I cue on the way to 6C. I think 5H and 6C are the logical alternatives. Wayne > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam@tameware.com Tue Mar 18 06:35:49 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:35:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] 14-12 (Philadelphia Appeal 5) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 9:35 AM +0100 3/17/03, Ton wrote: >Reading L13C it sounds to me that the lawmakers did take into account the >posibility that for some unexplainable reason cards are moved from one to >another pocket after the board has been played. It says clearly that the >director only may cancel the board after having established the fact that >it contained 12 - 14 from the beginning. When I first read it it seemed to say no such thing: "C. Play Completed When it is determined after play ends that a player's hand originally contained more than 13 cards with another player holding correspondingly fewer, the result must be canceled (for procedural penalty, see Law 90)." I see now that that the key is the word "originally". I think perhaps an example would be a useful addition to the lawbook here. >I do remember such case in the Rhodes Olympiad (1996) in a slam board >resulting in a terrible score. The final decision, if I remember well, was >not to cancel the board since it couldn't be proven that the 12 - 14 was >there from the start on. I expect an example would have helped the directors in Rhodes, if they initially ruled that the result should be cancelled. I checked the '87 laws and I see the wording was the same, though several superfluous commas have been removed. The writeup of the case from Philly can be found here: ftp://www.acbl.org/nabc/2003spring/db8.pdf -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 18 07:43:14 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:43:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] I would always (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: I wrote: >>And the relatively objective way of determining >>whether self-deception has occurred is to judge >>what the LAs are for a player's peers. Marv replied: >Objective? L16A doesn't refer to "player's peers" >or even "class of player involved." LAs should be >judged in relation to the event. What what would a >typical player in this event consider to be an LA? >The principle is that all contestants in an event >should be treated as equals under the Laws. > >Having just returned from the Cradle of Liberty, >Philadelphia, the Jeffersonian idea of equality >has been even more strongly reinforced in my >thinking. Since the Laws fail to define an LA, then SOs have the power to fill that gap by regulation. Many SOs (including the WBF) use "class of players" or "peers" as part of their definitions of an LA. What Marv does believe, and Jefferson did believe, is meaningless in a discussion of what is *currently* Lawful. However, Marv's belief remains relevant in any debate about what an SO "should" define as an LA in a *future* regulation. While Marv has an excellent chance of winning such a debate, I would be arguing on the contrary Hamiltonian side. Best wishes Richard From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Mar 18 06:49:49 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:49:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF documents References: Message-ID: <001a01c2ed1a$989aa740$25b54351@noos.fr> Richard, LA? Pass is not really, partner should have an ace and a singleton heart and then some points. 6C is normal and any kind of GST is a LA. But seven is difficult, even with what I need he is far from sure to bid seven over say 5H. I guess partner's 5C was slow. One very good explanation is that he is trying to figure out if 4H is a slamtry or just choice of games (from his point of view you might still be interested in 4S) or something in between. Who knows the meaning of 4S (proposal !?, cuebid !?) or 4NT (Blackwood without trump suit !?, pick a minor !?, general slamtry !?) from partner over 4H? And the answer to this question has implications for the meaning of and the choice between 5C and 5D (with a minimum it is far from clear what to bid with 4C5D). Seems normal that partner needs some time. Short in this kind of complicated infrequent sequences UI is very often overrated. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] WBF documents > Imps > Vul: All > Dlr: West > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > Pass 1H Dble > 3H Dble(1) Pass 4H > Pass 5C Pass ? > > (1) Responsive, at least 4-4 minors > > You, East hold: > > AK7 > A62 > K9 > KQ854 > > What are your logical alternatives? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Tue Mar 18 08:26:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:26:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Slooow play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c2ed28$1d4cea90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au .............. > I believe that in the early 70s a slooow pair won a major ACBL pairs > championship. As a conduct penalty for their slooow play, the ACBL > refused to accept their entry the following year. On what legal ground? If this is really true I think ACBL went way out = of line. >=20 > >Of course the threat of penalties, whether score or conduct, is aimed > >at prevention. There's a separate question of how to get the game > >back on track when a table is found to be running late. >=20 > Use Law 90B2 =3D> Law 12A2 =3D> Law 12C1 =3D> Law 88. Cancel any = partially > played board, give the OS Ave- and the NOS Ave+. Law 90B2 advices the possibility of giving a procedural penalty for slow play, it does not in any way open for the cancellation of a board in = play. The condition for using Law 12A2 is that "no rectification can be made = that will permit normal play of the board". This condition simply does not = exist in the case of a board being played when the round should end. Your "best" argument is Law 12C1, however you fail to demonstrate any = reason why "no result can be obtained", in fact there is no reason, so even = this law fails to be applicable. In Norway we have a saying: "... like the devil reads the Bible", I have = the feeling this saying is appropriate here. Regards Sven From kaima13@hotmail.com Tue Mar 18 12:15:53 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:15:53 -0800 Subject: [blml] WBF documents-logical alternatives References: Message-ID: > Imps > Vul: All > Dlr: West > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > Pass 1H Dble > 3H Dble(1) Pass 4H > Pass 5C Pass ? > > (1) Responsive, at least 4-4 minors > > You, East hold: > > AK7 > A62 > K9 > KQ854 > > What are your logical alternatives? > > Best wishes > > Richard K: Pass looks logical. I have already told partner who was a passed and that a) I have an opening hand (first X) b) denied a spade oriented hand and thereby support for the minors plus promised significant extras (by 4H) and c)asked partner to pick contract. He picked 5C. 6C could work, but even with his rather obvious heart singleton, partner didn't bid 6, even after I cue 4H which is a very strong bid - he might not hold any aces. 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 Tue Mar 18 13:38:54 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:38:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030318143014.02c03780@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:19 18/03/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Imps >Vul: All >Dlr: West > >The bidding has gone: > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > Pass 1H Dble >3H Dble(1) Pass 4H >Pass 5C Pass ? > >(1) Responsive, at least 4-4 minors > >You, East hold: > >AK7 >A62 >K9 >KQ854 > >What are your logical alternatives? AG : basically, pass is not a LA. If partner hesitated before bidding 5C, I would consider the statement of : "If I did want to bid 6C and no more, I would have done it. My cue-bid committed us to 6C in case that partner preferred diamonds (which would be bad knews). Now that partner made a bid that suits us even more, looking for 7C is obvious" to be, not self-serving, but quite convincing. The player with this hand decided he would go all the way to 6C at least. Since as little as xxx - x - QJxxx - Axxx makes 6C nearly laydown, it's reasonable. I would now bid 5NT (BW, with 41-30 responses), but 5C is also a possibility. 6C is, too, because it already hints at 7 (else why cue-bid ?). Best regards, Alain. From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Tue Mar 18 15:00:52 2003 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:00:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030318150052.83DA92C812@www.fastmail.fm> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:19:34 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au said: > Imps > Vul: All > Dlr: West > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > Pass 1H Dble > 3H Dble(1) Pass 4H > Pass 5C Pass ? > > (1) Responsive, at least 4-4 minors > > You, East hold: > > AK7 > A62 > K9 > KQ854 > > What are your logical alternatives? 5H and 6C. -- Dave Kent -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an unladen european swallow From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Mar 18 15:16:01 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:16:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 25B Message-ID: Hi BLMMrs, Case 1: N E S W 1D P P ... oops 1S....I did not see my partner's opening.... TD The TD rules 25B, change of mind before LHO called. Option 1: LHO accepts 1S and auction proceeds without penalty (25B1). Option 2: LHO did not accept and 25B2 applies. Routine. Case 2: N E S W 1D P P ... oops.....TD When called, the TD is told by S that he did not see N's opening and wants to change his call to 1S. Does the TD must still apply Law 25B1 and must offer W the option of accepting 1S ? Case 3: N E S W 1D P P ... oops.....TD When called, the TD is told by S that he did not see N's opening and wants to change his call. Does the TD must ask to S what he wants now to call (1S) and still apply Law 25B1 to that substituted call ? IMHO, Law 25 is written as if TD was called after a player already changed his call (case 1). Most often, the TD is called before the player tried to substitute his call (cases 2 or 3). May be we need two different chapters ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From svenpran@online.no Tue Mar 18 15:47:54 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:47:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25B In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c2ed65$bd75f7e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laval Dubreuil > Sent: 18. mars 2003 16:16 > To: BLML > Subject: [blml] Law 25B >=20 > Hi BLMMrs, >=20 > Case 1: N E S W > 1D P P ... oops 1S....I did not see my > partner's opening.... TD > The TD rules 25B, change of mind before LHO called. > Option 1: LHO accepts 1S and auction proceeds > without penalty (25B1). > Option 2: LHO did not accept and 25B2 applies. > Routine. >=20 >=20 > Case 2: N E S W > 1D P P ... oops.....TD > When called, the TD is told by S that he did not see > N's opening and wants to change his call to 1S. > Does the TD must still apply Law 25B1 and must offer > W the option of accepting 1S ? Same procedures as in case 1: L25B1 OR L25B2 depending upon LHO. =20 >=20 > Case 3: N E S W > 1D P P ... oops.....TD > When called, the TD is told by S that he did not see > N's opening and wants to change his call. > Does the TD must ask to S what he wants now to call > (1S) and still apply Law 25B1 to that substituted call ? TD must explain the consequences of naming a changed call. If South when hearing this changes his mind and does not want to change = his call after all the resulting ruling shall be that partner (North) now = has the unauthorized information that South made a mistake. (This = information is authorized for East/West.) >=20 > IMHO, Law 25 is written as if TD was called after a player > already changed his call (case 1). Most often, the TD > is called before the player tried to substitute his call > (cases 2 or 3). May be we need two different chapters ? No, the information that a player would have preferred to make a = different call is unauthorized for partner, but it is not a change of call so Law = 25 does not apply. Nor do we need another chapter, Law 16 is quite = sufficient. Regards Sven From gillp@bigpond.com Tue Mar 18 16:09:35 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:09:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: <001a01c2ed68$c5a67f40$a8c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Richard Hills wrote: >Imps >Vul: All >Dlr: West > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > Pass 1H Dble >3H Dble(1) Pass 4H >Pass 5C Pass ? > >(1) Responsive, at least 4-4 minors > >You, East hold: > >AK7 >A62 >K9 >KQ854 > >What are your logical alternatives? This is a difficult question. On a large Bidding Panel, I would expect votes for Pass, 6C and perhaps even for some grand slam tries. There are many unanswered questions which make a definitive answer to Richard's question presumptuous: (1) LA in which jurisdiction - the definition of LA varies from America to Europe, doesn't it? (2) Are they playing 4 or 5 card majors? This massively affects the likelihood of partner having a singleton heart. (3) What does 5C mean? For example, Alain Gottcheiner expects partner to bid 5C on xxx, x, QJxxx, Axxx. I certainly would not expect such a hand ot bid 5C. In some partnerships 5C would obviously deny a five card diamond holding, making slam much less attractive, as there is less chance of parking the spade loser on a diamond winner. In fact, a good case can be made that partner is odds on to have a 3=1=4=5 shape. None of the sample hands used by any other poster is that shape. (4) Was my 4H bid a slam try or a "choice of games" cue bid? If the former, as many people would play, then partner has turned down my slam invitation. I accept that some players [blml posters?] like to ignore partner's [other blml posters'? :) ] decisions by re-imposing their will on partner, after partner has been consulted and offered an opinion. (5) What standard are the players? How much do they trust this particular pair of opponents? (6) Is partner in the habit of straining to bid in this particular position? If so, he may already have won the hand by doubling 3H. At the other table, my hand may pass out 3H, or bid a failing 3NT with 5C cold. (7) What would 4S (and 4NT) over 4H have meant? So my answer to Richard's question is that there is no clear answer. Still, I feel a bit out of my depth on this one, as I totally fail to comprehend Richard's Subject Line. I think that those thinking of a grand are probably not trusting partner's 5C call to mean what it appears to mean, i.e. that he is unable to bid 4NT, 5D, 4S or 6C opposite my 4H call which he can see is opposite a passed hand. Hands which partner could have include: Jxx, Q, Jxxx, AJ10xx A poor max, 5C might fail on a very bad day. QJx, J, Q109x, AJxxx A supermax for 5C, 6C makes. QJx, Qx, QJxx, J109x Unlikely: an over-aggressive Double of 3H at this vulnerability, and seems to be a 4NT (not 5C) call over 4H. A point in favour of 6C is that the bidding favours DA being onside. Summarising all this, it should be pretty obvious that I would expect Pass and 6C to both be LAs under most circumstances. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 18 16:15:44 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:15:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: <200303181615.LAA16472@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > W N E S > P P 1H 1S > 2NT(1) 3S X P > 4H(2) 4S X(3) P > P P > From: "Anne Jones" > Fine. The call was not alerted. West has the unauthorised information that > he has made a mistake. That East is playing him for a balanced 11 count. It > is likely that the double of 3S is a penalty double based on this. I'm with you up to here, but the "penalty double" is in fact based on West's having shown something useful in spades via the 2NT bid. > West is > not allowed to know this and must make great effort to bid as though he does > not. The 4H bid is in my opinion mandated. I don't see how the 4H bid is even legal, let alone mandated. From West's point of view, based on AI, he has shown heart support and nothing in spades. East's penalty double must be unilateral, and West has no reason to pull. The UI suggests pulling the double, so pulling is illegal. This seems so clear I would consider a PP if West is an experienced player. This is another example of the difficulties created by the present Laws. West has to bid according to a fantasy bidding system. In this case, we are helped by the fact that the fantasy bidding system is the one the partnership used to play. After the misbid, West will be in difficulty once East fails to alert, even if that is done entirely without special emphasis. > > (2) North got rather agitated when West bid 4H, called the director and > said > > he was suspicious that his opponents were having a misunderstanding and > > asked to speak to the director away from the table. > There are players that like doing this. It isn't necessary in this case. > These players seem to think that they can tell the TD something he can't > work out for himself. As Anne says, there is no excuse for getting agitated. As Richard pointed out, North's TD call is badly timed. Still, the TD has to rule. > East is under no ethical constraints that I can see. He has no UI ...on the facts reported. It may well be that West did something to indicate his misbid. Even if so, I don't think East is required to double again; he has already shown a desire to penalize spades and has nothing extra. However, a lot depends on what the second double would mean in this partnership. Fortunately, this will not matter to the actual ruling. In my opinion, it should be 3Sx+1. North gets a lecture on the proper time to call the TD and proper manner for doing so; conceivably a PP depending on how he expressed his "rather agitated" condition. > > East informed them that the director might > > adjust to 3SX+1 if they called him back. This was a good thing for East to do. I have the feeling that the EW partnership may not last long because they seem to have very different ideas of how the game should be played. > > North considered this for a moment, > > then shrugged and continued with the next board. After a few more boards > had > > been played he called the > > director back and asked for an adjusted score on the lines that East had > > suggested. There is nothing wrong with thinking the matter over before requesting a ruling. As others have pointed out, North has until the end of the Appeals Period to make such an request. BLML technical point: I believe the time expires at the end of the L92B _Appeals Period_ and not the L79C _Correction Period_. These are often the same but need not be. > > 5. Is North's song and dance AI for East, i.e. is he allowed to use > > information from North's behaviour to deduce that it is really partner who > > has misbid, and so avoid a disastrous result? (Certainly - but he does so > at his peril) I agree with Anne. Mannerisms of opponents are AI. Whyever not? However, in this case there seems no way for East to avoid disaster. West has misbid and cannot use UI to recover. Of course creating a situation that will cause an opponent to reveal something -- one form of coffeehousing -- is illegal under L72B1 and perhaps other Laws as well. There's no suggestion of that here. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 18 14:26:57 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:26:57 +0100 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030318151633.029d10c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Small correction : in my previous mail : >>The bidding has gone: >> >>SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >> Pass 1H Dble >>3H Dble(1) Pass 4H >>Pass 5C Pass ? >> >>(1) Responsive, at least 4-4 minors >> >>You, East hold: >> >>AK7 >>A62 >>K9 >>KQ854 >> >>What are your logical alternatives? > >I would now bid 5NT (BW, with 41-30 responses), but 5C is also a possibility. I meant ' 5H is also a possibility ' . Those 'coeurs' interfere again and again with 'clubs'. >6C is, too, because it already hints at 7 (else why cue-bid ?). > >Best regards, > > Alain. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 18 16:30:10 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:30:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25B In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030318171503.00a87620@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:16 18/03/2003 -0500, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >Hi BLMMrs, > >Case 1: N E S W > 1D P P ... oops 1S....I did not see my > partner's opening.... TD > The TD rules 25B, change of mind before LHO called. > Option 1: LHO accepts 1S and auction proceeds > without penalty (25B1). > Option 2: LHO did not accept and 25B2 applies. > Routine. > > >Case 2: N E S W > 1D P P ... oops.....TD > When called, the TD is told by S that he did not see > N's opening and wants to change his call to 1S. > Does the TD must still apply Law 25B1 and must offer > W the option of accepting 1S ? > > >Case 3: N E S W > 1D P P ... oops.....TD > When called, the TD is told by S that he did not see > N's opening and wants to change his call. > Does the TD must ask to S what he wants now to call > (1S) and still apply Law 25B1 to that substituted call ? > >IMHO, Law 25 is written as if TD was called after a player >already changed his call (case 1). Most often, the TD >is called before the player tried to substitute his call >(cases 2 or 3). May be we need two different chapters ? AG : You may add a 4th case : the player tells the TD, away from the table, what his problem is. But IMHO L25 covers all of these : "a player mat correct ... a declaration may be changed ..." It doesn't seem relevant whether the attempted correction already happened or not. If he did, he may (or may not) ; if he didn't, and wants to, he may (or not). Of course, from case 1 downwards to case 4, the amount of UI transmitted will become lower. But as far as L25 is concerned, the cases are one and the same. A question linked to this one is : "does the mere fact of calling the TD (or not) create UI ?". According to L73, it may. Say that LHO takes too much time before passing, and RHO reopens. I'm usually quick to call the TD. Suppose I don't. There is a reasonable inference that I'm happy to see him reopen. Is partner allowed to use it ? The list in L73C doesn't mention keeping quiet as a source of information, but sometimes the non-barking player tells much. Best regards, Alain. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 18 16:29:50 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:29:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Slooow play Message-ID: <200303181629.LAA16486@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > I believe that in the early 70s a slooow pair won a major ACBL pairs > > championship. As a conduct penalty for their slooow play, the ACBL > > refused to accept their entry the following year. > From: "Sven Pran" > On what legal ground? If this is really true I think ACBL went way out of > line. I don't know the story Richard refers to, but the ACBL maintains the right to exclude anyone from any of its events for conduct reasons. Of course such measures will be effective for prevention only if announced in advance and perhaps not even then. > > Use Law 90B2 => Law 12A2 => Law 12C1 => Law 88. Cancel any partially > > played board, give the OS Ave- and the NOS Ave+. I like Grattan's approach better: L5B gives the TD authority to order a move (enforced by L91 if necessary), and L12A1 gives authority for an assigned adjusted score. Unlike Grattan, I don't think _the TD_ needs to go to 78D, although that certainly allows _the SO_ to make regulations about slow play. Of course saying the TD has the authority is not to say that he is required to use it the instant a table is a few seconds over time. As others have said, cancelling a board in play should be a very last resort, not least because it will take the TD some time to determine the proper score to assign. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Mar 18 16:48:46 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:48:46 -0800 Subject: [blml] Slooow play References: <200303181629.LAA16486@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001b01c2ed6e$4085ef20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Playing E-W in the Open 1 qual in Philadelphia, Alice and I followed Paul Soloway. We spent a lot of time time standing, while the TD made only slight moves toward speeding him up. He played thru both breaks, depriving some pairs of their break time. Once, completing a round three minutes late, instead of moving to the next table he waddled off slowly in the opposite direction. Poor guy, I thought, he must have a health problem. No, he just wanted to get a glass of water. Bob Hamman is another culprit. With the round already over, he may take 4-5 minutes to decide on a play. With TDs afraid to offend such players, I hope you all can come up with a solution that will give me more playing time. Something objective, perhaps, like an automatic matchpoint PP for every minute of preventable lateness. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Tue Mar 18 16:54:23 2003 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:54:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: <001a01c2ed68$c5a67f40$a8c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <001a01c2ed68$c5a67f40$a8c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <20030318165423.8BA272CC05@www.fastmail.fm> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:09:35 +1100, "Peter Gill" said: > Richard Hills wrote: > >Imps > >Vul: All > >Dlr: West > > > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > > Pass 1H Dble > >3H Dble(1) Pass 4H > >Pass 5C Pass ? > > > >(1) Responsive, at least 4-4 minors > > > >You, East hold: > > > >AK7 > >A62 > >K9 > >KQ854 > > > >What are your logical alternatives? > > > This is a difficult question. On a large Bidding Panel, I would expect > votes for Pass, 6C and perhaps even for some grand slam tries. > I do not understand how Pass can possibly be a logical alternative. If, over 4H, partner had bid 5D, were you going to Pass? -- Dave Kent -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Tue Mar 18 17:13:24 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:13:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 25B References: Message-ID: <001001c2ed71$af442000$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:16 PM Subject: [blml] Law 25B > Hi BLMMrs, > > Case 1: N E S W > 1D P P ... oops 1S....I did not see my > partner's opening.... TD > The TD rules 25B, change of mind before LHO called. > Option 1: LHO accepts 1S and auction proceeds > without penalty (25B1). > Option 2: LHO did not accept and 25B2 applies. > Routine. > > > Case 2: N E S W > 1D P P ... oops.....TD > When called, the TD is told by S that he did not see > N's opening and wants to change his call to 1S. > Does the TD must still apply Law 25B1 and must offer > W the option of accepting 1S ? > > > Case 3: N E S W > 1D P P ... oops.....TD > When called, the TD is told by S that he did not see > N's opening and wants to change his call. > Does the TD must ask to S what he wants now to call > (1S) and still apply Law 25B1 to that substituted call ? > > IMHO, Law 25 is written as if TD was called after a player > already changed his call (case 1). Most often, the TD > is called before the player tried to substitute his call > (cases 2 or 3). May be we need two different chapters ? > What we need is a no law that lets a player change a call once made except inadvertent ones as in 25A > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gillp@bigpond.com Tue Mar 18 17:26:03 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 04:26:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: <003201c2ed73$76875dc0$aa8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> David Kent wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: >> Richard Hills wrote: >>>Imps Vul: All Dlr: West >>> >>>SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >>> Pass 1H Dble >>>3H Dble(1) Pass 4H >>>Pass 5C Pass ? >>> >>>(1) Responsive, at least 4-4 minors >>> >>>You, East hold: >>> >>>AK7 >>>A62 >>>K9 >>>KQ854 >>> >>>What are your logical alternatives? >> >> This is a difficult question. On a large Bidding Panel, I would expect >> votes for Pass, 6C and perhaps even for some grand slam tries. > >I do not understand how Pass can possibly be a logical alternative. >If, over 4H, partner had bid 5D, were you going to Pass? As stated elsewhere in my previous post, everything depends on what the responses to 4H mean. If 4H means "I have a slam try in either clubs or diamonds or both", then surely only a cretin would fail to realise that 5D is an acceptance of the club slam try, whereas 5C is a non acceptance of a club slam try. Pardon my language. Opposite a Multi 2D, do you think that a 2S response says that we belong in 2H if you have hearts, partner? This is exactly the same basic principle. Having bid 4H, over 5D I plan to bid 6C of course. This is where the standard of the players comes in. Partnering David Burn (something I've never done) for example, I would expect partner to make all sorts of deep and logical conclusions about this type of bidding sequence. However, partnering one of my clients or some of the blml posters, I would not have bid 4H, because it is becoming obvious that a logical auction would not be possible under such circumstances. With clients I would simply bid 4NT Blackwood over the Double, then play a right-sided 6C opposite an ace or two. With a blmler as a partner, I would have much more difficulty as partner probably would not treat my 4NT as Blackwood. A pity. It follows that the fact that I chose 4H as my previous call suggests that I am sitting opposite someone of David Burn's standard, e.g. Eric Rodwell, Fred Gitelman or Andy Robson - no offence intended to David. It is beginning to dawn on me that perhaps one or two blmlers may not have come to grips with the subtleties of this auction. Peter Gill. From kaima13@hotmail.com Tue Mar 18 17:42:54 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:42:54 -0800 Subject: [blml] WBF documents-logical alternatives References: <001401c2ed4c$1b9a7540$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Hello Jaap, You questioned my opinion regarding logical alternative. I gave my opinion based on logical systems that I play and assuming partner is a logical player. Also assuming that opponents are playing five card majors. First. He was a passed hand and we open hands by Rule of 20 (not by HCP) - therefore he CANNOT have a distributional hand good enuff to produce a slam - - and everybody already knows he has a heart singleton so he DOES have distributional hand - - even opposite my 4H that in itself is inviting to slam and forces to game. Subsequently, grands are totally out of question because partner CANNOT have two aces, small slam possible if partner bids anything other than 5C or 5D. I will be continuing over his possible 4S bid. I had an opportunity to bid 3S,3NT, 4C,4D,4S,4NT or some higher level call - instead, I chose to show a big hand by 4H, so partner knows I am big and allowing him to pick the minor (if he was interested in spades, he would have bid them on the 3-level, which as a voluntary call alredy promises some values; or 4-level) - given all this, and still he only bid 5 of a minor. I am not in the habit of overruling partner, though in this case the temptation is very great. He might have stretched to make the responsive double on the power of his singleton heart, which will be valuable for his partner in any other than NT contract. Anyway, these are my thoughts. If there is a flaw in logic, then I need a lesson:)) kaima > Kaima: > > b) denied a spade oriented hand > > and thereby support for the minors plus promised significant extras (by > 4H) > > Why does 4H deny a spade oriented hand ? > > Kaima: > > c)asked partner to pick contract. > > How did you ask partner to pick a contract ? Does 4H mean 'partner bid the > final contract'. Not an impossible meaning but hardly obvious. > > Kaima: > > even after I cue 4H which is a very strong bid > > This is not exactly consistent with the above 'asking partner to bid a > contract'. A possible meaning of 4H is 'partner pick a game including 4S'. > If so this is not 'a very strong bid'. But in real life nobody knows what 4H > means, this alone can/will provoke some thinking by partner. > > Kaima: > > he might not hold any aces. > > It is not that easy to construct a reasonable double of 3H lacking an ace. I > don't expect a reasonable player to stretch bidding on a singleton K and a > couple of minor honnors. > > > Jaap > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "kaima" > To: ; > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:15 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] WBF documents-logical alternatives > > > > > > > > > Imps > > > Vul: All > > > Dlr: West > > > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > > > > Pass 1H Dble > > > 3H Dble(1) Pass 4H > > > Pass 5C Pass ? > > > > > > (1) Responsive, at least 4-4 minors > > > > > > You, East hold: > > > > > > AK7 > > > A62 > > > K9 > > > KQ854 > > > > > > What are your logical alternatives? > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > Richard > > > > K: Pass looks logical. I have already told partner who was a passed and > > that a) I have an opening hand (first X) b) denied a spade oriented hand > > and thereby support for the minors plus promised significant extras (by > 4H) > > and c)asked partner to pick contract. He picked 5C. > > 6C could work, but even with his rather obvious heart singleton, partner > > didn't bid 6, even after I cue 4H which is a very strong bid - he might > not > > hold any aces. > > Best regards, > > Kaima aka D R Davis > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue Mar 18 18:55:36 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:55:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Slooow play In-Reply-To: <000201c2ed28$1d4cea90$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030318134233.00bc0f60@mail.comcast.net> At 03:26 AM 3/18/2003, Sven Pran wrote: > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au >.............. > > I believe that in the early 70s a slooow pair won a major ACBL pairs > > championship. As a conduct penalty for their slooow play, the ACBL > > refused to accept their entry the following year. > >On what legal ground? If this is really true I think ACBL went way out of >line. The grounds are in the conditions of contest. I found an incomplete version of the rules for the major KO's in the ACBL Codification: http://www.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%208-%20Section%20f.pdf The handbook allows players one late-finishing segment, and a total of ten minutes of lateness, for every eight sessions played. Every additional late-finishing segment or ten minutes costs the player one seeding point for the following year, and carry over as a penalty to that year (but can be made up by on-time finishes). Printed conditions of contest handed out at the NABC's add the fact that any player who accumulates ten slow-play penalty points will be barred from the event for the next year. From nancy@dressing.org Tue Mar 18 21:24:08 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:24:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Slooow play References: <200303181629.LAA16486@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001b01c2ed6e$4085ef20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003401c2ed94$b679e620$6501a8c0@hare> I must agree with Marvin about slow play by the experts!! I have caddied many, many National Bridge Championships and a World Championship and have had to make several trips back to particular tables to get the score slips of these slow players.. It is really difficult to understand why these folks aren't held to the same requirements as one expects us to hold our players to. The Truscotts, Kathy Wei, Bergen. Rodwell, Mechstroth, etc have all been guilty. I don't believe there is a director at any level tournament would ever call a player for slow play or do anything more that tell them to hurry along and try to catch up. Usually that only happens in the lower ranked events. These slow players are not only holding up the pair following them, but also the scorers, the caddies, and the directors. Bridge allegedly is a timed event. (I have noted in the Ladies Team Trials, and some of the more prestigious team games that the time limits are rigidly enforced. But these players aren't holding anyone up, they just must finish for themselves and because they know they will be penalized, they finish on time!!!). The ACBL attempted in a tournament many years ago, I think St. Louis in the early eighties, to stress on time play and to enforce the slow play rules. The only place that seemed to occur was in the very low ranked games and I think it only lasted about 2 days. It seems to me that even discussing penalties, etc for slow play is both a waste of time and effort, because it will never happen until all directors get up the courage to insist the event is played within the time constraints and issue, not warnings, but penalties to whoever earns them!!! Can you imagine winning a basketball game with a delayed basket because you needed the extra time to run down the court to make your shot???? The experts who flagrantly violate the time rules should be penalized. In fact, their skills should probably permit them to play at a faster pace than the average player. Do they win because they get 20 minutes per board when the rest of us only get 15???? We should remember that they are not the important people in the game but the average player who loses interest because of the stress of having to play their rounds at a faster pace to make up for the slow down caused by the "snail". I would eliminate hospitality breaks, etc. and expect the players to keep the pace as required by game as we do in a lot of our local clubs. It certainly would encourage some players to speed up, because now they might have a very good reason to play faster. Until some one decides that these things really matter, nothing will ever change these players! Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Slooow play > Playing E-W in the Open 1 qual in Philadelphia, Alice and I followed Paul > Soloway. We spent a lot of time time standing, while the TD made only > slight moves toward speeding him up. He played thru both breaks, depriving > some pairs of their break time. Once, completing a round three minutes late, > instead of moving to the next table he waddled off slowly in the opposite > direction. Poor guy, I thought, he must have a health problem. No, he just > wanted to get a glass of water. > > Bob Hamman is another culprit. With the round already over, he may take 4-5 > minutes to decide on a play. > > With TDs afraid to offend such players, I hope you all can come up with a > solution that will give me more playing time. Something objective, perhaps, > like an automatic matchpoint PP for every minute of preventable lateness. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From kaima13@hotmail.com Tue Mar 18 21:46:13 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:46:13 -0800 Subject: [blml] Slooow play References: <200303181629.LAA16486@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001b01c2ed6e$4085ef20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <003401c2ed94$b679e620$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: AMEN, Nancy!!! I am glad someone musters up the courage to spell out the truth. No more Sominex coups by those who certainly are capable of performing bridge actions in adequate tempo. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "Marvin French" ; Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Slooow play > I must agree with Marvin about slow play by the experts!! I have caddied > many, many National Bridge Championships and a World Championship and have > had to make several trips back to particular tables to get the score slips > of these slow players.. It is really difficult to understand why these > folks aren't held to the same requirements as one expects us to hold our > players to. The Truscotts, Kathy Wei, Bergen. Rodwell, Mechstroth, etc have > all been guilty. I don't believe there is a director at any level > tournament would ever call a player for slow play or do anything more that > tell them to hurry along and try to catch up. Usually that only happens in > the lower ranked events. These slow players are not only holding up the > pair following them, but also the scorers, the caddies, and the directors. > Bridge allegedly is a timed event. (I have noted in the Ladies Team Trials, > and some of the more prestigious team games that the time limits are rigidly > enforced. But these players aren't holding anyone up, they just must finish > for themselves and because they know they will be penalized, they finish on > time!!!). > > The ACBL attempted in a tournament many years ago, I think St. Louis in the > early eighties, to stress on time play and to enforce the slow play rules. > The only place that seemed to occur was in the very low ranked games and I > think it only lasted about 2 days. > > It seems to me that even discussing penalties, etc for slow play is both a > waste of time and effort, because it will never happen until all directors > get up the courage to insist the event is played within the time constraints > and issue, not warnings, but penalties to whoever earns them!!! Can you > imagine winning a basketball game with a delayed basket because you needed > the extra time to run down the court to make your shot???? > > The experts who flagrantly violate the time rules should be penalized. In > fact, their skills should probably permit them to play at a faster pace than > the average player. Do they win because they get 20 minutes per board when > the rest of us only get 15???? We should remember that they are not the > important people in the game but the average player who loses interest > because of the stress of having to play their rounds at a faster pace to > make up for the slow down caused by the "snail". > > I would eliminate hospitality breaks, etc. and expect the players to keep > the pace as required by game as we do in a lot of our local clubs. It > certainly would encourage some players to speed up, because now they might > have a very good reason to play faster. Until some one decides that these > things really matter, nothing will ever change these players! > > Nancy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin French" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:48 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Slooow play > > > > Playing E-W in the Open 1 qual in Philadelphia, Alice and I followed Paul > > Soloway. We spent a lot of time time standing, while the TD made only > > slight moves toward speeding him up. He played thru both breaks, depriving > > some pairs of their break time. Once, completing a round three minutes > late, > > instead of moving to the next table he waddled off slowly in the opposite > > direction. Poor guy, I thought, he must have a health problem. No, he just > > wanted to get a glass of water. > > > > Bob Hamman is another culprit. With the round already over, he may take > 4-5 > > minutes to decide on a play. > > > > With TDs afraid to offend such players, I hope you all can come up with a > > solution that will give me more playing time. Something objective, > perhaps, > > like an automatic matchpoint PP for every minute of preventable lateness. > > > > Marv > > Marvin L. French > > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 henk@ripe.net Tue Mar 18 22:15:04 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:15:04 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Slooow play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Bridge allegedly is a timed event. I think that this is the key issue. Elsewhere in the world, players will agree, but in ACBL land they disagree. Until that changes, any attempts to make it into a timed event are futile, slow play penalties are considered absurd and nobody will generally care. > (I have noted in the Ladies Team Trials, I'm not suprised, the 2000 Venice cup was decided by slow play penalties. 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 mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Mar 18 22:20:14 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:20:14 -0800 Subject: [blml] I would always (was Appeal 666) References: Message-ID: <001901c2ed9c$a74cbb20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hill wrote: > >>And the relatively objective way of determining > >>whether self-deception has occurred is to judge > >>what the LAs are for a player's peers. > > Marv replied: > > >Objective? L16A doesn't refer to "player's peers" > >or even "class of player involved." LAs should be > >judged in relation to the event. What what would a > >typical player in this event consider to be an LA? > >The principle is that all contestants in an event > >should be treated as equals under the Laws. > > > >Having just returned from the Cradle of Liberty, > >Philadelphia, the Jeffersonian idea of equality > >has been even more strongly reinforced in my > >thinking. > > Since the Laws fail to define an LA, then SOs have > the power to fill that gap by regulation. Many SOs > (including the WBF) use "class of players" or "peers" > as part of their definitions of an LA. > > What Marv does believe, and Jefferson did believe, is > meaningless in a discussion of what is *currently* > Lawful. > > However, Marv's belief remains relevant in any > debate about what an SO "should" define as an LA in > a *future* regulation. > > While Marv has an excellent chance of winning such a > debate, I would be arguing on the contrary Hamiltonian > side. > The ACBL refers to "equivalent players" in its regulation, perhaps synonymous with "class of player" or "peers," perhaps not. ACBL definition of LA in the Tech Files: A call that would be seriously considered by at least a substantial minority of equivalent players, acting on the basis of all information legitimately available. Without violating regulation, one can argue that all players within an event, or within a skill stratum of an event, may be considered "equivalent" under the Laws. As it is now, players are put into three groups by the "class of player" enthusiasts: obviously strong, obviously weak, and all others. The "others" (a large majority) include both the strong and the weak, and there is no objective means of measuring their strength or determining their predilections. Polling both "experts" and peers for opinions about LAs and MI effects is popular right now at NABCs. That's okay, but they are not asking the right questions, which are of this nature: "In this event, given this hand and auction so far, which calls do you think a substantial minority, at least, would seriously consider?" "In this event, given this hand and auction so far, with the corrected information about the opposing auction, which calls do you think a typical player would make, with a 1/3 probability? Also, with a 2/3 probability?" (Probabilities are needed for possible application to L12C2, in which the OS and NOS may get different adjustments) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Mar 18 22:48:24 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:48:24 -0800 Subject: [blml] Slooow play References: Message-ID: <002401c2eda0$7e544f40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Henk Uijterwaal > > > Bridge allegedly is a timed event. > > I think that this is the key issue. Elsewhere in the world, players will > agree, but in ACBL land they disagree. Until that changes, any attempts > to make it into a timed event are futile, slow play penalties are > considered absurd and nobody will generally care. > The ACBLScore Tech Files instruct TDs to apply either L90 or L91 for slow play, depending on the attitude of the pair. The former is appealable, the latter not, and an appeal has to be well-founded to avoid an Appeal Without Merit Warning. There is nothing said about the appropriate magnitude of a penalty, which evidently is up to the TD. This was an "Office Interpretation" in 1992, implementing instructions from the BoD that slow play regulations should be enforced. No one disagrees, other than the culprits and the TDs on the floor who prefer not to follow the instructions. Is it possible that the top players have enough influence to affect the careers of TDs who give them a hard time? As Nancy comments, using breaks for extra playing time is unfair to those who play two boards in the 15 minutes provided. That should be penalized as slow play, even if it results in catching up. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <004701c2eda3$7bc20440$2f2e6651@annescomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Private discussion with the TD > > W N E S > > P P 1H 1S > > 2NT(1) 3S X P > > 4H(2) 4S X(3) P > > P P > > > From: "Anne Jones" > > Fine. The call was not alerted. West has the unauthorised information that > > he has made a mistake. That East is playing him for a balanced 11 count. It > > is likely that the double of 3S is a penalty double based on this. > > I'm with you up to here, but the "penalty double" is in fact based on > West's having shown something useful in spades via the 2NT bid. > > > West is > > not allowed to know this and must make great effort to bid as though he does > > not. The 4H bid is in my opinion mandated. > > I don't see how the 4H bid is even legal, let alone mandated. From > West's point of view, based on AI, he has shown heart support and > nothing in spades. East's penalty double must be unilateral, and West > has no reason to pull. The UI suggests pulling the double, so pulling > is illegal. This seems so clear I would consider a PP if West is an > experienced player. > I wouldn't have thought that the double is a penalty double in the system West thought he was playing. I would have expected it to be competitive in this instance, and West would be expected to bid 4H or take futher action even. Passing would not be an option. Anne --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 18 23:25:52 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:25:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Slooow play Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: [big snip] >L12A1 gives authority for an >assigned adjusted score. [big snip] But use of Law 12A1 is not legal in determining the score for an unfinished board. (See the Chapter 1 definition of assigned adjusted score.) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 19 00:10:35 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:10:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: Peter Gill wrote: >This is a difficult question. On a large Bidding >Panel, I would expect votes for Pass, 6C and >perhaps even for some grand slam tries. > >There are many unanswered questions which make >a definitive answer to Richard's question >presumptuous: > >(1) LA in which jurisdiction - the definition of >LA varies from America to Europe, doesn't it? Sorry, I should have avoided ambiguity by specifying the international WBF definition of LA. >(2) Are they playing 4 or 5 card majors? This >massively affects the likelihood of partner having >a singleton heart. Again I erred by not adding a footnote specifying five card majors. [Questions 3 to 7 snipped as answers unavailable] >So my answer to Richard's question is that there >is no clear answer. Still, I feel a bit out of my >depth on this one, as I totally fail to comprehend >Richard's Subject Line. My subject line was a hint. This hand is taken from Example Appeal No. 3 in the revised December 2001 edition of the WBF Code of Practice. Those blmlers who do not have a copy of the revised edition can download from: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b7/docdefault.asp >I think that those thinking of a grand are probably >not trusting partner's 5C call to mean what it >appears to mean, i.e. that he is unable to bid 4NT, >5D, 4S or 6C opposite my 4H call which he can see >is opposite a passed hand. > >Hands which partner could have include: >Jxx, Q, Jxxx, AJ10xx A poor max, 5C might fail >on a very bad day. >QJx, J, Q109x, AJxxx A supermax for 5C, 6C makes. [snip] >A point in favour of 6C is that the bidding favours >DA being onside. > >Summarising all this, it should be pretty obvious >that I would expect Pass and 6C to both be LAs under >most circumstances. At the table West bid a slow 5C, and East successfully raised to 6C. The WBF presumably included this appeal in the appendix to its Code of Practice as a counterexample to the "if it hesitates, shoot it" school of thought. I believe that the WBF chose the wrong counterexample, and I am pleased that in theory I have been justified, with a number of blmlers agreeing with me that Pass is a logical alternative. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 19 01:18:30 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:18:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: Peter Gill wrote: >As stated elsewhere in my previous post, everything >depends on what the responses to 4H mean. If 4H >means "I have a slam try in either clubs or >diamonds or both", then surely only a cretin would >fail to realise that 5D is an acceptance of the >club slam try, whereas 5C is a non acceptance of a >club slam try. Pardon my language. Should Peter apologise to the Committee and the WBF Commentator for calling them cretinous? :-) Best wishes Richard >>The Committee: >>Accepted that East, through his bid of Four >>Hearts, where he could risk a response of >>Five Diamonds, had proved that he would >>always be going to at least a small slam, no >>matter what West bid. >> >>The Committee's decision: >>Director's decision overturned, original >>table result restored. +1370 to East/West >> >>Relevant Laws: >>Law 16A >> >>Deposit: Returned >> >>WBF Comment: >>this case draws attention to the fact that if >>it is self-evident from the prior action of a >>player (here East) that he is committed to >>the contract reached, the existence of >>unauthorised information available from >>partner should not weigh against him. >>Provided the evidence is manifest he should >>be taken to have no logical alternative >>action.= From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Mar 19 01:17:09 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:17:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] I would always (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <001901c2ed9c$a74cbb20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030318200306.022b92c8@mail.comcast.net> At 05:20 PM 3/18/2003, Marvin French wrote: >Polling both "experts" and peers for opinions about LAs and MI effects is >popular right now at NABCs. That's okay, but they are not asking the right >questions, which are of this nature: > >"In this event, given this hand and auction so far, which calls do you think >a substantial minority, at least, would seriously consider?" > >"In this event, given this hand and auction so far, with the corrected >information about the opposing auction, which calls do you think a typical >player would make, with a 1/3 probability? Also, with a 2/3 probability?" It's hard to get the right answers from peers in this way; how many Flight B players know what other Flight B players would seriously consider? At the very least, first ask the player to make his or her own decisions. It might be better to ask a follow-up question. "What would you bid on this auction?" "I would pass." "Did you seriously consider any other calls?" "Yes, I almost decided to double." (double is a likely call) "Yes, I considered doubling, but it's too risky here." (double is an LA) "No, I would never double on a hand like this." (double is not an LA) But it is important to ask the right question. I was polled as a peer in a previous NABC, and simply asked, "What would you bid?" Since I knew what the Laws require, I was able to tell the director, "I would pass, but I seriously considered doubling." But most Flight B players would have just said, "I pass" or "I double", and if four said, "I pass", then double would not be seen as a LA even if three of the four shared my opinion. From jvickers@fish.co.uk Wed Mar 19 01:57:56 2003 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:57:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: <005801c2edba$f67a37e0$f83e74d5@oemcomputer> As an involved party (captain of the EW team) I was interested in hearing other opinions on this matter. My own views are: 1. What do you think of North's antics? [John has no problem with this, Richard disapproves.] I appreciate that not all players are experienced enough to cope with this sort of situation, but North has had an explanation and should act on that basis. So long as he does not take any wild or gambling action, redress will be forthcoming in due course if he is entitled to it. (For the record, I was surprised at the threats of PPs - North's behaviour was in no way discourteous to anyone.) 2. What do you think of the director's response? I agree with Richard (and disagree with John) that it is entirely inappropriate for the director to allow this private audience. 3. Would you allow West's 4H call? [Anne thinks the 4H bid is mandatory, John says "routine", Steve thinks it is illegal. (The duty TD ruled that the world and his dog would bid 4H.)] West has to act as if East has a hand which is suggesting taking a penalty from 3S rather than bidding 4H. A likely holding would be a balanced 15-16 pts with four hearts and three good spades. West is bringing two good defensive values in the AK diamonds, but also a fifth heart, and a hand where 4H is virtually certain to make. I think it is a difficult decision after the UI, but again think that any talk of a PP is wide of the mark. 4. Would you allow East to pass 4S? [John says no, Steve says yes.] My understanding is that players are allowed to assume their partner has psyched (or misbid) only if it is clear that the miscreant could not be any other player, or they are likely to face charges of fielding. I think East here has the option of assuming his partner has misbid, or assuming North is bidding like a lunatic. 5. Is North's song and dance AI for East, i.e. is he allowed to use information from North's behaviour to deduce that it is really partner who has misbid, and so avoid a disastrous result? [John says no, Richard and Steve say yes.] I think that North's call for the director is unnecessary here, and should be AI to EW, but I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise. Is this sufficient to tip the balance re: Q4 above? Steve Willner: >Of course creating a situation that will cause an opponent to reveal >something -- one form of coffeehousing -- is illegal under L72B1 and >perhaps other Laws as well. There's no suggestion of that here. This crossed my mind too. 6. Would you as director entertain North's request for an adjusted score several boards later, or are they out of time? [Everyone on BLML and the Chief TD on the day said yes, the request should be heard. This surprised me.] My understanding was that requests for a ruling should be made as soon as the non-offenders are aware of how they may have been damaged. Late requests should only be heard if fresh information came to light later which was not available at the time, or if the non-offenders were not aware of their rights. Since East rubbed their noses in it in this case, I don't think that applies here. For reference, see Grattan's "Conversations with Weinstein", EBL Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, Appendix III, Subject 1. Thank you all for taking your time to comment on this obviously trivial matter. James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK ============================================= The following occurred at a Swiss Teams in the UK last week (love all, dealer W): Q 7 6 - 10 9 7 6 3 K Q 10 6 5 5 2 J 10 3 Q J 10 5 3 A K 8 7 4 A K 8 5 Q J J 7 A 9 3 A K 9 8 4 9 6 2 4 2 8 4 2 W N E S P P 1H 1S 2NT(1) 3S X P 4H(2) 4S X(3) P P P (1) East reached for the alert card, then remembered that they had recently agreed that 2NT by a passed hand is natural in this sequence, rather than showing a good raise to 3H, and made it clear to the opponents that he was not alerting. (2) North got rather agitated when West bid 4H, called the director and said he was suspicious that his opponents were having a misunderstanding and asked to speak to the director away from the table. The TD consented reluctantly, and when North returned the auction continued as shown. NS were told to recall the TD if they felt they had been damaged. (3) To double again may seem unwise here, but East was unsure of the ethical constraints he might be under, and had to make a decision quickly. It certainly looks as if North's suspicions are correct, but East was not certain he was allowed to assume this. 4SX made ten tricks, and NS seemed content. East informed them that the director might adjust to 3SX+1 if they called him back. North considered this for a moment, then shrugged and continued with the next board. After a few more boards had been played he called the director back and asked for an adjusted score on the lines that East had suggested. While the TDs were deliberating NS withdrew their request for a ruling, so nothing came of the matter, but my questions are: 1. What do you think of North's antics? 2. What do you think of the director's response? 3. Would you allow West's 4H call? 4. Would you allow East to pass 4S? 5. Is North's song and dance AI for East, i.e. is he allowed to use information from North's behaviour to deduce that it is really partner who has misbid, and so avoid a disastrous result? 6. Would you as director entertain North's request for an adjusted score several boards later, or are they out of time? (If you think EW's decisions are trivial in this case, I'm still interested in the general principles, so would appreciate some answers.) James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 19 02:29:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:29:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: >I do not understand how Pass can possibly be >a logical alternative. If, over 4H, partner >had bid 5D, were you going to Pass? > >-- >Dave Kent A correct ruling from Dave Kent *if* East-West had a partnership agreement that 4H means "bid your longer minor". In that case, East's 4H cuebid was the first step of a self-evident slam force. The actual AC foolishly assumed that the actual East-West did have such an agreement; however it seems that West, at least, was unaware of any partnership agreement about the meaning of the 4H cuebid. >>West told the Committee that he had a >>problem and needed to think it over. He >>was wondering if East did not have five >>spades and was asking to play game in that >>denomination. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as TD and AC I would have ruled that a hypothetical 5D response to the 4H cuebid was *not*, by partnership agreement, a minimum with longer diamonds, because I would rule that there was no partnership agreement about the meaning of 4H. My legal justification for ruling a non-agreement about the partnership meaning of the 4H cuebid is by using Law 85A, predicated on the tiebreak rule in the footnote to Law 75. Question: Am I legally using the MI or misbid rule, given that this is not a case involving misinformation? Best wishes Richard From john@asimere.com Wed Mar 19 02:36:00 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:36:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: <200303181615.LAA16472@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200303181615.LAA16472@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article <200303181615.LAA16472@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> W N E S >> P P 1H 1S >> 2NT(1) 3S X P >> 4H(2) 4S X(3) P >> P P > >> From: "Anne Jones" >> Fine. The call was not alerted. West has the unauthorised information that >> he has made a mistake. That East is playing him for a balanced 11 count. It >> is likely that the double of 3S is a penalty double based on this. > >I'm with you up to here, but the "penalty double" is in fact based on >West's having shown something useful in spades via the 2NT bid. > >> West is >> not allowed to know this and must make great effort to bid as though he does >> not. The 4H bid is in my opinion mandated. > >I don't see how the 4H bid is even legal, let alone mandated. From >West's point of view, based on AI, he has shown heart support and >nothing in spades. East's penalty double must be unilateral, and West >has no reason to pull. The UI suggests pulling the double, so pulling >is illegal. This seems so clear I would consider a PP if West is an >experienced player. Hmm, I don't agree. The guy bid 2N on the way to 4H, when pard hits 3S he has no reason not to bid the same 4H, he's not expecting to get rich from a LOTT of 18 and a known 9 card fit, with game values. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <001501c2edcf$2adb1810$2f2e6651@annescomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Private discussion with the TD > In article <200303181615.LAA16472@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes > >> W N E S > >> P P 1H 1S > >> 2NT(1) 3S X P > >> 4H(2) 4S X(3) P > >> P P > > > >> From: "Anne Jones" > >> Fine. The call was not alerted. West has the unauthorised information that > >> he has made a mistake. That East is playing him for a balanced 11 count. It > >> is likely that the double of 3S is a penalty double based on this. > > > >I'm with you up to here, but the "penalty double" is in fact based on > >West's having shown something useful in spades via the 2NT bid. > > > >> West is > >> not allowed to know this and must make great effort to bid as though he does > >> not. The 4H bid is in my opinion mandated. > > > >I don't see how the 4H bid is even legal, let alone mandated. From > >West's point of view, based on AI, he has shown heart support and > >nothing in spades. East's penalty double must be unilateral, and West > >has no reason to pull. The UI suggests pulling the double, so pulling > >is illegal. This seems so clear I would consider a PP if West is an > >experienced player. > > Hmm, I don't agree. The guy bid 2N on the way to 4H, when pard hits 3S > he has no reason not to bid the same 4H, he's not expecting to get rich > from a LOTT of 18 and a known 9 card fit, with game values. > ??? His pard didn't hit 3S. Opps bid 3S and his pard hit a double. I think he will (without using the UI) see this double as "extra values". I would be happy for him to bid 4Ds on the way to 4H. What is LOTT?? Anne --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <000901c2edd0$023e1a00$2f2e6651@annescomputer> Aha!! This modern Law of Total Trumps thing - tee hee :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Private discussion with the TD > In article <200303181615.LAA16472@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes > >> W N E S > >> P P 1H 1S > >> 2NT(1) 3S X P > >> 4H(2) 4S X(3) P > >> P P > > > >> From: "Anne Jones" > >> Fine. The call was not alerted. West has the unauthorised information that > >> he has made a mistake. That East is playing him for a balanced 11 count. It > >> is likely that the double of 3S is a penalty double based on this. > > > >I'm with you up to here, but the "penalty double" is in fact based on > >West's having shown something useful in spades via the 2NT bid. > > > >> West is > >> not allowed to know this and must make great effort to bid as though he does > >> not. The 4H bid is in my opinion mandated. > > > >I don't see how the 4H bid is even legal, let alone mandated. From > >West's point of view, based on AI, he has shown heart support and > >nothing in spades. East's penalty double must be unilateral, and West > >has no reason to pull. The UI suggests pulling the double, so pulling > >is illegal. This seems so clear I would consider a PP if West is an > >experienced player. > > Hmm, I don't agree. The guy bid 2N on the way to 4H, when pard hits 3S > he has no reason not to bid the same 4H, he's not expecting to get rich > from a LOTT of 18 and a known 9 card fit, with game values. > > cheers john > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Mar 19 05:42:01 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:42:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/17/03, Kooijman, A. wrote: >That really is a terrible solution. My experience tells me that there >is only one way to deal with this problem: penalize slow play. We are >talking about pair events with 2 boards on a table in most cases. A >player should be allowed to use more than 10 minutes in a difficult >board once in a while, not being penalized by removing the second >board, which could be played within 3 minutes. And if not he gets a >second chance in the next round. And that is it. Well, your experience is much greater than mine. But what if the second board is also a 10 minute board? I'm not sure I understand the "second chance in the next round" bit. >The problem is that TD's don't give those penalties after which they >loose control. And then a board is removed, both pairs claiming not to >be responsible (since it happened three tables ago somewhere else) so >both pairs getting average plus (being brave it could be >average/average plus). Not an approach to encourage players to play >faster. No, it's not. :-) From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Mar 19 06:17:23 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:17:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] I would always (was Appeal 666) References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030318200306.022b92c8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <003b01c2eddf$387cfb40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David J. Grabiner" ) > At 05:20 PM 3/18/2003, Marvin French wrote: > > >Polling both "experts" and peers for opinions about LAs and MI effects is > >popular right now at NABCs. That's okay, but they are not asking the right > >questions, which are of this nature: > > > >"In this event, given this hand and auction so far, which calls do you think > >a substantial minority, at least, would seriously consider?" > > > >"In this event, given this hand and auction so far, with the corrected > >information about the opposing auction, which calls do you think a typical > >player would make, with a 1/3 probability? Also, with a 2/3 probability?" > > It's hard to get the right answers from peers in this way; how many Flight > B players know what other Flight B players would seriously consider? Yes, I think the stronger players would give a better answer. Also, my model questions would normally have to be put in a more roundabout fashion to avoid the response of "Huh?" > At > the very least, first ask the player to make his or her own decisions. Opinion of an involved player is irrelevant unless there is corroboration (e.g., system documentation, convention card). A smooth talker should not have an advantage that is unavailable to others. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Mar 19 06:20:00 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:20:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Slooow play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/18/03, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >I think that this is the key issue. Elsewhere in the world, players >will agree, but in ACBL land they disagree. Until that changes, any >attempts to make it into a timed event are futile, slow play penalties >are considered absurd and nobody will generally care At least one of the local TDs here is fond of pointing out that bridge is a timed event. I've not seen her issue a PP for slow play, though. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Mar 19 06:48:28 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:48:28 -0800 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession Message-ID: <004101c2ede3$90143e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> We now have a Wednesday evening invitational club game restricted to the stronger players in San Diego. This is going very well, with typically a 7-table Howell. Look at the good job Jim Backstrom is doing reporting on the game at www. sandiegobridge.com. Two weeks ago my partner, normally a fine player but a little rusty, thought he had nine trumps between the two hands, missing only the queen, but he had 10. Toward the end of the hand, nothing but trumps in dummy, he laid down the king from his hand, all following, and led toward the ace-jack. When LHO showed out, he announced "Down three" and put his hand in the board. That was -500 in a nv-nv save, zero matchpoints, instead of -300 for a near-top that would have placed us first instead of 2/3. Now, it is perfectly legal for the opponents to accept this gift (assuming the ace wasn't called for), although I wouldn't accept it myself. Why not? At this level no one would play the hand out by ducking the club to the stiff queen, that just isn't done, it isn't normal. I therefore consider partner's concession as "implausible," correctable if the mistake had been found within 1/2 hour of the final score posting. If the submitted score was correctable, then it had to be a wrong score. It seems to me improper to accept a wrong score, which is why I would not accept such a giift. Or am I all wet? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Mar 19 07:02:00 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:02:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <004101c2ede3$90143e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001601c2ede5$70ffc820$25b54351@noos.fr> Marv, Classical problems, because the rules make little sense here. We had a case like this at the Dutch national appeal committee where some guy holding 12 clubs conceded the CK after right hand opp showed out, thinking he had only 11 clubs. We let the result stand but if you take the law to the letter there is a case for adjusting the score. Our legal argument was that the guy might well have ducked the first club. The gut feeling of most AC members was that once conceded you cannot reclaim this kind of tricks. But then I am in favor of laws that limit your tricks after a claim to the number of tricks claimed. That stops contesting ones own claim dead. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 7:48 AM Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession > We now have a Wednesday evening invitational club game restricted to the > stronger players in San Diego. This is going very well, with typically a > 7-table Howell. Look at the good job Jim Backstrom is doing reporting on the > game at www. sandiegobridge.com. > > Two weeks ago my partner, normally a fine player but a little rusty, thought > he had nine trumps between the two hands, missing only the queen, but he had > 10. Toward the end of the hand, nothing but trumps in dummy, he laid down > the king from his hand, all following, and led toward the ace-jack. When LHO > showed out, he announced "Down three" and put his hand in the board. That > was -500 in a nv-nv save, zero matchpoints, instead of -300 for a near-top > that would have placed us first instead of 2/3. > > Now, it is perfectly legal for the opponents to accept this gift (assuming > the ace wasn't called for), although I wouldn't accept it myself. Why not? > > At this level no one would play the hand out by ducking the club to the > stiff queen, that just isn't done, it isn't normal. I therefore consider > partner's concession as "implausible," correctable if the mistake had been > found within 1/2 hour of the final score posting. > > If the submitted score was correctable, then it had to be a wrong score. It > seems to me improper to accept a wrong score, which is why I would not > accept such a giift. > > Or am I all wet? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Mar 19 08:18:52 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:18:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <004101c2ede3$90143e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3E7827EC.2090902@skynet.be> I really don't see what the problem is here: Marvin French wrote: > > Two weeks ago my partner, normally a fine player but a little rusty, thought > he had nine trumps between the two hands, missing only the queen, but he had > 10. Toward the end of the hand, nothing but trumps in dummy, he laid down > the king from his hand, all following, and led toward the ace-jack. When LHO > showed out, he announced "Down three" and put his hand in the board. That > was -500 in a nv-nv save, zero matchpoints, instead of -300 for a near-top > that would have placed us first instead of 2/3. > > Now, it is perfectly legal for the opponents to accept this gift (assuming > the ace wasn't called for), although I wouldn't accept it myself. Why not? > > At this level no one would play the hand out by ducking the club to the > stiff queen, that just isn't done, it isn't normal. I therefore consider > partner's concession as "implausible," correctable if the mistake had been > found within 1/2 hour of the final score posting. > No-one would duck to a stiff queen, that is true, but many players would duck to a queen doubleton. Since apparently the player thought the queen was doubleton, playing the jack to this trick is a normal line and so the claim must be judged as down three, as was the result at the table. We know which mistake the player made, and we stick him to that mistake. What is so difficult about that ? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Wed Mar 19 08:53:32 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:53:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: from "John (MadDog) Probst" at Mar 19, 2003 02:36:00 AM Message-ID: <200303190853.h2J8rWue020867@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:36:00 +0000 > > In article <200303181615.LAA16472@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes > >> W N E S > >> P P 1H 1S > >> 2NT(1) 3S X P > >> 4H(2) 4S X(3) P > >> P P > > > >> From: "Anne Jones" > >> Fine. The call was not alerted. West has the unauthorised information that > >> he has made a mistake. That East is playing him for a balanced 11 count. It > >> is likely that the double of 3S is a penalty double based on this. > > > >I'm with you up to here, but the "penalty double" is in fact based on > >West's having shown something useful in spades via the 2NT bid. > > > >> West is > >> not allowed to know this and must make great effort to bid as though he does > >> not. The 4H bid is in my opinion mandated. > > > >I don't see how the 4H bid is even legal, let alone mandated. From > >West's point of view, based on AI, he has shown heart support and > >nothing in spades. East's penalty double must be unilateral, and West > >has no reason to pull. The UI suggests pulling the double, so pulling > >is illegal. This seems so clear I would consider a PP if West is an > >experienced player. > > Hmm, I don't agree. The guy bid 2N on the way to 4H, when pard hits 3S > he has no reason not to bid the same 4H, he's not expecting to get rich > from a LOTT of 18 and a known 9 card fit, with game values. > Because unfortunately, the way the law reads, once there is UI present (such as his partner letting him know that he has made the wrong bid based on their "new" agreement) the player is no longer allowed to choose from among logical alternatives one that was suggested by the UI. In this case, I think that P is a LA. If EW can establish that there is a reason to think that this X is "extra values" and not penalty oriented, then there might be a case. However, in many situations, if responder has shown limit+ values, the bidder can pass if they don't accept the limit, bid game if they accept the invite, or double to ask partner not to bid again. Although it may or may not be pure penalty, it is frequently a request for responder not to take another call. In this case, responder would need to have something extra or undisclosed. The only "extra" in the hand is a fifth trump. There are no shortnesses and responder does have defensive tricks (D-AK). So, I agree with Steve here that the 4H bid should not be allowed. The UI certainly implies that bidding would be more successful than passing. And I think pass is a logical alternative that should be acceptible. If there were no UI, I can understand the logic of what John says, but the UI no longer allows West to take that action (IMHO). -Ted. From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Wed Mar 19 08:56:18 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:56:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: from "Anne Jones" at Mar 19, 2003 04:22:35 AM Message-ID: <200303190856.h2J8uIcE020896@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "Anne Jones" > Subject: Re: [blml] Private discussion with the TD > > > > > >I don't see how the 4H bid is even legal, let alone mandated. From > > >West's point of view, based on AI, he has shown heart support and > > >nothing in spades. East's penalty double must be unilateral, and West > > >has no reason to pull. The UI suggests pulling the double, so pulling > > >is illegal. This seems so clear I would consider a PP if West is an > > >experienced player. > > > > Hmm, I don't agree. The guy bid 2N on the way to 4H, when pard hits 3S > > he has no reason not to bid the same 4H, he's not expecting to get rich > > from a LOTT of 18 and a known 9 card fit, with game values. > > > ??? His pard didn't hit 3S. > Opps bid 3S and his pard hit a double. I think he will (without using the > UI) see this double as "extra values". > I would be happy for him to bid 4Ds on the way to 4H. > > What is LOTT?? > > Anne > In American parlance, to "hit" a bid is to double it for penalty (as opposed to takeout). Yes, the whole point is that bidding is certainly an option if there were no UI, but once there is UI, West may not bid since bidding is suggested by the UI. Since Pass is a LA (and neither Steve nor I is saying it is the only LA, just that it is a LA), then West should have to pass. And I know you figured it out for yourself in the next message, but LOTT is the infamous Law of Total Tricks. -Ted. From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Wed Mar 19 09:08:19 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 04:08:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: from "James Vickers" at Mar 17, 2003 11:42:20 PM Message-ID: <200303190908.h2J98Jp2021181@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "James Vickers" > Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:42:20 -0000 > > The following occurred at a Swiss Teams in the UK last week (love > all, dealer W): > > Q 7 6 > - > 10 9 7 6 3 > K Q 10 6 5 > 5 2 J 10 3 > Q J 10 5 3 A K 8 7 4 > A K 8 5 Q J > J 7 A 9 3 > A K 9 8 4 > 9 6 2 > 4 2 > 8 4 2 > > W N E S > > P P 1H 1S > 2NT(1) 3S X P > 4H(2) 4S X(3) P > P P > > (1) East reached for the alert card, then remembered that they had recently > agreed that 2NT by a passed hand is natural in this sequence, rather than > showing a good raise to 3H, and made it clear to the opponents that he was > not alerting. > (2) North got rather agitated when West bid 4H, called the director and said > he was suspicious that his opponents were having a misunderstanding and > asked to speak to the director away from the table. The TD consented > reluctantly, and when North returned the auction continued as shown. NS were > told to recall the TD if they felt they had been damaged. > (3) To double again may seem unwise here, but East was unsure of the ethical > constraints he might be under, and had to make a decision quickly. It > certainly looks as if North's suspicions are correct, but East was not > certain he was allowed to assume this. > > 4SX made ten tricks, and NS seemed content. East informed them that the > director might > adjust to 3SX+1 if they called him back. North considered this for a moment, > then shrugged and continued with the next board. After a few more boards had > been played he called the > director back and asked for an adjusted score on the lines that East had > suggested. > > While the TDs were deliberating NS withdrew their request for a ruling, so > nothing came of the matter, but my questions are: > > 1. What do you think of North's antics? > 2. What do you think of the director's response? > 3. Would you allow West's 4H call? > 4. Would you allow East to pass 4S? > 5. Is North's song and dance AI for East, i.e. is he allowed to use > information from North's behaviour to deduce that it is really partner who > has misbid, and so avoid a disastrous result? > 6. Would you as director entertain North's request for an adjusted score > several boards later, or are they out of time? > > (If you think EW's decisions are trivial in this case, I'm still interested > in the general principles, so would appreciate some answers.) > I know that I'm late jumping into this thread, but I thought I'd go back to the original to add my opinions: 1. I think North's actions highly inappropriate. If North suspected that E/W had had an agreement, he should not have reacted and should have waited until the dummy was tabled to see if there was an unusual hand that might have warranted such bidding from West. It is one thing to suspect a problem, it is another to call attention at the wrong time possibly creating more problems. 2. The TD responded appropriately, however, I would have expected a caution from the TD to North about his inappropriate timing and actions calling attention so openly to the potential problem and thereby possibly creating a situation when there wasn't one. 3. No. I think that with the UI present from East's explanation, Pass is a logical alternative and any forward action by West is suggested by the UI and hence should be restricted by the LOLA. 4. Yes. East has not had UI. The bid of 4H is AI for him and he can make whatever assumptions about the bid (including that his partner may have misbid) that he wants and bid accordingly. 5. Yes, North's behavior should be AI for East. And North should not be able to use the behavior to deliberately mislead the opponents (East here). If North behaves inappropriately, then it is AI. 6. Yes, I would entertain North's request for an adjusted score. It is a byproduct of a long TD ruling that it takes away time from players to consider the consequences. If they are conscientious players, they will use the remaining time in the round to make sure they are caught up and don't play pass the end of the round and hence will not spend extra time thinking about the consequences. The conscientious pair will have to wait for their first opportunity to consider the hand and whether they need an adjusted score before bringing it to the TD's attention. So, they should be allowed the grace time. I think as long as they bring it to the attention of the TD by the end of the session it would be appropriate. -Ted. From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 19 09:45:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:45:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <3E7827EC.2090902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c2edfc$35db4820$6900a8c0@WINXP> I fully agree with Herman, and I take this a little further: This case is in itself a very good evidence that even at top level = players may go wrong in the silliest ways. These are errors against which they = shall NOT be protected in a post-claim adjudication! Thus if there had been a claim without a statement proving that the = claimer knew the outstanding trump was stiff the Director should rule that he = lose a trick to that trump, exactly the way he lost a trick by conceding it = here. Sven > Herman De Wael > I really don't see what the problem is here: >=20 > Marvin French wrote: >=20 > > > > Two weeks ago my partner, normally a fine player but a little=20 > > rusty, thought he had nine trumps between the two hands, missing > > only the queen, but he had 10. Toward the end of the hand, nothing > > but trumps in dummy, he laid down the king from his hand, all > > following, and led toward the ace-jack. When LHO showed out, he=20 > > announced "Down three" and put his hand in the board. That was > > -500 in a nv-nv save, zero matchpoints, instead of -300 for a > > near-top that would have placed us first instead of 2/3. > > > > Now, it is perfectly legal for the opponents to accept this gift > > (assuming the ace wasn't called for), although I wouldn't accept > > it myself. Why not? > > > > At this level no one would play the hand out by ducking the club > > to the stiff queen, that just isn't done, it isn't normal. I=20 > > therefore consider partner's concession as "implausible,"=20 > > correctable if the mistake had been found within 1/2 hour of the > > final score posting. > > >=20 >=20 > No-one would duck to a stiff queen, that is true, but many players > would duck to a queen doubleton. Since apparently the player thought > the queen was doubleton, playing the jack to this trick is a normal > line and so the claim must be judged as down three, as was the result > at the table. >=20 > We know which mistake the player made, and we stick him to that > mistake. What is so difficult about that ? >=20 >=20 > > >=20 >=20 > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Mar 19 10:32:31 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:32:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Slooow play References: <200303181629.LAA16486@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001b01c2ed6e$4085ef20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <003401c2ed94$b679e620$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <002f01c2ee02$dc7d4e20$727e870a@sabre.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "Marvin French" ; Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Slooow play >I don't believe there is a director at any level >tournament would ever call a player for slow play or do anything more that >tell them to hurry along and try to catch up I don't know if Slawek Latala is reading this but... Last year when he was the Chief TD of the Baltic Congress in Sopot. I played with Andrzej Wilkosz and in one of our tournaments we had *four* boads cancelled during the auction plus a fare share of slow play penalties which had significant impact on our score. The pattern was invariably the same: Slawek approached our table to see that we have barely started to play the second board when the round was called so he simply instructed the table to stop playing. Wilkosz protested, Slawek replied "You cannot play that slow - the Law forbids it" and we moved on. The same regime is preserved during the matches of the Polish First Division - so it *can* be done. Yes, the superstars might not be very happy but the silent majority is. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Szukam kochanki... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f16f4 PS. Jest nas tu wiecej takich. From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 19 10:30:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] I would always (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <003b01c2eddf$387cfb40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > > At the very least, first ask the player to make his or her own > > decisions. > > Opinion of an involved player is irrelevant unless there is > corroboration (e.g., system documentation, convention card). Opinion is seldom irrelevant. Certainly a TD/AC must hear the opinion before deciding to treat it as such. Corroboration can also come from other players/TDs who know the player concerned. The TD/AC are perfectly entitled to accept player statements at face value if they so choose. > A smooth talker should not have an advantage that is unavailable to > others. A player who is better able to articulate his reasoning will often have an advantage over one who can't, while it is sad that the inarticulate are disadvantaged it seems undesirable to reduce law to the lowest common denominator principle - particularly when there are "appeal advisors" in place to assist these people. Why use a pejorative term like "smooth talking"? Tim From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Mar 19 10:44:05 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:44:05 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Slooow play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Ed Reppert wrote: > On 3/18/03, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > >I think that this is the key issue. Elsewhere in the world, players > >will agree, but in ACBL land they disagree. Until that changes, any > >attempts to make it into a timed event are futile, slow play penalties > >are considered absurd and nobody will generally care > > At least one of the local TDs here is fond of pointing out that bridge > is a timed event. I've not seen her issue a PP for slow play, though. "Bridge is a timed event" is certainly a popular chant directed at the occasional straggler. I am not so sure it is an entirely accurate sentiment. We do play our tournaments with clocks. If one or two tables get behind late plays get assigned. If the same table gets behind again usually an ArtAS happens. But if several tables are behind - well - there is really no alternative to adding time to the clock. Assigning the entire room a lateplay or assigning the entire room an average-minus doesn't accomplish a thing. (And probably makes the customers mad.) I haven't seen this done in an open pairs game at an ACBL regional - but I have seen time added in swiss matches, and I have seen many speedball events where the announced time per round turns out to be unrealistic and the clock has to be set to 12 minutes per round instead of 10 or 13 instead of 12. It is interesting that there is no standard "set of rules for timed play" the way there is in chess. (I guess we leave this as a special condition for SOs to handle, like special rules for par events or when screens are used.) Come to think of it, I am not sure there *should* be strict time limits. Even though I usually play fast I hate the added pressure of speedball pairs and avoid playing in them whenever there is another event available. The ending time of sessions is never specified closer than 15-30 minutes anyway. Returning to the original question that started this thread, I was certainly taught from my director-infancy that "once the bidding starts you never stop the deal even if time expires." In 7 years of real-life directing I never have, though I have had people hold up the game so long I wish I could have. In online games I have done it maybe 3 times, always in the case of an argument at a table where a player is present with a good connection but refusing to play a card even when so ordered repeatedly - and there has always been an additional conduct offence. I've never even heard of anyone cutting off someone who is actually thinking. In those few cases, for what it is worth, I always assigned L12C2-like scores based on the bidding and play up to the time of the interruption. We are in a grey area: "no result can be obtained" isn't quite true - we were on our way to a result, the direct just interrupted before we got there. But we aren't assigning a score "in place of a result actaully obtained" either. We discussed a case some time ago on BLML where UI about how to make an overtrick on a slam was overheard by a player after he had already bid the slam and was destined for an 80+% board even without the overtrick, yet the laws seemed to force a 60% (according to some people's readings.) It is perhaps worth adding another clause to the 2005 laws, specifying that, in the event play on a board is interrupted, it is scored in ____ fashion (my vote is L12C2-like, the choice of favourable/unfavourable/likely/at all probable made for each side based on whether they contributed to the cause of the interruption.) This addition would also have the effect of making it illegal, rather than just foolish from a security standpoint, to take a board away during the auction then return it as a lateplay. GRB From john@asimere.com Wed Mar 19 11:21:02 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:21:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <004101c2ede3$90143e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <004101c2ede3$90143e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <004101c2ede3$90143e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com>, Marvin French writes >We now have a Wednesday evening invitational club game restricted to the >stronger players in San Diego. This is going very well, with typically a >7-table Howell. Look at the good job Jim Backstrom is doing reporting on the >game at www. sandiegobridge.com. > >Two weeks ago my partner, normally a fine player but a little rusty, thought >he had nine trumps between the two hands, missing only the queen, but he had >10. Toward the end of the hand, nothing but trumps in dummy, he laid down >the king from his hand, all following, and led toward the ace-jack. When LHO >showed out, he announced "Down three" and put his hand in the board. That >was -500 in a nv-nv save, zero matchpoints, instead of -300 for a near-top >that would have placed us first instead of 2/3. > >Now, it is perfectly legal for the opponents to accept this gift (assuming >the ace wasn't called for), although I wouldn't accept it myself. Why not? > >At this level no one would play the hand out by ducking the club to the >stiff queen, that just isn't done, it isn't normal. I therefore consider >partner's concession as "implausible," correctable if the mistake had been >found within 1/2 hour of the final score posting. > >If the submitted score was correctable, then it had to be a wrong score. It >seems to me improper to accept a wrong score, which is why I would not >accept such a giift. > >Or am I all wet? I think you're wet Marv. The hook is not irrational. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 19 11:23:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:23 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] I would always (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030318200306.022b92c8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: David J. Grabiner wrote: > >"In this event, given this hand and auction so far, with the corrected > >information about the opposing auction, which calls do you think a > typical player would make, with a 1/3 probability? Also, with a 2/3 > probability?" > > It's hard to get the right answers from peers in this way; how many > Flight B players know what other Flight B players would seriously > consider? At the very least, first ask the player to make his or her > own decisions. > > It might be better to ask a follow-up question. > > "What would you bid on this auction?" > "I would pass." > "Did you seriously consider any other calls?" All of this seems way too "legalistic" as a poll. If you have found a group of suitable peers surely "What would you call and why?" is the best starting point. I admit I have a problem interpreting "seriously consider". If think pass is likely the best move but double may be an option I will seriously consider the merits of doubling. However these considerations will often lead me to conclude that double can't be right. Now as far as I am concerned I haven't seriously considered *making* a double. For that to happen my conclusion would need to be closer to "Double is frisky but could work very well" then I do consider actually making the alternative call. It should also be recognised that when presented with a bidding question many plays will think through the choices even if it seems obvious - after all why would anyone ask if the answer was easy? > "Yes, I considered doubling, but it's too risky here." (double is an > LA) If all respondents respond this way then double is most certainly *not* an LA. You would need at least a sprinkling of "Yes, I almost decided to double." before deciding it was. As to saying peers=the average of all players in an event - that is just incredibly lazy TDing. It isn't hard to ask a few exploratory questions that will give a picture of a particular players style/abilities. Why do a third rate job of identifying peers when a little effort allows one to do a good job. There is no way that the LAs (and indeed what the UI suggests) are always going to be the same for Emily and me, and yet we play as a partnership in exactly the same events. I'd also be quite surprised if Marv and Alice would always come to the same conclusions in similar situations. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Mar 19 11:25:11 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:25:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Slooow play References: Message-ID: <3E785397.5070703@skynet.be> Gordon Bower wrote: [big snip] > > We discussed a case some time ago on BLML where UI about how to make an > overtrick on a slam was overheard by a player after he had already bid the > slam and was destined for an 80+% board even without the overtrick, yet > the laws seemed to force a 60% (according to some people's readings.) > This can be resolved by changing the definitions of ArtAS and AssAS to make them two sides of the same coin. > It is perhaps worth adding another clause to the 2005 laws, specifying > that, in the event play on a board is interrupted, it is scored in ____ > fashion (my vote is L12C2-like, the choice of > favourable/unfavourable/likely/at all probable made for each side based on > whether they contributed to the cause of the interruption.) This addition > would also have the effect of making it illegal, rather than just foolish > from a security standpoint, to take a board away during the auction then > return it as a lateplay. > In just one fashion, which would be like a L12C3 adjustment of today. A 60% score of L12C1 can be viewed as a special case of a L12C3 adjustment, with all scores being unknown and the pair awarded 60% of the top score and 40% of the bottom one. The case Gordon sites above can be awarded as 60% of slam+1 and 40% of slam made, for example. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Mar 19 11:34:11 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:34:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000001c2edfc$35db4820$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E7855B3.5020402@skynet.be> No Sven, I will not let you agree with me and then write something I totally disagree with: Sven Pran wrote: > I fully agree with Herman, and I take this a little further: > thanks but no thanks. > This case is in itself a very good evidence that even at top level players > may go wrong in the silliest ways. These are errors against which they shall > NOT be protected in a post-claim adjudication! > That is true, but you are below not suggesting that they are protected against them, you are forcing the error on them, which is totally different. > Thus if there had been a claim without a statement proving that the claimer > knew the outstanding trump was stiff the Director should rule that he lose a > trick to that trump, exactly the way he lost a trick by conceding it here. > If the claim is at this same moment, your conclusion is correct, since it would be the same case (with or without a statement). Let's see if you understand the following difference: (in both cases claimer has 10 trumps without the queen) 1) the player plays the King notices two players following, and claims all tricks. 2) the player plays the King, notices two following, plays the jack, notices one show-out, and claims. In case 1, it is quite likely that claimer knew at the time of claiming that one or other of the opponents had the queen, and that this would fall on the ace. In case 2, it is quite likely (and further investigation will probably reveal) that claimer thought the queen was doubleton behind. So indeed, a claimer who says nothing in case 2 shall be awarded the same number of tricks as the one who concedes one. He is in the same position. But that does not mean that any claimer who says nothing, shall be deemed to lose a trick. That would mean losing a trick in case 1) and I absolutely abhor such a potential ruling. The principle is always the same : make the claimer suffer from the mistake that he did make, don't force him to make another one. Agreed? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 19 14:16:23 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:16:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: <001a01c2ed68$c5a67f40$a8c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030319151431.00a8ddb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 03:09 19/03/2003 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >Richard Hills wrote: > >Imps > >Vul: All > >Dlr: West > > > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > > Pass 1H Dble > >3H Dble(1) Pass 4H > >Pass 5C Pass ? > > > >(1) Responsive, at least 4-4 minors > > > >You, East hold: > > > >AK7 > >A62 > >K9 > >KQ854 > > > >What are your logical alternatives? > > >This is a difficult question. On a large Bidding Panel, I would expect >votes for Pass, 6C and perhaps even for some grand slam tries. > >There are many unanswered questions which make >a definitive answer to Richard's question presumptuous: > >(1) LA in which jurisdiction - the definition of LA varies from >America to Europe, doesn't it? > >(2) Are they playing 4 or 5 card majors? This massively >affects the likelihood of partner having a singleton heart. > >(3) What does 5C mean? For example, Alain Gottcheiner >expects partner to bid 5C on xxx, x, QJxxx, Axxx. I certainly >would not expect such a hand ot bid 5C. AG : no, I expect him to bid 5D with this hand. This is why 4H commits us to 6C. And this is why pass over 5C is not a LA. >Hands which partner could have include: >Jxx, Q, Jxxx, AJ10xx A poor max, 5C might fail on a very bad day. AG : but not a hand which would have doubled 3H, in most people's style. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 19 14:19:52 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:19:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF documents-logical alternatives In-Reply-To: References: <001401c2ed4c$1b9a7540$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030319151749.00a918c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:42 18/03/2003 -0800, kaima wrote: >You questioned my opinion regarding logical alternative. I gave my opinion >based on logical systems that I play and assuming partner is a logical >player. Also assuming that opponents are playing five card majors. >First. He was a passed hand and we open hands by Rule of 20 (not by HCP) - >therefore he CANNOT have a distributional hand good enuff to produce a >slam AG : what about xxx - x - QJxx - Axxxx ? >- - and everybody already knows he has a heart singleton so he DOES >have distributional hand - - even opposite my 4H that in itself is inviting >to slam and forces to game. Subsequently, grands are totally out of >question because partner CANNOT have two aces, small slam possible if >partner bids anything other than 5C or 5D. I will be continuing over his >possible 4S bid. > >I had an opportunity to bid 3S,3NT, 4C,4D,4S,4NT or some higher level call - >instead, I chose to show a big hand by 4H, so partner knows I am big and >allowing him to pick the minor AG : look at this player's hand. His intention was obviously *not* to let partenr to pick a minor. There are only two possibilities : a) either it asked to bid 5C with a minimum, something else with a maximum - in which case you should pass b) or it asked partner to describe his hand, in which case yuo must be prepared to hear 5D - and see my revious posts From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 19 14:31:21 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:31:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: <200303181615.LAA16472@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030319153000.00a92b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:15 18/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > W N E S > > P P 1H 1S > > 2NT(1) 3S X P > > 4H(2) 4S X(3) P > > P P > > > From: "Anne Jones" > > Fine. The call was not alerted. West has the unauthorised information that > > he has made a mistake. That East is playing him for a balanced 11 count. It > > is likely that the double of 3S is a penalty double based on this. > >I'm with you up to here, but the "penalty double" is in fact based on >West's having shown something useful in spades via the 2NT bid. > > > West is > > not allowed to know this and must make great effort to bid as though he > does > > not. The 4H bid is in my opinion mandated. > >I don't see how the 4H bid is even legal, let alone mandated. From >West's point of view, based on AI, he has shown heart support and >nothing in spades. East's penalty double must be unilateral, and West >has no reason to pull. AG : he has two more hearts than expected. 2NT will often be based on support and *a balanced hand*. Try using the 75% rule - or the 100% rule if you wish. I bet you that *nobody* will even consider passing. From =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= Wed Mar 19 14:13:33 2003 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:13:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Slooow play Message-ID: <004701c2ee21$ba836560$e94965d5@swipnet.se> Speedball in Sweden is tough. You get three boards in 10 minutes. If you = are not ready you just put the cards back in the pocket and your match = point score is zero. Regards=20 Hans-Olof From gillp@bigpond.com Wed Mar 19 14:37:51 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:37:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] WBF documents-logical alternatives Message-ID: <00d101c2ee25$21dc94e0$798d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : look at this player's hand. His intention was obviously *not* to >let partner to pick a minor. There are only two possibilities : >a) either it asked to bid 5C with a minimum, something else with >a maximum - in which case you should pass >b) or it asked partner to describe his hand, in which case you must >be prepared to hear 5D - and see my previous posts You must suffer from narrowmindedness to think that there are only two possibilities, especially as you don't mention the most likely possibility - that 4H asks partner to make absolutely basic "pass or correct" responses, just like responding to a Multi 2D. In other words, 5C says I want to play in 5C if you have clubs, but 5D or higher otherwise. 5D of course says that I want to play in 5D opposite diamonds and 6C or more opposite clubs. The emanings of 4S and 4NT are less clear. Note that these meanings are only one possibility, not the only possibility. This is so standard when the negative doubler has two possible trump suits to consider, that I am surprised that you seem to be so ignorant of it that you do not even include it as a possibility. It is a possibility, as are your two possibilities, and there are other possibilities too. The auction has got quite complex. You should not be narrowing the possibilities while excluding what to many other posters is the most obvious possibility. Peter Gill. From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 19 14:41:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:41:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <3E7855B3.5020402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c2ee25$b1f7e890$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > No Sven, I will not let you agree with me and then write something I > totally disagree with: >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > I fully agree with Herman, and I take this a little further: > > >=20 >=20 > thanks but no thanks. >=20 >=20 > > This case is in itself a very good evidence that even at top level > players > > may go wrong in the silliest ways. These are errors against which = they > shall > > NOT be protected in a post-claim adjudication! > > >=20 >=20 > That is true, but you are below not suggesting that they are protected > against them, you are forcing the error on them, which is totally > different. >=20 >=20 > > Thus if there had been a claim without a statement proving that the > claimer > > knew the outstanding trump was stiff the Director should rule that = he > lose a > > trick to that trump, exactly the way he lost a trick by conceding it > here. > > >=20 >=20 > If the claim is at this same moment, your conclusion is correct, since > it would be the same case (with or without a statement). >=20 > Let's see if you understand the following difference: >=20 > (in both cases claimer has 10 trumps without the queen) >=20 > 1) the player plays the King notices two players following, and claims > all tricks. > 2) the player plays the King, notices two following, plays the jack, > notices one show-out, and claims. >=20 > In case 1, it is quite likely that claimer knew at the time of > claiming that one or other of the opponents had the queen, and that > this would fall on the ace. I fully agree so far, this is in fact how I sometimes claim myself, and = also how I would normally rule. However, I am in serious doubt whether we = should allow this without some explicit statement from the claimer to the = effect that he now knows the queen will drop. (See further down this post) > In case 2, it is quite likely (and further investigation will probably > reveal) that claimer thought the queen was doubleton behind. >=20 > So indeed, a claimer who says nothing in case 2 shall be awarded the > same number of tricks as the one who concedes one. He is in the same > position. > But that does not mean that any claimer who says nothing, shall be > deemed to lose a trick. That would mean losing a trick in case 1) and > I absolutely abhor such a potential ruling. > The principle is always the same : make the claimer suffer from the > mistake that he did make, don't force him to make another one. > Agreed? I would certainly like to agree under the present laws, and in practice = that is how I rule, but I still have a feeling this is not so obviously = correct: Let us look for a moment at law 71C: If we agree that it would be = irrational not to drop the queen then as I understand Law 71C we must concur that = it must have been irrational to concede one trick as the player in fact = did. Thus the concession should have been cancelled, however until now nobody (myself included) seems to sustain any such suggestion. Remember he didn't actually perform that irrational play, he conceded a trick which could only be lost by irrational play. I have never been happy with the current distinction between what is irrational and what is just careless or inferior, and I believe this particular discussion reveals some of the reasons why I am not happy = with it. If the player makes a concession requiring what is considered irrational play we hold him to that concession (agreed!), but if he just makes a = claim leaving the same option as a possible line of play which is not in = conflict with his claim we protect him from making that mistake? Do you see "my" problem? I would be happy if the laws require a claim to be made in either of two ways: By showing all his cards simultaneously; in which case opponents may = specify the exact sequence these cards are to be played, any legal play being available (even plays that we today would characterize as irrational). Or by showing his cards one by one in rapid sequence not awaiting = opponents play to each trick; in which case the sequence in which he shows his = cards clearly tells the whole story. In either case we shall have removed any problem with irrational, = careless, inferior, normal or whatever plays. And I believe that with a law change like this we should not waste any time compared to the time we spend the = way we claim today. Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 19 14:46:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:46:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Slooow play In-Reply-To: <004701c2ee21$ba836560$e94965d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <000101c2ee26$577d69c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> What do you do with "all" that time Hans-Olof? At a TD assembly the other year we rounded off the evening with a = speedball playing 30 boards in 90 minutes (everything included) and no mercy if = you were late when the next round was announced. Some fun! Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Hans-Olof Hall=E9n > Sent: 19. mars 2003 15:14 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Slooow play >=20 > Speedball in Sweden is tough. You get three boards in 10 minutes. If = you > are not ready you just put the cards back in the pocket and your match > point score is zero. >=20 > Regards > Hans-Olof >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Wed Mar 19 14:55:51 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:55:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: from "Alain Gottcheiner" at Mar 19, 2003 03:31:21 PM Message-ID: <200303191455.h2JEtppp030409@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:31:21 +0100 > > >I don't see how the 4H bid is even legal, let alone mandated. From > >West's point of view, based on AI, he has shown heart support and > >nothing in spades. East's penalty double must be unilateral, and West > >has no reason to pull. > > AG : he has two more hearts than expected. 2NT will often be based on > support and *a balanced hand*. Try using the 75% rule - or the 100% rule if > you wish. I bet you that *nobody* will even consider passing. > Not from West's perspective. Around here, 2NT as a raise typically shows 4 or 3 with shortness somewhere. With 5422 shape, West's shape isn't that extreme. The balanced hand that you are talking about might be what East might expect from the hand, but he isn't the one with the limitation of the UI. -Ted. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 19 15:20:18 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:20:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF documents-logical alternatives In-Reply-To: <00d101c2ee25$21dc94e0$798d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030319161427.00a93ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 01:37 20/03/2003 +1100, you wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >AG : look at this player's hand. His intention was obviously *not* to > >let partner to pick a minor. There are only two possibilities : > >a) either it asked to bid 5C with a minimum, something else with > >a maximum - in which case you should pass > >b) or it asked partner to describe his hand, in which case you must > >be prepared to hear 5D - and see my previous posts > >You must suffer from narrowmindedness to think that there are >only two possibilities, especially as you don't mention the most likely >possibility - that 4H asks partner to make absolutely basic "pass or >correct" responses, just like responding to a Multi 2D. In other words, >5C says I want to play in 5C if you have clubs, but 5D or higher >otherwise. 5D of course says that I want to play in 5D opposite >diamonds and 6C or more opposite clubs. AG : this is part of my a), you only specify what "something else" would mean. I don't pretend that there are oly two possible sets of responses, I state that there are two categories, and that barring very special agreements, which this pair didn't seem to have, every set of answers would fall into one category or the other. If partner answers 4NT when in doubt (eg 44), it pertains to class b) even if I didn't state it specifically. Please don't insult people who are able to make classifications that you don't want to understand. blml is not a Forum for specialists of contempt, il is a Forum for people who think and ask their peers to think, too. I feel that the blml contributor who doesn't want to downgrade the other's opinion will understand my classification quite easily. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Mar 19 15:09:36 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:09:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <004101c2ede3$90143e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 06:48 AM, Marvin French wrote: > At this level no one would play the hand out by ducking the club to the > stiff queen, that just isn't done, it isn't normal. Sure they would, if they thought the queen was guarded and was thus an inevitable loser. I frequently see people deal with inevitable losers in this way, probably out of the habit of losing tricks early to keep control. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Mar 19 16:18:16 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:18:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000001c2ee25$b1f7e890$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E789848.9000406@skynet.be> Fair enough Sven, we aren't really far apart: Sven Pran wrote: > > I would certainly like to agree under the present laws, and in practice that > is how I rule, but I still have a feeling this is not so obviously correct: > > Let us look for a moment at law 71C: If we agree that it would be irrational > not to drop the queen then as I understand Law 71C we must concur that it > must have been irrational to concede one trick as the player in fact did. > Thus the concession should have been cancelled, however until now nobody > (myself included) seems to sustain any such suggestion. > > Remember he didn't actually perform that irrational play, he conceded a > trick which could only be lost by irrational play. > > I have never been happy with the current distinction between what is > irrational and what is just careless or inferior, and I believe this > particular discussion reveals some of the reasons why I am not happy with > it. > > If the player makes a concession requiring what is considered irrational > play we hold him to that concession (agreed!), but if he just makes a claim > leaving the same option as a possible line of play which is not in conflict > with his claim we protect him from making that mistake? > > Do you see "my" problem? > Yes I see, you want to separate the "irrational concession" and the claim. You somehow believe that there is a difference. But there is not. In order for you to arrive in L71, you first have to have a concession, therefor a claim. Now it is my opinion that L70 and L71 are only two sides of the same coin. Both tell us how to proceed when a claim, once made, is afterwards contested. L70 deals with a contestation by the non-claiming side, L71 with one from the claiming side. Of course the second one is more harsh than the first, on claimer, but both refer to "irrational" and both use the same definition for that word. I don't think there is any difference between the following two cases: - Declarer claims 5 tricks but has obviously missed something, resulting in 3 or 4 tricks - Declarer claims 3 tricks in the same position, after which his partner points to an obvious line for 4 tricks. In both cases claimer should get 4 tricks if there are no "normal" lines that lead to 3 tricks. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Mar 19 16:33:56 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:33:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030319153000.00a92b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <017e01c2ee35$567e7280$893627d9@pbncomputer> Alain wrote: > AG : he has two more hearts than expected. 2NT will often be based on > support and *a balanced hand*. Try using the 75% rule - or the 100% rule if > you wish. I bet you that *nobody* will even consider passing. Pass is completely obvious. That was a penalty double, and I have the ace and king of diamonds when I might have no sure defensive trick at all against a spade contract. The bridge "judgement" being exhibited both here and in the "WBF documents" thread (with the honourable exception of Peter Gill) is really of a pretty dismal order. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 19 17:09:16 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:09:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <3E789848.9000406@skynet.be> References: <000001c2ee25$b1f7e890$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030319180641.00a8d4e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:18 19/03/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >I don't think there is any difference between the following two cases: > >- Declarer claims 5 tricks but has obviously missed something, resulting >in 3 or 4 tricks >- Declarer claims 3 tricks in the same position, after which his partner >points to an obvious line for 4 tricks. AG : this isn't enough ; partner would need to demonstrate that every line leads to at least 4 tricks (but for absurdities). This is more frequent on defene, when a player concedes but partner has an automatical trick (eg master trump). From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 19 17:17:28 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:17:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: <017e01c2ee35$567e7280$893627d9@pbncomputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030319153000.00a92b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030319181024.00a95b50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:33 19/03/2003 +0000, you wrote: >Alain wrote: > > > AG : he has two more hearts than expected. 2NT will often be based on > > support and *a balanced hand*. Try using the 75% rule - or the 100% >rule if > > you wish. I bet you that *nobody* will even consider passing. > >Pass is completely obvious. That was a penalty double, and I have the >ace and king of diamonds when I might have no sure defensive trick at >all against a spade contract. The bridge "judgement" being exhibited >both here and in the "WBF documents" thread (with the honourable >exception of Peter Gill) is really of a pretty dismal order. AG : don't agree. Is that classical Acol ? The one where you will open the highest of two touching suits ? Then either partner has 5 hearts or he doesn't have 4 spades. Once again, please don't perorate ; try and conduct a poll. I did, and collected 100% votes for 4D or 4H (eg non-pass), but it was biaised because of 5cM tendencies. Thus I won't take it as a proof. But please, somebody, conduct that poll. Of course, David might still contest the polled persons' judgement, but we will know whether the 90% rule (or whatever percentage) is fulfilled. I bet it will be. Best regards, Alain. (anyway, such a double is never 100% penalties ; it merely shows a flat hand and something in the suit, and asks partner to choose ; I would expect either 3433 or 3442) From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 19 19:22:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:22:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <3E789848.9000406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c2ee4c$ece28ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> My mistake, this was posted to Herman instead of to blml: > Herman De Wael ............. > > I have never been happy with the current distinction between what is > > irrational and what is just careless or inferior, and I believe this > > particular discussion reveals some of the reasons why I am not happy > > with it. > > > > If the player makes a concession requiring what is considered=20 > > irrational play we hold him to that concession (agreed!), but if he > > just makes a claim leaving the same option as a possible line of > > play which is not in conflict with his claim we protect him from > > making that mistake? > > > > Do you see "my" problem? > > >=20 >=20 > Yes I see, you want to separate the "irrational concession" and the > claim. You somehow believe that there is a difference. But there is > not. In order for you to arrive in L71, you first have to have a > concession, therefor a claim. Now it is my opinion that L70 and L71 > are only two sides of the same coin. Both tell us how to proceed when > a claim, once made, is afterwards contested. L70 deals with a > contestation by the non-claiming side, L71 with one from the claiming > side. Of course the second one is more harsh than the first, on > claimer, but both refer to "irrational" and both use the same > definition for that word.=20 I believe what I really want is to get rid of the need for TD or AC to determine whether some play is "irrational" or just plainly inferior (or careless). I do not believe in adjudication based upon the irrationality when we again and again hear of play by expert that nobody (?) would characterize as anything but irrational. How do we know that a player who fails to mention an important detail is aware of this detail? We assume it is obvious that because of his = quality he cannot make a silly mistake, but what if we consider that mistake made simply because the player was imprecise in his statement? I remember seeing a ruling in a Norwegian championship (long time ago) = where declarer when asking for a club from dummy was deemed to having asked = for the 8 from something like AKQJT8 - giving RHO a trick for his nine-spot! All respect for today's "humanity" in the application of the laws, but = my impression is that this "humanity" has resulted in too many conflicts = and appeals. And the players seem being encouraged to be sloppier with what = they do and say because they can always rely upon being saved from making irrational (but legal) mistakes. I wonder if the game would not gain = from returning to some of the old time principles, you are held to what you = say and do.=20 If you ask for a club you ask for the smallest available club without = any fuzz about irrationality or what your intent "obviously" were. If you claim with an incomplete statement then you are held to whatever (legal) line of play your opponents can demonstrate being available = however silly as long as the line is not in conflict with your claim statement. If you concede one or more tricks you are stuck with that unless you can show that there is no legal (!) line of play which could make you lose = such tricks. You would have to explicitly mention that you play the Ace (or that you = know the Queen is now stiff) in order to drop the stiff Queen even when you started out with ten trumps between you and Dummy and both opponents following small to the King. Failure to do so would be taken as you either were unaware, or that you = were careless in your statement, in both cases you lose. And the players = would be trained to be careful in how they claim, concede or request plays from dummy. I am fully aware that my ideas here can be driven into extremes, but I = have a very strong feeling that the distinction between what is irrational = and what is not long time ago has really been driven into the same extremes, = the difference being that today's practice too often seems unpredictable. =20 Regards Sven From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Mar 19 20:03:30 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:03:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <000301c2ee4c$ece28ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c2ee4c$ece28ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > >I believe what I really want is to get rid of the need for TD or AC to >determine whether some play is "irrational" or just plainly inferior (or >careless). I do not believe in adjudication based upon the irrationality >when we again and again hear of play by expert that nobody (?) would >characterize as anything but irrational. > >How do we know that a player who fails to mention an important detail is >aware of this detail? We assume it is obvious that because of his quality he >cannot make a silly mistake, but what if we consider that mistake made >simply because the player was imprecise in his statement? > >I remember seeing a ruling in a Norwegian championship (long time ago) where >declarer when asking for a club from dummy was deemed to having asked for >the 8 from something like AKQJT8 - giving RHO a trick for his nine-spot! > >All respect for today's "humanity" in the application of the laws, but my >impression is that this "humanity" has resulted in too many conflicts and >appeals. And the players seem being encouraged to be sloppier with what they >do and say because they can always rely upon being saved from making >irrational (but legal) mistakes. I wonder if the game would not gain from >returning to some of the old time principles, you are held to what you say >and do. > >If you ask for a club you ask for the smallest available club without any >fuzz about irrationality or what your intent "obviously" were. > >If you claim with an incomplete statement then you are held to whatever >(legal) line of play your opponents can demonstrate being available however >silly as long as the line is not in conflict with your claim statement. > >If you concede one or more tricks you are stuck with that unless you can >show that there is no legal (!) line of play which could make you lose such >tricks. > >You would have to explicitly mention that you play the Ace (or that you know >the Queen is now stiff) in order to drop the stiff Queen even when you >started out with ten trumps between you and Dummy and both opponents >following small to the King. > >Failure to do so would be taken as you either were unaware, or that you were >careless in your statement, in both cases you lose. And the players would be >trained to be careful in how they claim, concede or request plays from >dummy. > >I am fully aware that my ideas here can be driven into extremes, but I have >a very strong feeling that the distinction between what is irrational and >what is not long time ago has really been driven into the same extremes, the >difference being that today's practice too often seems unpredictable. > >Regards Sven This is pretty much how we play at the club level here. Of course, we are not top-level experts. We expect to pay when we screw up. I think most midlevel players would agree with Sven. So are the experts being protected here in another of the many ways the common folk believe they are? The management maintains the top level players are treated just like everyone else. The players at lower levels who run into these top level players now and again don't belive this story at all. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Mar 19 20:22:38 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:22:38 -0800 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <004101c2ede3$90143e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c2ee55$4a672620$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > > >If the submitted score was correctable, then it had to be a wrong score. It > >seems to me improper to accept a wrong score, which is why I would not > >accept such a giift. > > > >Or am I all wet? > > I think you're wet Marv. The hook is not irrational. > > So I guess it's rational, then. A player has AKQx in dummy, xx in hand, four cards left. Having failed to notice an opponent discarded from this suit, he thinks it impossible to win four tricks, so he carelessly says as he leads to dummy, "I'll have to give you a trick." Actually there has been a squeeze and dummy's cards are all goo. Since it is possible to lose a trick by ducking, this is not an implausible concession, not irrational? I can't buy that, John. If a play is one that *no* player of the class playing in this event would *ever* make, how can it be normal? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Mar 19 20:29:32 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:29:32 -0800 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <004101c2ede3$90143e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <3E7827EC.2090902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c2ee56$40fcc260$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Herman De Wael wrote: > > No-one would duck to a stiff queen, that is true, but many players > would duck to a queen doubleton. Since apparently the player thought > the queen was doubleton, playing the jack to this trick is a normal > line and so the claim must be judged as down three, as was the result > at the table. > > We know which mistake the player made, and we stick him to that > mistake. What is so difficult about that ? > Many players would duck?? I have never in my life seen anyone but a beginner duck to a 13th card in a suit when one hand is all trumps, even when they have miscounted. A player has 12 trumps between the two hands, missing the king, but thinks he has 11. Down to nothing but trumps, he leads toward the ace and when next hand shows out he "knows" he must lose to the king. No one, but no one, who has played bridge for a while would duck to the king. It isn't normal. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California . From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 19 20:35:55 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:35:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: <200303192035.PAA23956@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > > > W N E S > > > P P 1H 1S > > > 2NT(1) 3S X P > > > 4H(2) 4S X(3) P > > > P P > From: "Anne Jones" > I wouldn't have thought that the double is a penalty double in the system > West thought he was playing. I would have expected it to be competitive in > this instance, Of course the TD should ask, but playing Acol, why shouldn't East be 4-4 in the majors? Of course the double isn't a unilateral command to pass, but wouldn't you expect it to indicate a preference for defense unless we are told otherwise? Even if 4-4 hands are opened 1S, I'd expect the double to indicate 3-4 in the majors. > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Hmm, I don't agree. The guy bid 2N on the way to 4H, when pard hits 3S > he has no reason not to bid the same 4H, he's not expecting to get rich > from a LOTT of 18 and a known 9 card fit, with game values. [The hand is 52 QJT53 AK85 J7.] As Ted says, the question is not whether 4H is reasonable; it is whether pass is a LA. How can it not be? Game is uncertain, especially if opener has wasted spade values. Do you really think this hand is "game values" opposite an Acol 1H opener? And how do you get 18 total trumps? Looks like 9+8 to me, even before the negative adjustments for the spade wastage. David B. thinks pass is not only a LA but is the correct call. I think if opener can be 4-4 in the majors or even 3-4, anything other than pass looks strange. (It is close which call is better playing 5cM, but even then pass looks reasonable.) Hence my comment about a possible PP for the 4H bid, although that may be too severe. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : he has two more hearts than expected. 2NT will often be based on > support and *a balanced hand*. Try using the 75% rule - or the 100% rule if > you wish. I bet you that *nobody* will even consider passing. Alain may have missed the beginning of the thread. West has misbid. In the fantasy bidding system he is "playing," his 2NT artificially shows heart support, and thus he has only one extra heart. The actual hand also has two spades, where he might have had one or none. The hand is much more defensively oriented than a typical heart raise. Absent UI, say behind screens, of course West can do whatever he wants. Once he has the UI, though, he must "carefully avoid" taking advantage. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Mar 19 20:39:38 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:39:38 -0800 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000001c2edfc$35db4820$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000e01c2ee57$aa064be0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > I fully agree with Herman, and I take this a little further: > This case is in itself a very good evidence that even at top level players may go wrong in the silliest ways. These are errors against which they shall NOT be protected in a post-claim adjudication! > Thus if there had been a claim without a statement proving that the claimer knew the outstanding trump was stiff the Director should rule that he lose a trick to that trump, exactly the way he lost a trick by conceding it here. C'mon, Swen. If I claim all tricks with 12 cards in a suit missing only the king, without saying I am playing the ace first, L70E says that I get all the tricks. (Leading toward the ace is the only normal line of play). I'm beginning to wonder what you guys would consider to be an implausible concession. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Mar 19 20:59:50 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:59:50 -0800 Subject: [blml] I would always (was Appeal 666) References: Message-ID: <001f01c2ee5a$7d02d480$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" > Marv wrote: > > > > At the very least, first ask the player to make his or her own > > > decisions. > > > > Opinion of an involved player is irrelevant unless there is > > corroboration (e.g., system documentation, convention card). > > Opinion is seldom irrelevant. Certainly a TD/AC must hear the opinion > before deciding to treat it as such. Corroboration can also come from > other players/TDs who know the player concerned. The TD/AC are perfectly > entitled to accept player statements at face value if they so choose. > > > A smooth talker should not have an advantage that is unavailable to > > others. > > A player who is better able to articulate his reasoning will often have an > advantage over one who can't, while it is sad that the inarticulate are > disadvantaged it seems undesirable to reduce law to the lowest common > denominator principle - particularly when there are "appeal advisors" in > place to assist these people. Why use a pejorative term like "smooth > talking"? > I am obviously referring to those whose intent is to deceive or obfuscate. To my knowledge, there is no "appeal advisor" furnished by the ACBL. The official ACBL TD policy is to catch the naive early before they can possibly get any advice or think a matter out for themselves. After an MI infraction, the NOS are grilled immediately, even when it is too late to change a call. A top TD told me that it is amazing how some players will make a self-damaging statement that might not be made later, one that the TD had not considered at all. A pair bid 1S-P-3S against me, which I passed around to partner, who also passed. The dummy came down with an unAlerted weak hand, and I called the TD. He took us away from the table, asking what we would have done had we known the raise was weak. I had a 6 -4 with six hearts to the jack and a few high cards, but would never bid 4H vulnerable. A smooth talker could say "Of course I would bid four hearts," because it costs nothing to say that. If 4H would be a good contract, the score gets adjusted. If not, no harm, no foul. Such a statement should be given zero weight, even if somewhat plausible. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 19 21:35:16 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:35:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <000e01c2ee57$aa064be0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c2ee5f$6f0e09d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French > From: "Sven Pran" >=20 >=20 > > I fully agree with Herman, and I take this a little further: >=20 > > This case is in itself a very good evidence that even at top level > players > may go wrong in the silliest ways. These are errors against which they > shall > NOT be protected in a post-claim adjudication! >=20 > > Thus if there had been a claim without a statement proving that the > claimer > knew the outstanding trump was stiff the Director should rule that he = lose > a > trick to that trump, exactly the way he lost a trick by conceding it = here. >=20 > C'mon, Swen. If I claim all tricks with 12 cards in a suit missing = only > the > king, without saying I am playing the ace first, L70E says that I get = all > the tricks. (Leading toward the ace is the only normal line of play). >=20 > I'm beginning to wonder what you guys would consider to be an = implausible > concession. Yes, I know that we will always give the claimer all 12 tricks. I would = have had no problem with that hadn't it been because ever so often we see = even top experts occasionally miscounting and giving away tricks that cannot = be lost except by irrational play. I have indeed seen a top ranked player = do exactly this with 12 trumps to the Ace between himself and Dummy! But when they produce irrational play while playing, why shall they be protected against "irrational" play when claiming? Today's rules include just those words "but not irrational" which makes these rules a sleeping pillow for sloppy players. I am serious: Make it mandatory to specify everything important and make all players = be aware that whenever there is a claim and they have made their claim statement then opponents are entitled to specify in detail the way the = cards are to be played, however silly that play should be, as long as their specification does not contradict the claim statement itself. If you want to play a suit from the top then you must say so. If you = want to take the marked finesse over your LHO you must say so. Anything you do = not say shall be assumed that you are unaware of. If you are clever enough = to claim you should be clever enough to follow the simple rule that your opponents may specify anything you do not specify yourself. Strict, easy and practical rules which will help us avoid a lot of = conflicts and appeals. (And the rules were indeed this way in the early laws for duplicate contract bridge you know?) Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 19 23:28:33 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:28:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] I would always (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: Marv wrote: >I am obviously referring to those whose intent is >to deceive or obfuscate. > >To my knowledge, there is no "appeal advisor" >furnished by the ACBL. The official ACBL TD policy >is to catch the naive early before they can >possibly get any advice or think a matter out for >themselves. After an MI infraction, the NOS are >grilled immediately, even when it is too late to >change a call. A top TD told me that it is amazing >how some players will make a self-damaging >statement that might not be made later, one that >the TD had not considered at all. > >A pair bid 1S-P-3S against me, which I passed >around to partner, who also passed. The dummy came >down with an unAlerted weak hand, and I called the >TD. He took us away from the table, asking what we >would have done had we known the raise was weak. I >had a 6 -4 with six hearts to the jack and a few >high cards, but would never bid 4H vulnerable. A >smooth talker could say "Of course I would bid four >hearts," because it costs nothing to say that. If 4H >would be a good contract, the score gets adjusted. >If not, no harm, no foul. > >Such a statement should be given zero weight, even >if somewhat plausible. This ACBL policy of immediate grilling would be unnecessary if all ACBL players were as ethical as Marv. Presumably the policy is designed to preempt *slow-thinking* would-be deceivers, who are not given time to fabricate a self-serving "I would always..." Unfortunately, the effect of the policy in practice means that the statements of *quick-thinking* deceivers are given more weight than such statements deserve. The nature of the policy means that the percentage of true statements collected is higher than those that would have been collected by a non-ACBL policy where statements by the NOS are collected at the completion of the deal. Therefore, ACBL TDs are more likely to gullibly accept the rarer quick-thinking deceptive statement as true, while non-ACBL TDs are psychologically more prepared for deception due to greater frequency. Best wishes Richard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 19 22:39:49 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:39:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] I would always (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: <200303192239.RAA24065@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "David J. Grabiner" > I was polled as a peer in a > previous NABC, and simply asked, "What would you bid?" Since I knew what > the Laws require, I was able to tell the director... Do you mean you were told about the UI when polled???! Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of polling? Of course you will often be able to guess the actual problem, but I thought the point of polling was to determine what call players would choose absent the UI (or MI). From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Mar 19 22:48:52 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:48:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <000301c2ee4c$ece28ab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3E789848.9000406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030319173816.01f7d360@pop.starpower.net> At 02:22 PM 3/19/03, Sven wrote: >I believe what I really want is to get rid of the need for TD or AC to >determine whether some play is "irrational" or just plainly inferior (or >careless). I do not believe in adjudication based upon the irrationality >when we again and again hear of play by expert that nobody (?) would >characterize as anything but irrational. I don't think that excluding play that is "irrational" would cause problems. The problems we see. ISTM, come almost exlusively from the perceived need to exclude play that is "irrational for the class of player involved", which is far more problematic. >How do we know that a player who fails to mention an important detail is >aware of this detail? We assume it is obvious that because of his >quality he >cannot make a silly mistake, but what if we consider that mistake made >simply because the player was imprecise in his statement? > >I remember seeing a ruling in a Norwegian championship (long time ago) >where >declarer when asking for a club from dummy was deemed to having asked for >the 8 from something like AKQJT8 - giving RHO a trick for his nine-spot! > >All respect for today's "humanity" in the application of the laws, but my >impression is that this "humanity" has resulted in too many conflicts and >appeals. And the players seem being encouraged to be sloppier with >what they >do and say because they can always rely upon being saved from making >irrational (but legal) mistakes. I wonder if the game would not gain from >returning to some of the old time principles, you are held to what you say >and do. > >If you ask for a club you ask for the smallest available club without any >fuzz about irrationality or what your intent "obviously" were. We're confusing two different issues here. We know that if you call "club" you are stuck with the play of the C8. But do we really want to stick declarer with the play of the C8 if he says "six club tricks" holding AKQJ108 with five clubs outstanding? I don't. >If you claim with an incomplete statement then you are held to whatever >(legal) line of play your opponents can demonstrate being available >however >silly as long as the line is not in conflict with your claim statement. > >If you concede one or more tricks you are stuck with that unless you can >show that there is no legal (!) line of play which could make you lose >such >tricks. So every time a player claims, and states his intentions in a way that it is clear to everybody what he means, we must still disallow the claim because he didn't say "playing my suits from the top down, not discarding any winners, following suit to high cards with low ones every time"? (Would even that be sufficient?) I don't think we need or want claims laws that require a claimer to repeat these statements every time he claims. >You would have to explicitly mention that you play the Ace (or that >you know >the Queen is now stiff) in order to drop the stiff Queen even when you >started out with ten trumps between you and Dummy and both opponents >following small to the King. > >Failure to do so would be taken as you either were unaware, or that >you were >careless in your statement, in both cases you lose. And the players >would be >trained to be careful in how they claim, concede or request plays from >dummy. > >I am fully aware that my ideas here can be driven into extremes, but I >have >a very strong feeling that the distinction between what is irrational and >what is not long time ago has really been driven into the same >extremes, the >difference being that today's practice too often seems unpredictable. Get rid of "class of player involved" and you'll find that there are very simple rules that will lead to far more consistency and predictability. Just take the stuff that my hypothetical player didn't say in the example above (or something similar), assume it has been said, and proceed from there. 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 Wed Mar 19 22:55:34 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:55:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Slooow play Message-ID: <200303192255.RAA24083@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > >L12A1 gives authority for an > >assigned adjusted score. > > [big snip] > > But use of Law 12A1 is not legal > in determining the score for an > unfinished board. (See the > Chapter 1 definition of > assigned adjusted score.) I am sorry, but I fail to see how your conclusion follows from the definition. The Chapter 1 definition uses the words "result can be obtained or estimated," and a result can always be estimated in relevant cases. It's worth noticing that L12A1 mandates an _assigned_ AS. > From: Ed Reppert > At least one of the local TDs here is fond of pointing out that bridge > is a timed event. I'd be interested to know if your TD could point me to some books or articles telling me how to take advantage of this. If I can put my opponents into time trouble, it ought to improve my scores. What is my best strategy? (The above argument that bridge is *not* a timed event is from Edgar Kaplan. Or at least his writings were where I read it.) > From: Gordon Bower > It is interesting that there is no standard "set of rules for timed play" > the way there is in chess. Another good argument. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 20 00:17:22 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:17:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Slooow play Message-ID: I wrote: >>But use of Law 12A1 is not legal >>in determining the score for an >>unfinished board. (See the >>Chapter 1 definition of >>assigned adjusted score.) Steve Willner replied: >I am sorry, but I fail to see how your >conclusion follows from the definition. The Chapter 1 definition uses the words >"result can be obtained or estimated," >and a result can always be estimated in >relevant cases. > >It's worth noticing that L12A1 mandates >an _assigned_ AS. Because the definition of an *artificial* adjusted score includes the proviso "no result can be obtained or estimated", I agree that a necessary condition for an *assigned* adjusted score is that there is a result that can be obtained or estimated. But a principle of logic is that a *necessary* condition may not be a *sufficient* condition. An *assigned* adjusted score also requires that it be "in place of the result actually obtained". And an unfinished board ipso facto does not have a "result actually obtained". Best wishes Richard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 19 23:20:25 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:20:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession Message-ID: <200303192320.SAA24103@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Marvin French" > A player has AKQx in dummy, xx in hand, four cards left. Having failed to > notice an opponent discarded from this suit, he thinks it impossible to win > four tricks, so he carelessly says as he leads to dummy, "I'll have to give > you a trick." May I suggest that the critical difference is whether the line of play can be determined. Certainly if the player had said "I have to give you the _last_ trick," it would be clear he means to play the high cards first. He should then be given the benefit if it turns out the last card is good. There is likewise no problem if the player says, "OK, duck this one, then win the last three." When there is no statement, we are left to guess which line is intended. In the "finesse" cases, many BLML contributors believe it is "normal" to duck. If so -- and not everyone agrees -- claimer has to lose a trick. I go part of the way with Sven and David B.: claimers should state or otherwise make clear their intended line of play. I don't much care how that's accomplished: oral statement, laying down cards in order, pointing, whatever. Nor do I care what number of tricks they claim or concede. We can always work out the actual number of tricks if the line of play is clear. From nancy@dressing.org Wed Mar 19 23:27:57 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:27:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Slooow play References: <002401c2eda0$7e544f40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005301c2ee6f$2c9cf6a0$6501a8c0@hare> How absurd it would be to even think that the top players could have enough influence to affect the careers of directors!!! If you really think about it, most of the tournaments would be much more fun and rewarding for more of us if they stayed home!!!! I would love to see slow play enforced!!! What an improvement in the whole game!!! Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Slooow play > > From: "Henk Uijterwaal > > > > > Bridge allegedly is a timed event. > > > > I think that this is the key issue. Elsewhere in the world, players will > > agree, but in ACBL land they disagree. Until that changes, any attempts > > to make it into a timed event are futile, slow play penalties are > > considered absurd and nobody will generally care. > > > The ACBLScore Tech Files instruct TDs to apply either L90 or L91 for slow > play, depending on the attitude of the pair. The former is appealable, the > latter not, and an appeal has to be well-founded to avoid an Appeal Without > Merit Warning. There is nothing said about the appropriate magnitude of a > penalty, which evidently is up to the TD. > > This was an "Office Interpretation" in 1992, implementing instructions from > the BoD that slow play regulations should be enforced. > > No one disagrees, other than the culprits and the TDs on the floor who > prefer not to follow the instructions. Is it possible that the top players > have enough influence to affect the careers of TDs who give them a hard > time? > > As Nancy comments, using breaks for extra playing time is unfair to those > who play two boards in the 15 minutes provided. That should be penalized as > slow play, even if it results in catching up. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 19 23:28:04 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:28:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Slooow play Message-ID: <200303192328.SAA24112@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > An *assigned* adjusted score also > requires that it be "in place of the > result actually obtained". And an > unfinished board ipso facto does not > have a "result actually obtained". This is a much better argument, but I still don't buy it. The phrase Richard quotes comes from L12C2, which specifies how to determine an assigned AS when you award one. I don't view this law as determining _whether_ to award one. In contrast, L12A1 explicitly specifies which kind of AS to award. So do other laws. Let me ask you this, Richard: you have a violation of law that does not come with a specified penalty, and (perhaps because of the violation) the board is not played to completion. How do you award a score if not via 12A1 and 12C2? If you propose a route that leads to an artificial score, do you think it leads to a sensible score when the play completed so far strongly indicates a particular final result? From john@asimere.com Wed Mar 19 23:26:28 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:26:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <000401c2ee55$4a672620$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <004101c2ede3$90143e00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000401c2ee55$4a672620$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <1ybsgeBkyPe+EwFk@asimere.com> In article <000401c2ee55$4a672620$6401a8c0@san.rr.com>, Marvin French writes > >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> > >> >If the submitted score was correctable, then it had to be a wrong score. >It >> >seems to me improper to accept a wrong score, which is why I would not >> >accept such a giift. >> > >> >Or am I all wet? >> >> I think you're wet Marv. The hook is not irrational. >> > >So I guess it's rational, then. > >A player has AKQx in dummy, xx in hand, four cards left. Having failed to >notice an opponent discarded from this suit, he thinks it impossible to win >four tricks, so he carelessly says as he leads to dummy, "I'll have to give >you a trick." Actually there has been a squeeze and dummy's cards are all >goo. Since it is possible to lose a trick by ducking, this is not an >implausible concession, not irrational? Here there is no "losing" finesse position, I'd award all 4. When a finesse could lose to the one remaining card and the claimer has indicated he's expecting to lose it, I'll award the trick to the non- claimers. cheers john > >I can't buy that, John. If a play is one that *no* player of the class >playing in this event would *ever* make, how can it be normal? > >Marv -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Mar 20 00:28:45 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:28:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD References: <200303192035.PAA23956@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003001c2ee77$ab36a800$893627d9@pbncomputer> > > From: "Anne Jones" > > I wouldn't have thought that the double is a penalty double in the system > > West thought he was playing. I would have expected it to be competitive in > > this instance, Comptetitve in what, for Heaven's sake? We have announced that we have a heart fit. The opponnets have just bid three spades. Are we really doubling in case we have a better spot in four of a minor? > Of course the TD should ask, but playing Acol, why shouldn't East be > 4-4 in the majors? The opponents have not just bid to three spades on a seven-card fit. They may only have eight, but are overwhelmingly likely to have nine. But over 3S, partner (who knows that the opponents have nine spades) had these choices: he could pass, he could cue bid for slam, he could bid four hearts, or he could double for penalty. Whatever his choice is, he has made it, and with an ace-king I have no reason on Earth to overrule him. > Of course the double isn't a unilateral command to > pass, but wouldn't you expect it to indicate a preference for defense > unless we are told otherwise? Yes. Finally, a sentence that makes sense. > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > Hmm, I don't agree. The guy bid 2N on the way to 4H, when pard hits 3S > > he has no reason not to bid the same 4H, he's not expecting to get rich > > from a LOTT of 18 and a known 9 card fit, with game values. God save us all. Partner doubled three spades for penalty. He knew that the opponents had nine spades when he did this. If you do not respect his decision, you should get another partner (you will need one anyway, because he will be trading you in for next year's model before your feet touch the floor). Who knows - I might even get a club ruff against three spades doubled (I would think this quite likely, in fact). Pulling this double is out-and-out cheating, based on the non-alert of 2NT; it makes not an atom of sense as a bridge judgement. Alain can poll anyone he likes; I gave the hand to Callaghan and Armstrong, and they both led the jack of clubs. When I explained that this was a bidding problem, they looked at me blankly. > David B. thinks pass is not only a LA but is the correct call. I think > if opener can be 4-4 in the majors or even 3-4, anything other than > pass looks strange. Well, opener could be 4-4 in the majors if the guy has psyched his spade overcall. If so, more power to us. David Burn London, England From jvickers@fish.co.uk Thu Mar 20 00:38:26 2003 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:38:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD References: <200303190908.h2J98Jp2021181@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <007101c2ee79$be96c2c0$ef3c74d5@oemcomputer> [James Vickers:] > > 6. Would you as director entertain North's request for an adjusted score > > several boards later, or are they out of time? [Ted Ying:] > 6. Yes, I would entertain North's request for an adjusted score. It > is a byproduct of a long TD ruling that it takes away time from > players to consider the consequences. If they are conscientious > players, they will use the remaining time in the round to make > sure they are caught up and don't play pass the end of the > round and hence will not spend extra time thinking about the > consequences. The conscientious pair will have to wait for their > first opportunity to consider the hand and whether they need an > adjusted score before bringing it to the TD's attention. So, > they should be allowed the grace time. I think as long as they > bring it to the attention of the TD by the end of the session > it would be appropriate. If the deadline is the 30 minute correction period rather than the end of the round (as Anne Jones suggested), what is to stop a team which has already qualified asking for a late ruling to reduce their opponents' score and perhaps help a team of friends to qualify? And can I repeat my earlier point which no-one has addressed: how does this tie in with the following extract from the EBL Commentary on the Laws (Appendix III, "Conversations with Weinstein", subject 1): [Weinstein:] Supposing a player commits an irregularity and his opponent notices it but does not draw attention to it until it maybe serves his purpose much later? [Endicott:] I think the director should take refuge in Law9B1(a) if there was the slightest indication at the time amongst the players that the violation was noticed. Only if fresh information has come to light should he proceed to rule in such a case. In this case NS knew how they had been damaged (East had rubbed their noses in it), but failed to recall the director as requested at the end of the hand. I had always assumed that they had lost their chance for an adjustment , but the weight of consensus against me is overwhelming. (And I cannot agree with Ted that asking the director for a ruling takes up any of their playing time. They get on with the rest of the boards and deal with the score adjustment at the end of the round / session, or whenever they have time.) James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK From jvickers@fish.co.uk Thu Mar 20 00:40:38 2003 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:40:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030319153000.00a92b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030319181024.00a95b50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <007201c2ee79$bfa350c0$ef3c74d5@oemcomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "David Burn" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Private discussion with the TD [David Burn:] > >Pass is completely obvious. That was a penalty double, and I have the > >ace and king of diamonds when I might have no sure defensive trick at > >all against a spade contract. The bridge "judgement" being exhibited > >both here and in the "WBF documents" thread (with the honourable > >exception of Peter Gill) is really of a pretty dismal order. > > AG : don't agree. Is that classical Acol ? The one where you will open the > highest of two touching suits ? Then either partner has 5 hearts or he > doesn't have 4 spades. > > (anyway, such a double is never 100% penalties ; it merely shows a flat > hand and something in the suit, and asks partner to choose ; I would expect > either 3433 or 3442) [Steve Willner:] >Of course the TD should ask, but playing Acol, why shouldn't East be >4-4 in the majors? Of course the double isn't a unilateral command to >pass, but wouldn't you expect it to indicate a preference for defense >unless we are told otherwise? Alain is making some good points about what West can expect from his partner (I made them earlier too, but no-one picked up on them). EW are playing Acol, their style is to open the _lower_ of two touching suits, and the only time a 1H opener will be based on four cards will be hands too strong for a 1NT opener (i.e. > 14 pts) or perhaps a 4=4=4=1 distribution. West can hardly expect partner to have four spades as the standard pack contains only 13, he is looking at two himself and NS surely have shown eight between them. Alain's last paragraph hits the nail on the head. What does that do for West's options? If he gives East a likely 3=4=?=? 15-16 count, there are 17 total tricks, so if 4H is making 10 tricks (which it surely is) they can fetch only +300 from 3SX. If EW can make 11 tricks they can show a small profit (2 IMPs) from passing 3SX, but this will be a slightly bigger loss (3 IMPs) if 10 tricks is the limit. Is this sufficient to make pass a logical alternative? Can the TD lay such sophisticated analysis at EW's door when deciding this? Probably not, I posted the problem originally in the hope of finding out. (If my team possessed the bridge judgement of David Burn we wouldn't have received such a comprehensive thrashing in the tournament.) Now over to East: once West has bid 4H, North overcalled 4S, East can do some similar calculations when deciding whether to double again. Partner must have two spades (more likely three) for the (natural) 2NT bid, he's looking at three himself, what on earth are NS bidding on? Hence my comment that he is left with the conclusion that either West has misbid, or NS are lunatics. Does he have to assume the latter and double again? James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Thu Mar 20 00:52:02 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:52:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] I would always (was Appeal 666) In-Reply-To: <003b01c2eddf$387cfb40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030318200306.022b92c8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030319195058.00bbf7f8@mail.comcast.net> At 01:17 AM 3/19/2003, Marvin French wrote: >From: "David J. Grabiner" ) > > > > At 05:20 PM 3/18/2003, Marvin French wrote: > > > > >Polling both "experts" and peers for opinions about LAs and MI effects is > > >popular right now at NABCs. That's okay, but they are not asking the >right > > >questions, which are of this nature: > > > > > >"In this event, given this hand and auction so far, which calls do you >think > > >a substantial minority, at least, would seriously consider?" > > > > > >"In this event, given this hand and auction so far, with the corrected > > >information about the opposing auction, which calls do you think a >typical > > >player would make, with a 1/3 probability? Also, with a 2/3 probability?" > > > > It's hard to get the right answers from peers in this way; how many Flight > > B players know what other Flight B players would seriously consider? > >Yes, I think the stronger players would give a better answer. Also, my model >questions would normally have to be put in a more roundabout fashion to >avoid the response of "Huh?" > > > At > > the very least, first ask the player to make his or her own decisions. > >Opinion of an involved player is irrelevant unless there is corroboration >(e.g., system documentation, convention card). A smooth talker should not >have an advantage that is unavailable to others. Sorry, I was ambiguous here. The peers consulted should first be asked to make their own decisions, rather than being asked complicated questions about seriously considered alternatives. I agree that the involved players' opinions should not be given much weight. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 20 02:03:22 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:03:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Slooow play Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>An *assigned* adjusted score also >>requires that it be "in place of the >>result actually obtained". And an >>unfinished board ipso facto does not >>have a "result actually obtained". Steve Willner: >This is a much better argument, but I >still don't buy it. The phrase Richard >quotes comes from L12C2, which specifies >how to determine an assigned AS when you >award one. I don't view this law as >determining _whether_ to award one. Richard Hills: The phrase also comes from the Chapter One definition of assigned AS. Awarding an assigned AS in circumstances contrary to the Lawful definition of what an assigned AS *is* seems paradoxical. Unless you wish to join Bill Clinton in quibbling, "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Steve Willner: >In contrast, L12A1 explicitly specifies >which kind of AS to award. So do other >laws. Richard Hills: Correct. Since Law 12A1 specifies what kind of AS to award, in my opinion Law 12A1 has limited application. In my further opinion, Law 12A2 fills the hole created by the implicit limitation on Law 12A1. (Metaphor: Law 12A1 is yin, Law 12A2 is yang.) Steve Willner: >Let me ask you this, Richard: you have a >violation of law that does not come with a >specified penalty, and (perhaps because of >the violation) the board is not played to >completion. How do you award a score if not >via 12A1 and 12C2? As TD, I rule using Law 12A2 and Law 12C1. >If you propose a route that leads to an >artificial score, do you think it leads to a >sensible score when the play completed so far >strongly indicates a particular final result? This is a Bridge Laws Mailing List, not a Bridge Sensible Mailing List. Best wishes Richard From Anne Jones" <003001c2ee77$ab36a800$893627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001f01c2ee81$1e03e9c0$2f2e6651@annescomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 12:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Private discussion with the TD > > > From: "Anne Jones" > > > > I wouldn't have thought that the double is a penalty double in the > system > > > West thought he was playing. I would have expected it to be > competitive in > > > this instance, > > Comptetitve in what, for Heaven's sake? We have announced that we have a > heart fit. The opponnets have just bid three spades. Are we really > doubling in case we have a better spot in four of a minor? > Systemically we have not shown that we have a heart fit. I would think that the double of 3S would be showing extra values, inviting West to pass if he had good trumps. West has forgotten the system, he believes he has shown a raise to 3H, He is not allowed to remember. In my opinion, it is inconceivable to think that he would pass what he must think is a penalty double of 3S, because of his extra distribution which is poor defensively. I would of course consult better players than myself - and I would be giving them the West hand - telling them that 2NT is a fit bid, and asking what their actions would be opposite a penalty double of 3S. Anne --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 17/03/2003 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Mar 20 01:56:01 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:56:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030319153000.00a92b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030319181024.00a95b50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <007201c2ee79$bfa350c0$ef3c74d5@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <004b01c2ee83$dbd08ec0$893627d9@pbncomputer> James wrote: > Alain is making some good points about what West can expect from his partner > (I made them earlier too, but no-one picked up on them). EW are playing > Acol, their style is to open the _lower_ of two touching suits, and the only > time a 1H opener will be based on four cards will be hands too strong for a > 1NT opener (i.e. > 14 pts) or perhaps a 4=4=4=1 distribution. West can > hardly expect partner to have four spades as the standard pack contains only > 13, he is looking at two himself and NS surely have shown eight between > them. Alain's last paragraph hits the nail on the head. No, it does not. It misses more or less everything by a country mile or so. > What does that do for West's options? If he gives East a likely 3=4=?=? > 15-16 count, there are 17 total tricks Of course there are. But we will give the opponents nine spades, thus: J109x x Qxxx xxxx xx Ax QJ1087 Axxxx AKxx xx xx AKxx KQxxx Kx Jxx QJx Four hearts makes five. Three spades doubled is down only four. Nineteen trumps, sixteen tricks. Hats off to Larry. But that is not the point (apart from illustrating that many calculations based on the Law of Total Tricks will end up with the wrong answer). The point is that East, in the face of West's heart raise, has chosen to *double three spades for penalty*, and not to bid four hearts. Assuming that everyone is on the level (a dubious assumption at the best of times), such a double can have only one meaning: I know that we have a heart fit; I know the opponents have shown nine spades; but I would really like to defend three spades doubled; however, if you have very much less defence than a 2NT bid might contain, you can bid four hearts; if not, then I think three spades doubled represents our side's best chance of a good score. Well, West has two more defensive tricks than he might have (two and a half, if you count the far from negligible chance of a club ruff). The *only* reason anyone could have to pull this double is that East did not alert 2NT. This isn't "superior judgement", or anything else. This is just thinking in straight lines. The amount of abject cobblers that has been written about West's decision is enough to drive one to complete despair. "I would expect it to be a competitive double". "It just shows a flat hand." "The Law of Total Tricks..." And these are people who take it upon themselves to decide what might or might not be "careless". Angels and ministers of grace defend us. David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 20 03:04:41 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:04:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: James Vickers quoted: >>[Weinstein:] Supposing a player commits an irregularity >>and his opponent notices it but does not draw attention >>to it until it maybe serves his purpose much later? >> >>[Endicott:] I think the director should take refuge in >>Law9B1(a) if there was the slightest indication at the >>time amongst the players that the violation was noticed. >>Only if fresh information has come to light should he >>proceed to rule in such a case. James Vickers continued: >In this case NS knew how they had been damaged (East had >rubbed their noses in it), but failed to recall the >director as requested at the end of the hand. I had >always assumed that they had lost their chance for an >adjustment, but the weight of consensus against me is >overwhelming. In my opinion, Law 9B1(a) is not relevant to the stem case of this thread. The TD was not originally called "much later". (Indeed, technically the original call for the TD was premature.) The TD merely asked to be recalled if the NOS thought that they had been damaged by the irregularity. In my opinion, the relevant Law is Law 85B. The TD originally made "a ruling that will permit play to continue", and Law 85B goes on to specifically state that there is a "right to appeal" that ruling. Therefore, the time period specified in Law 92B is the time period permitted to both the OS and NOS to request the TD to change the ruling, or to appeal an unchanged ruling. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 20 04:25:42 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:25:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Slooow play Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote: [snip] >We do play our tournaments with clocks. If one or two >tables get behind late plays get assigned. If the same >table gets behind again usually an ArtAS happens. But >if several tables are behind - well - there is really >no alternative to adding time to the clock. [snip] In my opinion, a TD who passively rewards slow play by adding time to the clock is failing to live up to the TD's obligations under Law 81C4 and Law 81C6. In my opinion, there is a better alternative. When I am TD at the local walk-in, I deal with slow play by using what Vitold named "active TDship". Towards the end of the round, I roam the tables, and specifically request any particular slow table to speed up. I also proactively prevent any table illegally starting a board after I have announced the move for the next round. I have not yet been required to cancel a incompletely played board, since Canberra players seem to be quicker on average than ACBL experts. However, I would do so if a particular visitor joined my local walk-in. Marv wrote: [snip] >>Bob Hamman is another culprit. With the round already >>over, he may take 4-5 minutes to decide on a play. [snip] In such a circumstance, as well as cancelling the incompletely played board, I would also launch a hefty PP at Hamman. On the other hand, maybe my policy is why the WBF has not invited me to be Chief Director at the Bermuda Bowl. Best wishes Richard From kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Mar 20 03:56:16 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:56:16 -0800 Subject: [blml] Slooow play - superstars References: Message-ID: snip snip snip Richard wrote > In such a circumstance, as well as cancelling the > incompletely played board, I would also launch a hefty PP > at Hamman. On the other hand, maybe my policy is why the > WBF has not invited me to be Chief Director at the Bermuda > Bowl. K: Allowing excessively slow play without penalty to the bridge "superstars" is pretty much equal to courtesies extended to royalty. But they are not royalty, no matter how brilliant and technically superior - I admire their skill. But when Laws exist and they are enforced, they need to be enforced to all participants equally and in all events where the Laws are applicable. Kaima aka D R Davis From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 20 05:29:27 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:29:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) Message-ID: Ton wrote: [snip] >But if you are still not convinced let us take >L12C3. You remember that the LC gave sponsoring >organizations the possibility to give their TD's >the authority to use 12C3. And then the sponsoring >organization can prescibe situations in which the >TD has to do so. Which is what happened here. You >have noticed that 12C3 doesn't speak about the >circumstances under which it may or may not be >applied. Not so. Law 12C3 can only be applied under the circumstances of a preexisting Assigned AS. That is, Law 12C3 merely permits a TD or AC to "vary" a Law 12C2 ruling. If the initial ruling used Law 12C1, then use of Law 12C3 is not legal. >I have to admit that I just constructed this >explanation and that probably nobody tried to find >any justification in the laws for this regulation, but >it is there! Which is another proof for the quality >and flexibility of our laws (the explosions of >laughter will reach me). Ho, ho, ho. After examining the various flexible justifications for the Menton incomplete board regulation, in my opinion only Grattan's Law 78D suggestion has both quality and legality. But I agree with Ton that using Law 78D is Kaplanesque, as - in my opinion - such a use is extending the power of Law 78D beyond its contextual scope. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 20 05:37:16 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:37:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) Message-ID: >As I see it, the EBL are entitled to make rules >that are against the law. If there is a discrepancy, >The Rules and Regulations prevail. > >Regards >Hans-Olof Is this correct? I have a slightly different understanding about the entitlements of the EBL. My belief is that the WBF has ruled that a regulation made under one Law can overrule another Law, not that a regulation can be made with no Lawful justification whatsoever. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 20 05:56:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:56:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Menton Rules and Regulations (fwd) Message-ID: >>Yes, very odd. My understanding is that UI *never* >>"precludes normal bidding"; >+=+ You could maybe find something under Law 16B. >More widely than that I reserve my position whilst >meditating on the question. ~ G ~ +=+ Good point, my beautiful theory has been ruined by an ugly fact. In the more specific case of UI-from-partner, is it ever possible to Lawfully rule that the Law 73A1 infraction precludes normal bidding, and thus a Law Law 12A2 adjustment is permitted? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 20 06:26:54 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:26:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Slooow play - superstars Message-ID: >K: Allowing excessively slow play without >penalty to the bridge "superstars" is pretty >much equal to courtesies extended to royalty. >But they are not royalty, no matter how >brilliant and technically superior - I admire >their skill. > >But when Laws exist and they are enforced, they >need to be enforced to all participants equally >and in all events where the Laws are applicable. > >Kaima aka D R Davis Disagree. As TD, I would not rule "equally" but instead enforce the Laws "fairly". That is, I would apply a PP to a superstar for a major infraction of Law, since the superstar is (or should be) well aware of their Lawful obligations. I would not apply the same PP to a beginner for the same infraction. Instead, I would later privately and informally educate the beginner. Summary: A TD should treat beginners with the courtesy due to royalty, and superstars with the courtesy due to George W Bush. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 20 06:55:32 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:55:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: Example Appeal no. 7 Unauthorized information? Dealer S : Love all. A 8 4 K J 9 5 3 10 Q 5 4 3 7 6 K 10 9 5 Q 10 8 7 4 A 2 7 5 4 3 K Q 9 8 6 8 6 10 7 Q J 3 2 6 A 5 2 A K J 9 2 West North East South 1C Pass 1H Dbl Rdbl 2D 4H Pass Pass Dbl Pass Pass 4NT Pass 5C All Pass. After the 4H bid East enquired about the redouble and it was explained as showing three-card support. Five clubs made eleven tricks. The Director ruled that South possessed unauthorized information when he bid 4NT, that Pass was a logical alternative to this, and that the score be adjusted to NS -300 in 4H doubled. NS appealed and suggested that the enquiry about the redouble had no relevance to East's hand. The effect of the question and the ruling was that East had prevented NS recovering from a systemic failure. As an AC member, with Law 12C3 enabled, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Mar 20 07:33:07 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:33:07 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Slooow play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > In my opinion, a TD who passively rewards slow play by > adding time to the clock is failing to live up to the > TD's obligations under Law 81C4 and Law 81C6. In my > opinion, there is a better alternative. > > When I am TD at the local walk-in, I deal with slow > play by using what Vitold named "active TDship". I think most of us do that. Problems only arise when tables refuse to speed up, and the usual solutions only quit working when more than one table falls behind on a given round. My point, essentially, is that the clock is set such that we expect most tables to finish most rounds within the allotted time, and *if* it should happen that many tables (not the just the handful of slowpokes we all know by name in our games) have trouble consistently, that is evidence the director has chosen the wrong clock setting. Several posters have argued for the elimination of the hospitality breaks during ACBL pairs games. Surprise: players actually like having a few minutes to get a coffee/coke/cigarette without racing back, and it does let the pairs who are just a few minutes late get caught up. (There used to be 3 per session, in my area anyway, and it was reduced to 2 as the number of diehard smokers fell. It is in no danger of being reduced further.) I am all for the orderly progress of the game. I am worried, though, that a few of the stricter directors on this list are forgetting that it IS part of the job description to keep the players happy enough to come back next time. Comparing the number of "its too slow" complaints with the number of "you push too hard" complaints received may be a useful guide. I was able to bring the average time for a 28-board game at my local club down from ~3h50m to ~3h30m fairly quickly ... but even though the math says 3h16m is sufficient at 7 minutes a board, the players just won't go faster than 3h25m no matter how hard they are pushed. GRB From kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Mar 20 08:03:38 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:03:38 -0800 Subject: [blml] Slooow play - superstars References: Message-ID: Snip > > > >But when Laws exist and they are enforced, they > >need to be enforced to all participants equally > >and in all events where the Laws are applicable. > > > >Kaima aka D R Davis > > Disagree. As TD, I would not rule "equally" but > instead enforce the Laws "fairly". > > That is, I would apply a PP to a superstar for > a major infraction of Law, since the superstar is > (or should be) well aware of their Lawful > obligations. > > I would not apply the same PP to a beginner for > the same infraction. Instead, I would later > privately and informally educate the beginner. > > Summary: A TD should treat beginners with the > courtesy due to royalty, and superstars with the > courtesy due to George W Bush. > > Best wishes > > Richard K: Thank you, a valid point - beginners need help and education, not to be hit with the book when they are still learning!! However, there are likely to be no (or very few) beginners in the same event that the superstars are playing at. Also, I was still on the discussion thread regarding Slow Play. It requires no knowledge of laws, just pay attention to the round calls, make an effort to catch up, and don't go into the tank when already several minutes late. This should apply to everyone, though in my experience (as well as some others, even posted on here) only the rank players are "required" to keep the pace, superstars are allowed to tank tank tank even after round is called. I still think it is not fair Maybe a solution could be to adjust the time allotted on the clock in high level events where the superstars play, to accommodate the slow players among them? Just a thought. Best regards, Kaima From gillp@bigpond.com Thu Mar 20 08:03:43 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:03:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: <00f401c2eeb7$3a7a13a0$5bc38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> James Vickers wrote: >West can hardly expect partner to have four spades as the >standard pack contains only 13, he is looking at two himself >and NS surely have shown eight between them...... > ....... >Now over to East: once West has bid 4H, North overcalled 4S, >East can do some similar calculations when deciding whether >to double again. Partner must have two spades (more likely three) >for the (natural) 2NT bid, he's looking at three himself, what on earth >are NS bidding on? Hence my comment that he is left with the >conclusion that either West has misbid, or NS are lunatics. Does >he have to assume the latter and double again? In your first paragraph above, you expect West to trust the opponents to have eight spades rather than trusting East to have the four spades which his penalty double opposite heart support surely guarantees. Note that when we are known to have a fit, doubling a partscore at IMPs without four trumps is very risky. In your second paragraph above, there is a reversal of trust in that East no longer trusts the opponents ("more likely three") and tends towards trusting partner instead. This seems to be a little bit inconsistent. >EW are playing Acol, their style is to open the _lower_ of two >touching suits, and the only time a 1H opener will be based on >four cards will be hands too strong for a 1NT opener (i.e. > 14 pts) >or perhaps a 4=4=4=1 distribution. OK, so the sane explanation of East's Double opposite four plus hearts is that he has four spades and four hearts, with his spades having good texture to risk doubling a partscore at IMPs. Perhaps East has QJ109, Axxx, Qx, AQx, a hand with defensive assets and poor cards for playing 4H. Give the overcaller AK87, Kxx, J1098, xx (I know plenty of players who would overcall 1S non vul on these cards) and give North xxx, x, xxx, KJ109xx (again I know quite a few players who would bid 3S as a safe-looking preparation for a possible sacrifice over 4H). On a trump lead and continuation, South probably goes down six in 3SX, minus 1400 instead of minus 420 defending 4H. On other layouts, the difference will not be as spectacular as 980 points. My point is that passing the Double of 3S could be right, indeed it could be very right. I am not saying that it is always right for West to pass the Double - opposite a speculative doubler of partscores (in other words, opposite an inexperienced or unsuccessful IMPs player), 4H might be wisest. It depends how much West trusts East to have a genuine penalty double. Peter Gill Australia From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 20 08:21:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:21:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Slooow play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2eeb9$bf350a80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Bower .......... > I was able to bring the average time for a 28-board game at my local > club down from ~3h50m to ~3h30m fairly quickly ... but even though > the math says 3h16m is sufficient at 7 minutes a board, the players > just won't go faster than 3h25m no matter how hard they are pushed. Many (more than 20) years of experience has told us that 7 minutes per = board plus 2 minutes per round is a suitable setting for the timer. (Beginners should be allowed more time). With 2 boards per round that means 16 minutes, with 3 boards 23 minutes = and with 4 boards 30 minutes. Assuming you play 7 rounds of 4 boards each you should expect 3h30m net playing time. It would seem as if your own experience is OK. Regards Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 20 09:04:25 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:04:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: <200303192035.PAA23956@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030320095858.00a9bc40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:35 19/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >Alain may have missed the beginning of the thread. West has misbid. >In the fantasy bidding system he is "playing," his 2NT artificially >shows heart support, and thus he has only one extra heart. The actual >hand also has two spades, where he might have had one or none. The >hand is much more defensively oriented than a typical heart raise. AG : this is where I differ. The 2NT response is usually played as a balanced or semi-balanced heart raise, especially in Acol, where 54+ hands may use the DGR sequence. In this context, West has a minimum number of spades, and provides an unexpected 5th heart. It would also help to know what kind of NT openings EW use. In a Weak NT context, East's double will usually show the strong NT type, not necessarily with heavy spade stack, and West can be pretty sure that the game bid is right, on length or values. Playing strong NTs, East may easily have 3433 and a 13 count. You also write 'It is close which call is better playing 5cM, but even then pass looks reasonable", but in this system 11 out of 11 polled bid (9 bid 4H, 2 bid 4D). Not close at all. Perhaps this is only a matter of discordant evaluations. Best regards, Alain. >Absent UI, say behind screens, of course West can do whatever he >wants. Once he has the UI, though, he must "carefully avoid" taking >advantage. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Mar 20 09:46:09 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:46:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000201c2ee3c$9488d8c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E798DE1.9060803@skynet.be> Sven, the problems with such a Burnesque approach are multiple: Sven Pran wrote: > > I believe what I really want is to get rid of the need for TD or AC to > determine whether some play is "irrational" or just plainly inferior (or > careless). I do not believe in adjudication based upon the irrationality > when we again and again hear of play by expert that nobody (?) would > characterize as anything but irrational. > The only way you can get rid of a TD determination of what is irrational is to change the laws and make it into all legal plays. That is a very big law change and I'm not certain the players will go for it. > How do we know that a player who fails to mention an important detail is > aware of this detail? We assume it is obvious that because of his quality he > cannot make a silly mistake, but what if we consider that mistake made > simply because the player was imprecise in his statement? > Two different questions, really. - how do we know that the player will not make a silly mistake? - we don't. The laws tell us that we should not consider silly mistakes. Even a player who tells us exactly which tricks he is going to take could make a silly mistake when actually playing them, so there is no reason to assume that every claimer whould be subjected to silly mistakes. - how do we know that the player is aware of every little detail? Well, we don't. And we have to judge on that one. And I am all in favour for judging very harshly on that. But in the examples that have been given so far in these threads, I have never been in any doubt that claimer was aware of some detail. This is the problem of blml. Those myriads of claims all over the world in which I rule exactly the same as you never come here. I too am very suspicious of claimers not remembering every detail. But none of the cases exposed here have seen us at odds about these doubts. Your point is "how can we be certain that claimer knew the detail". My point is "in this case, I am certain (or the TD is)". For example, a claimer who plays one round of a suit he has 10 of without the queen, and who claims after both opponents follow suit. I am quite certain that he knows the queen is still out. What have we to gain by assuming that he does not? Mind you - if the laws were to say that we are to assume that he has forgotten unless he mentions, then his not mentioning is an indication that he has forgotten. But the laws don't say that, so the player does not have to mention the queen, so his not mentioning is no indication of his forgetting. > I remember seeing a ruling in a Norwegian championship (long time ago) where > declarer when asking for a club from dummy was deemed to having asked for > the 8 from something like AKQJT8 - giving RHO a trick for his nine-spot! > Such things happen, yes. But is that enough reason not to award 6 tricks to someone who says "and six club tricks"? > All respect for today's "humanity" in the application of the laws, but my > impression is that this "humanity" has resulted in too many conflicts and > appeals. And the players seem being encouraged to be sloppier with what they > do and say because they can always rely upon being saved from making > irrational (but legal) mistakes. I wonder if the game would not gain from > returning to some of the old time principles, you are held to what you say > and do. > Well, I don't believe that there are too many conflicts and appeals. the only place where claims pose a problem is blml, and this is only because people like you maintain that there is a problem. > If you ask for a club you ask for the smallest available club without any > fuzz about irrationality or what your intent "obviously" were. > Well, the laws do not say that - so why bring it up? > If you claim with an incomplete statement then you are held to whatever > (legal) line of play your opponents can demonstrate being available however > silly as long as the line is not in conflict with your claim statement. > Well, the laws do not say that either. > If you concede one or more tricks you are stuck with that unless you can > show that there is no legal (!) line of play which could make you lose such > tricks. > Well, the laws do not say that either. > You would have to explicitly mention that you play the Ace (or that you know > the Queen is now stiff) in order to drop the stiff Queen even when you > started out with ten trumps between you and Dummy and both opponents > following small to the King. > Well, the laws do not say that. > Failure to do so would be taken as you either were unaware, or that you were > careless in your statement, in both cases you lose. And the players would be > trained to be careful in how they claim, concede or request plays from > dummy. > Well, the ... > I am fully aware that my ideas here can be driven into extremes, but I have > a very strong feeling that the distinction between what is irrational and > what is not long time ago has really been driven into the same extremes, the > difference being that today's practice too often seems unpredictable. > Your opinion, not mine. > Regards Sven > > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Mar 20 10:03:38 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:03:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession Message-ID: Sven: > > > I remember seeing a ruling in a Norwegian championship > (long time ago) where > > declarer when asking for a club from dummy was deemed to > having asked for > > the 8 from something like AKQJT8 - giving RHO a trick for > his nine-spot! > > > Herman: > Such things happen, yes. But is that enough reason not to award 6 > tricks to someone who says "and six club tricks"? I had expected a firmer Herman here. Such things should not happen. Even when asking for a club now declarer should get all tricks. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 20 10:28:14 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:28:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: <00f401c2eeb7$3a7a13a0$5bc38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030320110800.00a8e480@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:03 20/03/2003 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >James Vickers wrote: > >West can hardly expect partner to have four spades as the > >standard pack contains only 13, he is looking at two himself > >and NS surely have shown eight between them...... > > ....... > >Now over to East: once West has bid 4H, North overcalled 4S, > >East can do some similar calculations when deciding whether > >to double again. Partner must have two spades (more likely three) > >for the (natural) 2NT bid, he's looking at three himself, what on earth > >are NS bidding on? Hence my comment that he is left with the > >conclusion that either West has misbid, or NS are lunatics. Does > >he have to assume the latter and double again? > > >In your first paragraph above, you expect West to trust the opponents >to have eight spades rather than trusting East to have the four spades >which his penalty double AG : that's why it isn't a pure penalty double. Very few nowadays play a double of freely fitting opponents as purely penalties. And that's why 4H should be obvious. > I am not saying that it is always right > for West to pass the Double - opposite a speculative doubler of > partscores (in other words, opposite an inexperienced or > unsuccessful IMPs player), 4H might be wisest. It depends > how much West trusts East to have a genuine penalty double. AG : I seem to recall that it was the main theorist of Acol, namely SJ Simon, who suggested that the best penalty doubles were slightly speculative doubles (mentioning KJx behind as an example), partner still having the right to exert a choice. Could EW perhaps have referred to his opus ? But perhaps Simon was an "unsuccessful IMPs player" ? As to whether EW played this style, I don't know, but surely it is logical against opponents who claim to have a big spade fit. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 20 10:45:41 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:45:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030320113558.00a94880@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:03 20/03/2003 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: >Sven: > > > > > I remember seeing a ruling in a Norwegian championship > > (long time ago) where declarer when asking for a club from dummy was > deemed to > > having asked for the 8 from something like AKQJT8 - giving RHO a trick > for his nine-spot! > > > >Herman: > > Such things happen, yes. But is that enough reason not to award 6 > > tricks to someone who says "and six club tricks"? > >Tom : >I had expected a firmer Herman here. Such things should not happen. Even >when asking for a club now declarer should get all tricks. AG : yes, the text of L46B allows us to decide that it was the obvious intention of declarer to call for a high club. However, I can't quarrel with the Norse TD or AC who decided otherwise. In Belgium, it is considered as sufficient to say "plum" to call for a small plum, and many players do this systematically, including YT. When I say "club", I expect Gilles to play the C8 from AKQJ108, and that's what he does. I would thus have to accept a statement that it's what I want :-( Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 20 10:43:37 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:43:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <3E798DE1.9060803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c2eecd$90ea5d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > Sven, the problems with such a Burnesque approach are multiple: >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > > > I believe what I really want is to get rid of the need for TD or AC = to > > determine whether some play is "irrational" or just plainly inferior = (or > > careless). I do not believe in adjudication based upon the = irrationality > > when we again and again hear of play by expert that nobody (?) would > > characterize as anything but irrational. > > >=20 >=20 > The only way you can get rid of a TD determination of what is > irrational is to change the laws and make it into all legal plays. > That is a very big law change and I'm not certain the players will go > for it. Nor am I. But the important question to be answered is whether bridge is better served by strict laws that everybody has been told (like it was = in the beginning of duplicate contract bridge) or "human" laws where the = actual ruling is much more left to the discretion of each director and appeals committee. If you touch a piece in chess you have to move it, you cannot say that = it was never your intention to move that piece, and moving it is = irrational. (At least I believe the rules of chess are still so).=20 > > How do we know that a player who fails to mention an important = detail is > > aware of this detail? We assume it is obvious that because of his > quality he > > cannot make a silly mistake, but what if we consider that mistake = made > > simply because the player was imprecise in his statement? > > >=20 >=20 > Two different questions, really. > - how do we know that the player will not make a silly mistake? - we > don't. The laws tell us that we should not consider silly mistakes. Agreed. And one possible result is that a player who wants to draw the = full advantage of the laws could claim, knowing that he will be protected = from making silly mistakes which for some reason or other he might have made = had he played on without claiming. > Even a player who tells us exactly which tricks he is going to take > could make a silly mistake when actually playing them, so there is no > reason to assume that every claimer whould be subjected to silly = mistakes. > - how do we know that the player is aware of every little detail? > Well, we don't. And we have to judge on that one. And I am all in > favour for judging very harshly on that. But in the examples that have > been given so far in these threads, I have never been in any doubt > that claimer was aware of some detail. Well, I have, but that doesn't make much difference under the current = laws.=20 However, if we had a law change to the effect that a player who knows = the remaining cards well enough to make a claim should also be able to make = a precise claim statement not leaving any doubt whatsoever with his claim, then we would have a situation where the myriads of claims we experience without any difficulties would be unharmed, but the insufficient claims would be adjudicated in a single standard way without having to assume anything on what the claimer knew or thought or the "irrationality" of a possible line of play. > This is the problem of blml. Those myriads of claims all over the > world in which I rule exactly the same as you never come here. I too > am very suspicious of claimers not remembering every detail. > But none of the cases exposed here have seen us at odds about these > doubts. Your point is "how can we be certain that claimer knew the > detail". My point is "in this case, I am certain (or the TD is)". I do not believe this is a "problem" with entries to blml. The = undisputed claims have no reason for coming here, the trouble is all those disputed claims where one director feels one way and the next director the other. = The goal ought to be a uniform handling of all such cases, but I do not think that is possible as long as we have to distinguish between "irrational" and "normal" plays. To me this is the real problem. .........=20 > Well, I don't believe that there are too many conflicts and appeals. > the only place where claims pose a problem is blml, and this is only > because people like you maintain that there is a problem. "Like me"? - I hope I should not have any reason to feel insulted? And each of the following sentences, of course I knew the laws don't say = so - I presented them as samples of rules that would ensure uniform = practice without really harming the game. Sorry, I thought that was evident from = the context. Sven >=20 >=20 > > If you ask for a club you ask for the smallest available club = without > any > > fuzz about irrationality or what your intent "obviously" were. > > >=20 >=20 > Well, the laws do not say that - so why bring it up? >=20 >=20 > > If you claim with an incomplete statement then you are held to = whatever > > (legal) line of play your opponents can demonstrate being available > however > > silly as long as the line is not in conflict with your claim = statement. > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > Well, the laws do not say that either. >=20 >=20 > > If you concede one or more tricks you are stuck with that unless you = can > > show that there is no legal (!) line of play which could make you = lose > such > > tricks. > > >=20 >=20 > Well, the laws do not say that either. >=20 >=20 > > You would have to explicitly mention that you play the Ace (or that = you > know > > the Queen is now stiff) in order to drop the stiff Queen even when = you > > started out with ten trumps between you and Dummy and both opponents > > following small to the King. > > >=20 >=20 > Well, the laws do not say that. >=20 >=20 > > Failure to do so would be taken as you either were unaware, or that = you > were > > careless in your statement, in both cases you lose. And the players > would be > > trained to be careful in how they claim, concede or request plays = from > > dummy. > > >=20 >=20 > Well, the ... >=20 >=20 > > I am fully aware that my ideas here can be driven into extremes, but = I > have > > a very strong feeling that the distinction between what is = irrational > and > > what is not long time ago has really been driven into the same = extremes, > the > > difference being that today's practice too often seems = unpredictable. > > >=20 >=20 > Your opinion, not mine. > -- > Herman DE WAEL From gillp@bigpond.com Thu Mar 20 10:54:58 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:54:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: <001501c2eecf$296326c0$c58d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: >>In your first paragraph above, you expect West to trust the >>opponents to have eight spades rather than trusting East to >>have the four spades which his penalty double .... >AG : that's why it isn't a pure penalty double. Very few nowadays >play a double of freely fitting opponents as purely penalties. And >that's why 4H should be obvious. OK, so you seem to prefer to trust the opponents in the bidding. I prefer to trust my partner in the bidding. When we have bid and raised a major suit, doubles are penalties because we have already located our fit and thus have no need for the various other types of doubles. Someone (a top American player I think) recently wrote a wonderful article about why the Italians have been so successful recently. One of the theories was that the Italians trust partner in the bidding, whereas some top players from some other countries including America have a tendency to try to make too many decisions themselves when partner is better placed to make the decision. Whether you think this is relevant to this thread depends on your point of view. Peter Gill Australia. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 20 11:53:57 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:53:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: <001501c2eecf$296326c0$c58d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030320124537.00a96ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:54 20/03/2003 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >Peter Gill wrote: > >>In your first paragraph above, you expect West to trust the > >>opponents to have eight spades rather than trusting East to > >>have the four spades which his penalty double .... > > >AG : that's why it isn't a pure penalty double. Very few nowadays > >play a double of freely fitting opponents as purely penalties. And > >that's why 4H should be obvious. > >OK, so you seem to prefer to trust the opponents in the bidding. >I prefer to trust my partner in the bidding. AG : we all play a double of a 4S overcall as penalties, don't we ? Now tell me what you would expect for partner's double after 1D 4S : a) QJ109 Ax xxxx xxx b) Kxx Ax xxx K10xxx I don't claim that there is an obvious answer ; I claim that a majority (how vast, I can't tell) would answer b). People who favor b) will sometimes take the double out, and the tempo of the double is not relevant. People who favor a) will never take it out. Similarly, in the case we are treating, most people define the double of 3S as penalties, for the very good reasons you mention ; however, "penalties" could mean several things. Most (expecially in a weak NT framework) wouldn't expect a huge spade stack ; only values that are oriented towards defending. This has nothing to do with putting your confidence into opponents, only with frequency arguments. So, it all boils down to what kind of doubles does this pair use : "pure penalty", or "suggestion" ? Apparently, my panel voted 11-0 in favor of "suggestion". Yours may differ. Best regards, Alain. From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Mar 20 11:57:04 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:57:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000001c2edfc$35db4820$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000e01c2ee57$aa064be0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005b01c2eed7$d67004c0$727e870a@sabre.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" > C'mon, Swen. If I claim all tricks with 12 cards in a suit missing only the > king, without saying I am playing the ace first, L70E says that I get all > the tricks. (Leading toward the ace is the only normal line of play). > C'mon, Marwin. If I claim all tricks with 12 cards in a suit missing only the king, without saying I am playing the ace first, how is the TD supposed to know that I haven't miscounted trumps? I don't know if miscounting trumps is an irrational thing - but I am 100% that it is careless. Which is why "careless but not irrational" phrase in TFLB has little sense to me. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- WOJNA stala sie faktem... Sprawdz najnowsze wiadomosci!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f16f6 From gillp@bigpond.com Thu Mar 20 12:05:01 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:05:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: <01aa01c2eed8$f29394e0$c58d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> >AG : we all play a double of a 4S overcall as penalties, don't we ? No. With Michael Courtney I play it as takeout. With Mike Prescott I play it as penalties. Last night, Mike had K63, QJ106, Q52, KJ2 on that exact auction. We got 1100. >Now tell me what you would expect for partner's double after 1D 4S : >a) QJ109 Ax xxxx xxx >b) Kxx Ax xxx K10xxx > >I don't claim that there is an obvious answer ; I claim that a majority >(how vast, I can't tell) would answer b). People who favor b) will >sometimes take the double out, and the tempo of the double is not relevant. >People who favor a) will never take it out. > >Similarly, in the case we are treating, most people define the >double of 3S as penalties, for the very good reasons you mention ; >however, "penalties" could mean several things. Most (expecially >in a weak NT framework) wouldn't expect a huge spade stack ; >only values that are oriented towards defending. > >This has nothing to do with putting your confidence into opponents, >only with frequency arguments. > >So, it all boils down to what kind of doubles does this pair use : >"pure penalty", or "suggestion" ? Apparently, my panel voted 11-0 >in favor of "suggestion". Yours may differ. I don't think your panel voted as you say they did. They thought it was five card majors, didn't they? That is a totally different kettle of fish from the actual problem which is four card majors. Peter Gill. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Mar 20 12:22:02 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:22:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession Message-ID: > From: "Marvin French"=20 >=20 > > C'mon, Swen. If I claim all tricks with 12 cards in a suit=20 > missing only > the > > king, without saying I am playing the ace first, L70E says=20 > that I get all > > the tricks. (Leading toward the ace is the only normal line=20 > of play). > > >=20 > C'mon, Marwin. If I claim all tricks with 12 cards in a suit=20 > missing only > the > king, without saying I am playing the ace first, how is the=20 > TD supposed > to know that I haven't miscounted trumps? I don't know if miscounting > trumps is an irrational thing - but I am 100% that it is careless. > Which is why "careless but not irrational" phrase in TFLB > has little sense to me. >=20 >=20 > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak=F3w, Poland This remains a group with too many who like to give their opinion and maintain it, instead of trying to learn how to apply the laws.=20 ton =20 From gester@lineone.net Thu Mar 20 11:48:12 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:48:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD References: <001501c2eecf$296326c0$c58d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <00a901c2eedb$23cbc300$812a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Private discussion with the TD > > OK, so you seem to prefer to trust the > opponents in the bidding. > I prefer to trust my partner in the bidding. > > When we have bid and raised a major suit, > doubles are penalties because we have already > located our fit and thus have no need for the > various other types of doubles. > +=+ I have not read this thread in any detail. Presumably someone has already made the point that if he learns from partner by extraneous means that they are not eye to eye as to the partnership agreement, a player is constrained to continue the auction (and interpret partner's calls) on the basis of his own understanding of the agreement until it is manifestly, demonstrably, and probably painfully, apparent from the legal calls that the auction is out of joint. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Thu Mar 20 12:18:53 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:18:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents References: Message-ID: <00aa01c2eedb$24b6bf40$812a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] WBF documents > >(1) LA in which jurisdiction - the definition of > >LA varies from America to Europe, doesn't it? > > Sorry, I should have avoided ambiguity by > specifying the international WBF definition of LA. > +=+ Which is in the CoP. The examples in the Jurisprudence are actual cases selected (as examples with a significant point to make) by consensus of a group comprising senior members of the WBF AC from several Zones. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Mar 20 13:17:54 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:17:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030320081143.01f849a0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:55 AM 3/20/03, richard.hills wrote: >Example Appeal no. 7 >Unauthorized information? >Dealer S : Love all. > > A 8 4 > K J 9 5 3 > 10 > Q 5 4 3 >7 6 K 10 9 5 >Q 10 8 7 4 A 2 >7 5 4 3 K Q 9 8 6 >8 6 10 7 > Q J 3 2 > 6 > A 5 2 > A K J 9 2 > >West North East South > 1C >Pass 1H Dbl Rdbl >2D 4H Pass Pass >Dbl Pass Pass 4NT >Pass 5C All Pass. > >After the 4H bid East enquired about the >redouble and it was explained as showing >three-card support. Five clubs made eleven >tricks. > >The Director ruled that South possessed >unauthorized information when he bid >4NT, that Pass was a logical alternative to >this, and that the score be adjusted to NS >-300 in 4H doubled. > >NS appealed and suggested that the enquiry >about the redouble had no relevance to >East's hand. The effect of the question and >the ruling was that East had prevented NS >recovering from a systemic failure. > >As an AC member, with Law 12C3 enabled, how >would you rule? TD's ruling stands. South had UI. South failed to meet the requirements of L16A. It is too farfetched to consider East's inquiry as a violation of L73F2; there was no "false inference". 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 Thu Mar 20 13:41:44 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:41:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <005b01c2eed7$d67004c0$727e870a@sabre.com> References: <000001c2edfc$35db4820$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000e01c2ee57$aa064be0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030320143723.00a8a7a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:57 20/03/2003 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Marvin French" > > > C'mon, Swen. If I claim all tricks with 12 cards in a suit missing only >the > > king, without saying I am playing the ace first, L70E says that I get all > > the tricks. (Leading toward the ace is the only normal line of play). > > > >C'mon, Marwin. If I claim all tricks with 12 cards in a suit missing only >the > king, without saying I am playing the ace first, how is the TD supposed >to know that I haven't miscounted trumps? I don't know if miscounting >trumps is an irrational thing - but I am 100% that it is careless. >Which is why "careless but not irrational" phrase in TFLB >has little sense to me. AG : the counterargument to this -I'm not sure it is relevant here- is that the only possibility for declarert to know he has no loser in the suit is to know he holds 12 of them. Knowing this, to finesse would be irrational. We may thus suppose that *not* stating the line of play proves that declarer is aware of the non-problem in trumps. This may be untrue if the missing trump is a lower one : then perhaps declarer could have thought he had all 13 of them. But pretending he didn't see the king was missing is a bit much. From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Mar 20 13:39:56 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:39:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000201c2eecd$90ea5d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E79C4AC.6030105@skynet.be> Hello Sven, Sven Pran wrote: >>That is a very big law change and I'm not certain the players will go >>for it. >> > > Nor am I. But the important question to be answered is whether bridge is > better served by strict laws that everybody has been told (like it was in > the beginning of duplicate contract bridge) or "human" laws where the actual > ruling is much more left to the discretion of each director and appeals > committee. > Yes, that is an important question. It has been answered in the past. It is being answered in the present. You argue for it, I argue against. Let's just see what happens in the WBFLC. > If you touch a piece in chess you have to move it, you cannot say that it > was never your intention to move that piece, and moving it is irrational. > (At least I believe the rules of chess are still so). > And if you show a card you have to play it. And if you name a card you have to play it (I could live with that law change). But there is no gain from having a claimer play the 2 from AKQJT92 if he says "7 tricks". > >>>How do we know that a player who fails to mention an important detail is >>>aware of this detail? We assume it is obvious that because of his >>> >>quality he >> >>>cannot make a silly mistake, but what if we consider that mistake made >>>simply because the player was imprecise in his statement? >>> >>> >> >>Two different questions, really. >>- how do we know that the player will not make a silly mistake? - we >>don't. The laws tell us that we should not consider silly mistakes. >> > > Agreed. And one possible result is that a player who wants to draw the full > advantage of the laws could claim, knowing that he will be protected from > making silly mistakes which for some reason or other he might have made had > he played on without claiming. > Not just one possible result - one of the reasons for claiming! I often claim just so I can no longer revoke afterwards. Yesterday I was in 3NT with: dummy : 10x Qxx AKQ10x Kxx me : AKQ9 Jxx Jxx Axx on a spade lead. My partner wanted to go to the toilet but he was not able to as I claimed even before playing to the first trick. My claim statemen : 11 top tricks, no way to avoid 2 heart losers at the end. Do you really think this is a bad claim when I don't tell how I'm supposed to be making 4 spade tricks? By claiming, I have avoided dropping the S9 under the jack if it shows in the first trick. That's not so bad, is it ? >>been given so far in these threads, I have never been in any doubt >>that claimer was aware of some detail. >> > > Well, I have, but that doesn't make much difference under the current laws. > Yes it does - if we are discussing doubt, then we are having a sensible discussion about a particular case. But we are not. We are discussing how to rule if I am not in doubt. And I have never heard such a doubt expressed in the cases at hand. > However, if we had a law change to the effect that a player who knows the > remaining cards well enough to make a claim should also be able to make a > precise claim statement not leaving any doubt whatsoever with his claim, > then we would have a situation where the myriads of claims we experience > without any difficulties would be unharmed, but the insufficient claims > would be adjudicated in a single standard way without having to assume > anything on what the claimer knew or thought or the "irrationality" of a > possible line of play. > And that is where you are wrong. The myriad of claims that pose no problems today include a huge number in which the claimer, while fully in his senses, would stumble over some words, or be interrupted, or simply forget to issue a statement because he thinks it is obvious. We would be creating problems where there are now none, while trying to solve perceived problems that I believe don't even exist. And what do you precisely mean with "no doubt whatsoever" ? Is "five diamonds" enough in my case above - would you not be in doubt as to whether or not I would realize I have to play the DJ first? Don't you realize that you are just talking about a quantitative fact, not a qualitative one? My claim above is acceptable under present rules, isn't it? What more need I to say to make it acceptable under future laws? Won't those laws be just as equally prone to discussion? > > >>This is the problem of blml. Those myriads of claims all over the >>world in which I rule exactly the same as you never come here. I too >>am very suspicious of claimers not remembering every detail. >>But none of the cases exposed here have seen us at odds about these >>doubts. Your point is "how can we be certain that claimer knew the >>detail". My point is "in this case, I am certain (or the TD is)". >> > > I do not believe this is a "problem" with entries to blml. The undisputed > claims have no reason for coming here, the trouble is all those disputed > claims where one director feels one way and the next director the other. > But we don't see that - all we see is some people believing a line is normal and others not - and a panel (of TDs or an AC) deciding. Which is exactly what we also do about LA's. There are far less appeals concerning claims than there are concerning LA's. There is no need to change a law simply because it requires judgment. > The goal ought to be a uniform handling of all such cases, but I do not > think that is possible as long as we have to distinguish between > "irrational" and "normal" plays. To me this is the real problem. > True - so what is the solution? More discussion, more insight between directors! Not the abolishment of claims altogether. next you'll argue for a law change that says : if your partner thinks for more than 10 seconds you are obliged to pass. That would get rid of those long discussions about LA's. How long is thread "WBF documents" these days ? > ......... > >>Well, I don't believe that there are too many conflicts and appeals. >>the only place where claims pose a problem is blml, and this is only >>because people like you maintain that there is a problem. >> > > "Like me"? - I hope I should not have any reason to feel insulted? > Certainly not. You are in austere company. You are entitled to your opinion. But I am allowed to say that the problem only exists because you (and others) maintain there is a problem. I don't believe there is a problem. > And each of the following sentences, of course I knew the laws don't say so > - I presented them as samples of rules that would ensure uniform practice > without really harming the game. Sorry, I thought that was evident from the > context. > It was evident. But there is no need repeating what has been said quite a number of times, and to which I have agreed. Yes, claims resolution would be simpler with Burnian claims laws. I agree. But simplicity would be their only virtue. > Sven > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 20 14:05:00 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:05:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030320145806.00a99810@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:55 20/03/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Example Appeal no. 7 >Unauthorized information? >Dealer S : Love all. > > A 8 4 > K J 9 5 3 > 10 > Q 5 4 3 >7 6 K 10 9 5 >Q 10 8 7 4 A 2 >7 5 4 3 K Q 9 8 6 >8 6 10 7 > Q J 3 2 > 6 > A 5 2 > A K J 9 2 > >West North East South > 1C >Pass 1H Dbl Rdbl >2D 4H Pass Pass >Dbl Pass Pass 4NT >Pass 5C All Pass. > >After the 4H bid East enquired about the >redouble and it was explained as showing >three-card support. Five clubs made eleven >tricks. > >The Director ruled that South possessed >unauthorized information when he bid >4NT, that Pass was a logical alternative to >this, and that the score be adjusted to NS >-300 in 4H doubled. > >NS appealed and suggested that the enquiry >about the redouble had no relevance to >East's hand. The effect of the question and >the ruling was that East had prevented NS >recovering from a systemic failure. > >As an AC member, with Law 12C3 enabled, how >would you rule? AG : I would back the TD. If I made a penalty-oriented RD and partner had gone to 4H in full knowledge, I would have no reason to take out 4HX. And -2 seems the right number of tricks in 4H. The only problem is that West's double is a bad idea, knowing that NS probably went wrong (let them in their bad contract) ; and that his double was probably motivated by the knowledge that South would be under UI constraints ; but I can't find anything in the rules against this. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 20 14:40:09 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:40:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <3E79C4AC.6030105@skynet.be> References: <000201c2eecd$90ea5d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030320151334.00a94070@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:39 20/03/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Yesterday I was in 3NT with: >dummy : 10x Qxx AKQ10x Kxx >me : AKQ9 Jxx Jxx Axx >on a spade lead. My partner wanted to go to the toilet but he was not able >to as I claimed even before playing to the first trick. >My claim statemen : 11 top tricks, no way to avoid 2 heart losers at the >end. Do you really think this is a bad claim when I don't tell how I'm >supposed to be making 4 spade tricks? > >By claiming, I have avoided dropping the S9 under the jack if it shows in >the first trick. That's not so bad, is it ? AG : IMOBO, it is a good exemple of what you are allowed not to state when claiming ; but close to the limit. Recently, I accepted a claim including the sentence "unblocking the diamonds, of course" that did not specify how the player intended to unblock them. The fact that he was aware of the necessity made me sure that he would do it correctly. The suit was 109xx / AKQxx and everyone had just followed suit to the Ace. >Certainly not. You are in austere company. You are entitled to your >opinion. But I am allowed to say that the problem only exists because you >(and others) maintain there is a problem. I don't believe there is a problem. Herman, I don't understand you. In consecutive sentences, you've said that the problem exists and that there is none. One should be aware of the harsh reality : when several sane people consider that some principle creates a problem, the problem is there. We may try and convince them that their estimation is wrong, which will eliminate the problem altogether ; let's avoid hiding our heads and claim (!) there is no problem. >It was evident. But there is no need repeating what has been said quite a >number of times, and to which I have agreed. Yes, claims resolution would >be simpler with Burnian claims laws. I agree. But simplicity would be >their only virtue. AG : you can quote me on that one too. Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Mar 20 15:07:47 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:07:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession Message-ID: <5212476.1048172867018.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote > Yes, claims resolution would be simpler with Burnian claims laws. I agree. But simplicity would be their only virtue. > AG : you can quote me on that one too. You cannot, however, quote me. Simplicity is one virtue. So is consistency. So is fairness, in the sense that all are judged equally. The current Laws (and yes, Ton, I do know how to apply them, sick though it makes me feel to do so) have none of these virtues, and all of the vices that are their opposites - they are complex, they are inconsistent, and they are unjust. I am about to be interviewed by Radio 4 on the question of whether or not bridge is a sport. The phrase "it ought to be, but the rules are too bloody stupid to allow anyone to call it other than a farce" will not pass my lips. But it will be close. David Burn London, England From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Thu Mar 20 15:13:17 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:13:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046361@hotel.npl.co.uk> David Can you tell us for which (BBC) Radio 4 programme? Do you know when it might be broadcast? Robin -----Original Message----- From: dalburn@btopenworld.com [mailto:dalburn@btopenworld.com] Sent: 20 March 2003 15:08 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Implausible Concession Alain wrote > Yes, claims resolution would be simpler with Burnian claims laws. I agree. > But simplicity would be their only virtue. > AG : you can quote me on that one too. You cannot, however, quote me. Simplicity is one virtue. So is consistency. So is fairness, in the sense that all are judged equally. The current Laws (and yes, Ton, I do know how to apply them, sick though it makes me feel to do so) have none of these virtues, and all of the vices that are their opposites - they are complex, they are inconsistent, and they are unjust. I am about to be interviewed by Radio 4 on the question of whether or not bridge is a sport. The phrase "it ought to be, but the rules are too bloody stupid to allow anyone to call it other than a farce" will not pass my lips. But it will be close. David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Mar 20 15:17:28 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:17:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession Message-ID: > > > Alain wrote > > > Yes, claims resolution would be simpler with Burnian claims > laws. I agree. But simplicity would be their only virtue. > > > AG : you can quote me on that one too. > > You cannot, however, quote me. Simplicity is one virtue. So > is consistency. So is fairness, in the sense that all are > judged equally. The current Laws (and yes, Ton, I do know how > to apply them, sick though it makes me feel to do so) have > none of these virtues, and all of the vices that are their > opposites - they are complex, they are inconsistent, and they > are unjust. I am about to be interviewed by Radio 4 on the > question of whether or not bridge is a sport. The phrase "it > ought to be, but the rules are too bloody stupid to allow > anyone to call it other than a farce" will not pass my lips. > But it will be close. > > David Burn > London, England It is the outcome that counts, so I am proud of you. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 20 16:26:53 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:26:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Slooow play In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030320172519.00a9fbe0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:33 19/03/2003 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: >I am all for the orderly progress of the game. I am worried, though, that >a few of the stricter directors on this list are forgetting that it IS >part of the job description to keep the players happy enough to come back >next time. Comparing the number of "its too slow" complaints with the >number of "you push too hard" complaints received may be a useful guide. AG : 'you know that a good compromise has been reached when both sides are equally unsatisfied'. Does anyone know who said that ? From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Mar 20 16:33:53 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:33:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: <200303201633.LAA29709@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> SW> Of course the TD should ask, but playing Acol, why shouldn't East be SW> 4-4 in the majors? > From: "David Burn" > The opponents have not just bid to three spades on a seven-card fit. Ah, David, you play against a much better class of opponents than I do! Peter gave an example; I have seen worse actions from opponents. Otherwise, we seem to be in agreement. > From: "James Vickers" > West can > hardly expect partner to have four spades as the standard pack contains only > 13, he is looking at two himself and NS surely have shown eight between > them. See other messages about "surely," and see David's example where the opponents have nine spades and it is still right to defend. > Is this sufficient to make pass a logical alternative? Suppose the EW bidding system really was the old one: 2NT is an artificial heart raise. Would you say a West who passed had gone bonkers? Two of the expert players on this list and two more polled think a West who _bids_ under those conditions has gone bonkers. I am almost persuaded that my original PP idea was not so bad. > From: "Anne Jones" > West has forgotten the system, he believes he has shown a raise to 3H, He is > not allowed to remember. Exactly so. > In my opinion, it is inconceivable to think that he > would pass what he must think is a penalty double of 3S, because of his > extra distribution which is poor defensively. Huh? _What_ extra distribution? The fifth heart, OK, but also two spades where he might have had none. And the good defensive holdings otherwise (D-AK. club doubleton). > I would of course consult better players than myself - and I would be giving > them the West hand - telling them that 2NT is a fit bid, and asking what > their actions would be opposite a penalty double of 3S. This is the right approach; we know how Peter and David B. answer. Also Armstrong and Callaghan. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : this is where I differ. The 2NT response is usually played as... But how does this matter for the ruling? See Anne's note above and Grattan's comment. West has UI and is obliged to continue bidding according to his original mistaken notion of the system. > You also write 'It is close which call is better playing 5cM, but > even then pass looks reasonable", but in this system 11 out of 11 polled > bid (9 bid 4H, 2 bid 4D). Amusing but not relevant. See Anne's quote above for the correct question to ask. (You can make those poll numbers 11 of 12; in a 5cM/strong NT partnership, I pass the double. I don't expect 4H to make. Of course I would have bid 2S on the previous round to show my limit raise, but otherwise the bridge judgment is the same. As noted, this is just for amusement and so others can see how poor my bridge judgment is; it has nothing to do with the ruling in this case.) > From: "James Vickers" > If the deadline is the 30 minute correction period rather than the end of > the round (as Anne Jones suggested), The appeals period, not the correction period, if they happen to differ. > what is to stop a team which has > already qualified asking for a late ruling to reduce their opponents' score > and perhaps help a team of friends to qualify? Nothing. Why is this a problem? If an adjusted score or a penalty is the proper result for a board where there has been an irregularity, why would you want to see the board scored otherwise? Do you want the standings in the event to be based on an incorrect score? Of course if the request for a ruling is late, it may be harder to determine the facts. This will usually work against the contestant asking for the ruling, so if there is a problem, it is wise to let the TD know as soon as feasible. I think the Endicott comment is directed at the case where opponents could have taken different action and improved their score had they been timely advised of their rights. Obviously the TD/AC will need to take Laws 9, 10, and 11 into account if they apply. _Requesting_ a ruling does not automatically mean a score adjustment will be given. In the original case, though, ruling the result back to 3Sx+1 seems automatic. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 20 17:24:20 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:24:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: <200303201633.LAA29709@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030320181733.00a96370@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:33 20/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > AG : this is where I differ. The 2NT response is usually played as... > >But how does this matter for the ruling? See Anne's note above and >Grattan's comment. West has UI and is obliged to continue bidding >according to his original mistaken notion of the system. AG : it does. If West considered 2NT response as a more-or-less-balanced raise (even within Acol, when it is played as a raise, it usually is of that type), and he always intended to bid 4H, even over partner's 3NT, then he should be allowed to show the fifth heart. >Amusing but not relevant. See Anne's quote above for the correct >question to ask. AG : The correct question to ask is "is the double 1OO% penalties, or of the value-showing type ?" I don't know enough about style in the original country of that thread, but in Belgium the answer is "value-showing". >Of courseI would have bid 2S on the previous round to show my limit raise AG : limit raise ? either partner has 15+ or he has 5 hearts ! Do you intend to stop short of game ? From kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Mar 20 17:12:32 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:12:32 -0800 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000201c2eecd$90ea5d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E79C4AC.6030105@skynet.be> Message-ID: big snip of what Herman said in response to Sven. Then, Herman said: Yes, claims > resolution would be simpler with Burnian claims laws. I agree. But > simplicity would be their only virtue. > K: From a player's point of view, what can possibly be wrong with simplicity? NOTHING wrong. Law that is simple and clear should be the goal! You guys should go for it. Kaima From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Thu Mar 20 17:19:05 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:19:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Law 25B Message-ID: What we need is a no law that lets a player change a call once made except inadvertent ones as in 25A __________________________________________________________________________ Fully agree. I would be ready, as a player to have no possibility at all to change my call. I made a call, I am stuck with. That's it that's all. Pay more attention to the game next time. But that's an other story. Thx for your answers to my post. I always felt uncomfortable when called by a player who simply told he miscalled (no substituted call already made), 25A no more applies but 25B does. Your interpretation is that TD should ask: "What is the call you wanted to make ?" (away from table ?), explain options and offer LHO if he accepts the substituted call when offender chooses this option (25B1). If not 25B2. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 20 17:33:13 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:33:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: References: <000201c2eecd$90ea5d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E79C4AC.6030105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030320183243.00a9e6b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:12 20/03/2003 -0800, kaima wrote: >big snip of what Herman said in response to Sven. > >Then, Herman said: >Yes, claims > > resolution would be simpler with Burnian claims laws. I agree. But > > simplicity would be their only virtue. > > >K: From a player's point of view, what can possibly be wrong with >simplicity? NOTHING wrong. Law that is simple and clear should be the goal! >You guys should go for it. AG : the fallacious law of "if partner hesitates, you are barred" is simple too. But how wrong ! From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Mar 20 17:20:35 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:20:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: <200303201720.MAA29747@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : it does. If West considered 2NT response as a more-or-less-balanced > raise (even within Acol, when it is played as a raise, it usually is of > that type), and he always intended to bid 4H, even over partner's 3NT, then > he should be allowed to show the fifth heart. The question is not what this West intended but what his peers intended -- or rather, what are their logical alternatives. Even if West intended to bid 4H, he may (should!) change his mind when partner suggests a lucrative penalty is available. SW>Of courseI would have bid 2S on the previous round to show my limit raise > > AG : limit raise ? either partner has 15+ or he has 5 hearts ! Do you > intend to stop short of game ? Sorry, I knew I should have avoided the side issue. The comment Alain quotes was in context of a 4cM/strong NT system, not at all relevant to this ruling. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Mar 20 17:31:37 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:31:37 -0800 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <200303192320.SAA24103@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002801c2ef06$ac2d7e20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > When there is no statement, we are left to guess which line is > intended. In the "finesse" cases, many BLML contributors believe it is > "normal" to duck. If so -- and not everyone agrees -- claimer has to > lose a trick. > I polled a number of very experienced players at our high-level Wednesday night game last night, several of whom have been playing for 40 years or more. They were unanimous in saying that they have never seen a competent player make this sort of duck. When there is a miscount, players play high and express surprise when the honor drops. Maybe it's a cultural thing. I could imagine a player in one country over there "normally" surrendering a trick earlier rather than later. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Mar 20 17:49:49 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:49:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <3E79C4AC.6030105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <58A1F592-5AFC-11D7-A6B1-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, March 20, 2003, at 01:39 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Yes, claims resolution would be simpler with Burnian claims laws. I > agree. But simplicity would be their only virtue. > Not so: predictability, consistency and equality of application. One would be able to predict the outcome, know that the same outcome would result from the same situation repeated as often you wish, and that outcome would be independent of the standard of the player or who was TD. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 20 18:34:30 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:34:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Slooow play References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030320172519.00a9fbe0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000801c2ef10$1ee16b80$8cd44c51@pc> Swiss teams, 80+ tables. It's 11 pm after a long day for all. I was called to a middle ranked table after the move had been called where two internationals and two very good players wanted a ruling. I told them it was quite obvious to me that the result would be changed to a heart contract by N/S. No disagreement. Me: how many tricks do you want, 8? N: I can make more than that. Me: 10 then? E: no way. Me: How about 9? N: ok E: ok Sorted !!!! lnb > AG : 'you know that a good compromise has been reached when both sides are > equally unsatisfied'. > Does anyone know who said that ? From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Mar 20 19:20:05 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:20:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000201c2eecd$90ea5d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E79C4AC.6030105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3E7A1465.6020800@skynet.be> kaima wrote: > big snip of what Herman said in response to Sven. > > Then, Herman said: > Yes, claims > >>resolution would be simpler with Burnian claims laws. I agree. But >>simplicity would be their only virtue. >> >> > K: From a player's point of view, what can possibly be wrong with > simplicity? NOTHING wrong. Law that is simple and clear should be the goal! > You guys should go for it. > Kaima > Simple laws: Theft = cutting one hand off. Very simple! Do you really believe that simplicity is the only criterion that we should look at? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Mar 20 19:38:53 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:38:53 -0800 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession-simplicity References: <000201c2eecd$90ea5d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E79C4AC.6030105@skynet.be> <3E7A1465.6020800@skynet.be> Message-ID: > kaima wrote: > > > big snip of what Herman said in response to Sven. > > > > Then, Herman said: > > Yes, claims > > > >>resolution would be simpler with Burnian claims laws. I agree. But > >>simplicity would be their only virtue. > >> > >> > > K: From a player's point of view, what can possibly be wrong with > > simplicity? NOTHING wrong. Law that is simple and clear should be the goal! > > You guys should go for it. > > Kaima > > > > Simple laws: Theft = cutting one hand off. > Very simple! > Do you really believe that simplicity is the only criterion that we > should look at? > K: No Herman, simplicity is not the ony criterion. However, simple and clear language laws benefit everyone on many levels, most of all players who need not feel being subjected to unfair or varying interpretations, depending on who is the TD or on AC, and also TDs who need not make the interprtations when the law is simple and clear. Players want simple laws, I am one and I know many who agree with this. Simple does not preclude sensible, fair, or any other attributes that the laws need to have. Kaima From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 20 19:46:48 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:46:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <3E79C4AC.6030105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c2ef19$72319c70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .,..... > >>That is a very big law change and I'm not certain the players will = go > >>for it. > >> > > > > Nor am I. But the important question to be answered is whether = bridge is > > better served by strict laws that everybody has been told (like it = was > in > > the beginning of duplicate contract bridge) or "human" laws where = the > actual > > ruling is much more left to the discretion of each director and = appeals > > committee. > > >=20 >=20 > Yes, that is an important question. It has been answered in the past. > It is being answered in the present. You argue for it, I argue > against. Let's just see what happens in the WBFLC. I don't quite see that this question has been or is being answered, but = I think it is futile to discuss it further. As you say: Let's see what happens. ...... > And if you show a card you have to play it. And if you name a card you > have to play it (I could live with that law change). But there is no > gain from having a claimer play the 2 from AKQJT92 if he says "7 = tricks". I completely agree, but there are also some not-so-obvious cases and I = think we would be better off with universally applicable and consistent laws. Again let's see what happens. ........ > Not just one possible result - one of the reasons for claiming! I > often claim just so I can no longer revoke afterwards. THAT is in my opinion an invalid argument for claiming! >=20 > Yesterday I was in 3NT with: > dummy : 10x Qxx AKQ10x Kxx > me : AKQ9 Jxx Jxx Axx > on a spade lead. My partner wanted to go to the toilet but he was not > able to as I claimed even before playing to the first trick. > My claim statemen : 11 top tricks, no way to avoid 2 heart losers at > the end. Do you really think this is a bad claim when I don't tell how > I'm supposed to be making 4 spade tricks? >=20 > By claiming, I have avoided dropping the S9 under the jack if it shows > in the first trick. That's not so bad, is it ? Accepted, but I think it would make the laws more consistent if you were required somehow to make it clear that you either play your diamonds = before you play your clubs or that you make sure you start with the DJ. Except = for that comment I would have no problem with your claim under the current = laws. ......... > Yes it does - if we are discussing doubt, then we are having a > sensible discussion about a particular case. But we are not. We are > discussing how to rule if I am not in doubt. And I have never heard > such a doubt expressed in the cases at hand. One purified example which was discussed some time ago: Spade is trump; declarer holds the ten of spades together with the two red aces and = claims the rest without giving any particular statement. An opponent holds the = Jack of spades together with the Ace and King of clubs. How many tricks? I have made some polls in Norway and the unanimous response is zero = tricks to the claimer. I understand there are some different views on this one, many directors (outside Norway) will award two tricks to the claimer.=20 Is our bridge well served by a case like that being resolved according = to opinions and assessments on what is irrational and what is not? I don't think so. .......... > And what do you precisely mean with "no doubt whatsoever" ? Is "five > diamonds" enough in my case above - would you not be in doubt as to > whether or not I would realize I have to play the DJ first? > Don't you realize that you are just talking about a quantitative fact, > not a qualitative one? My claim above is acceptable under present > rules, isn't it? What more need I to say to make it acceptable under > future laws? Won't those laws be just as equally prone to discussion? Not if we for instance go back to the rules where either opponent could specify which card the claimer is to play whenever his statement does = not give a precise specification. This is not to be taken that I should wish = for such an extreme change in the laws, but I think it answers your = question. ....... > > I do not believe this is a "problem" with entries to blml. The > undisputed > > claims have no reason for coming here, the trouble is all those = disputed > > claims where one director feels one way and the next director the = other. > > >=20 >=20 > But we don't see that - all we see is some people believing a line is > normal and others not - and a panel (of TDs or an AC) deciding. Which > is exactly what we also do about LA's. There are far less appeals > concerning claims than there are concerning LA's. There is no need to > change a law simply because it requires judgment. Yes there is, if the judgment can be avoided. In the case of LA we cannot, but in the case of claims, concessions and naming cards to be played from dummy, i.e. in all cases where the laws introduce the term "irrational" versus "normal" I see no real reason why = we cannot (and probably should not) avoid the dependency upon judgment. It would call for more disciplined players, but would that be so bad?=20 >=20 >=20 > > The goal ought to be a uniform handling of all such cases, but I do = not > > think that is possible as long as we have to distinguish between > > "irrational" and "normal" plays. To me this is the real problem. > > >=20 >=20 > True - so what is the solution? > More discussion, more insight between directors! > Not the abolishment of claims altogether. I could have inserted my comments here rather than above. >=20 > next you'll argue for a law change that says : if your partner thinks > for more than 10 seconds you are obliged to pass. Most certainly not! For your information I have had cases where I assigned a score on the principle that the hesitator's partner was required to make a bid rather than pass. (The pass was an LA which could have been suggested by the = UI, and it was the best call he could select at the time). Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Mar 20 20:07:36 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:07:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession-simplicity References: <000201c2eecd$90ea5d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E79C4AC.6030105@skynet.be> <3E7A1465.6020800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3E7A1F88.4050106@skynet.be> kaima wrote: >>kaima wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>>resolution would be simpler with Burnian claims laws. I agree. But >>>>simplicity would be their only virtue. >>>> >>Do you really believe that simplicity is the only criterion that we >>should look at? >> >> > K: > No Herman, simplicity is not the ony criterion. However, simple and clear > language laws benefit everyone on many levels, most of all players who need > not feel being subjected to unfair or varying interpretations, depending on > who is the TD or on AC, and also TDs who need not make the interprtations > when the law is simple and clear. Players want simple laws, I am one and I > know many who agree with this. > Simple does not preclude sensible, fair, or any other attributes that the > laws need to have. > Kaima > Read my original post again, Kaima. I am not saying there is anything wrong with simple laws, as such. Nor am I saying that simple laws cannot be sensible or fair. Don't try and win arguments, read what I said. I said that Burnian laws would have simplicity as their only virtue. I was saying that Burnian laws are not sensible, nor fair. Which leaves their simplicity as insufficient reason for implimentation of such laws. > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Mar 20 20:18:14 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:18:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000001c2ef19$72319c70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E7A2206.6010903@skynet.be> Sven, you are being inconsistent: Sven Pran wrote: > > Accepted, but I think it would make the laws more consistent if you were > required somehow to make it clear that you either play your diamonds before > you play your clubs or that you make sure you start with the DJ. Except for > that comment I would have no problem with your claim under the current laws. > Either .. or. I maintain that if you believe that one or other of those additions would satisfy your criterion, then someone else would start saying that you need to say both. You were talking of "obvious" "no doubt whatsoever", but all you are doing is setting the bar somewhat higher. You are quantifying, not qualifying. You are simply exchanging my level of "no doubt" with your level of "no doubt whatsoever". I am working under laws that tell me that if there remains doubt I shall rule against. Which is what I do. You are replacing those words with "any doubt whatsoever". Is that not just as subjective ? The only qualitative law change would be one in which every card is described to the fullest, and every card not mentioned would be deemed to be exchangeable by any other legal card. That is a law under which I get no tricks at all from a holding of AKQJT92. > ......... > >>Yes it does - if we are discussing doubt, then we are having a >>sensible discussion about a particular case. But we are not. We are >>discussing how to rule if I am not in doubt. And I have never heard >>such a doubt expressed in the cases at hand. >> > > One purified example which was discussed some time ago: Spade is trump; > declarer holds the ten of spades together with the two red aces and claims > the rest without giving any particular statement. An opponent holds the Jack > of spades together with the Ace and King of clubs. How many tricks? > > I have made some polls in Norway and the unanimous response is zero tricks > to the claimer. I understand there are some different views on this one, > many directors (outside Norway) will award two tricks to the claimer. > This is a very valid example. It is one in which the definition of "normal" needs to be refined. The EBLAC made a ruling that "for a person who believes all trumps have gone from opponent's hands, and all his other suits to be high, it is normal to play any suit first, except trumps, which are held till last". I realize that this may not be a self-evident fact, from the words of the laws. But I don't see what is wrong with following that lead. After all, isn't homogeneity what we are looking for, on blml? > Is our bridge well served by a case like that being resolved according to > opinions and assessments on what is irrational and what is not? I don't > think so. > I agree - which is why I believe it is important for such cases to be viewed as precedent. If everyone follows the same principle, don't we have the consistency that we want? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Mar 20 20:21:23 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:21:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000001c2ef19$72319c70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E7A22C3.20207@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > >>next you'll argue for a law change that says : if your partner thinks >>for more than 10 seconds you are obliged to pass. >> > > Most certainly not! > > For your information I have had cases where I assigned a score on the > principle that the hesitator's partner was required to make a bid rather > than pass. (The pass was an LA which could have been suggested by the UI, > and it was the best call he could select at the time). > My point exactly! You used judgment. Probably correct as well. But there have certainly been cases where your judgment did not correspond to the judgment from a fellow director. In order to avoid inconsistencies in such rulings, might we not opt for a law change in which that judgment were replaced by a mechanical rule : hesitation = passing. I am not seriously suggesting such a law change. I am using it as an analogy of why I don't believe the claims laws are so bad we need replacing them with mechanical ones. > 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 ehaa@starpower.net Thu Mar 20 22:22:52 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:22:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <3E7A2206.6010903@skynet.be> References: <000001c2ef19$72319c70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030320171412.01f83ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:18 PM 3/20/03, Herman wrote: >Sven Pran wrote: >>One purified example which was discussed some time ago: Spade is trump; >>declarer holds the ten of spades together with the two red aces and >>claims >>the rest without giving any particular statement. An opponent holds >>the Jack >>of spades together with the Ace and King of clubs. How many tricks? >>I have made some polls in Norway and the unanimous response is zero >>tricks >>to the claimer. I understand there are some different views on this one, >>many directors (outside Norway) will award two tricks to the claimer. Under ACBL guideline, this claimer gets zero tricks. >This is a very valid example. It is one in which the definition of >"normal" needs to be refined. The EBLAC made a ruling that "for a >person who believes all trumps have gone from opponent's hands, and >all his other suits to be high, it is normal to play any suit first, >except trumps, which are held till last". >I realize that this may not be a self-evident fact, from the words of >the laws. But I don't see what is wrong with following that lead. >After all, isn't homogeneity what we are looking for, on blml? The EBLAC ruling doesn't help us, as it requires us to determine whether the claimer "believes all trumps have gone from opponents' hands", which is at least as subjective as dealing with "normal" versus "irrational". The ACBL guideline is much simpler and can be applied consistently: it is normal to play any suit first, period. I think we solve the problem by getting rid of the "class of player" issue and delineating those things which we are prepared to assume are "'normal'" for any player of any class, e.g. unless claimer specifies otherwise, we assume (a) suits run from the top down, (b) following to high cards with low cards, and (c) not discarding claimed winners. There may be a couple of others; the point is to exclude only those plays that we can agree would be irrational for anybody. 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 Thu Mar 20 23:30:39 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:30:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: At 15:35 19/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >>Alain may have missed the beginning of the thread. West has misbid. >>In the fantasy bidding system he is "playing," his 2NT artificially >>shows heart support, and thus he has only one extra heart. The actual >>hand also has two spades, where he might have had one or none. The >>hand is much more defensively oriented than a typical heart raise. >AG : this is where I differ. The 2NT response is usually played as a >balanced or semi-balanced heart raise, especially in Acol, where 54+ hands >may use the DGR sequence. In this context, West has a minimum number of >spades, and provides an unexpected 5th heart. It is irrelevant that *other* Acol players usually agree to play 2NT as restricted to a balanced heart raise, rather than agree to play 2NT as a heart raise with any shape. West misbid because West remembered the previous partnership agreement. After UI, West is no longer entitled to remember the current partnership agreement. Nor is West entitled to bid according to a usual Acol system. West is obliged to continue to bid according to the previous partnership agreement. If, in the previous partnership agreement, passing a penalty double is an LA; and if the UI demonstrably suggests removing the penalty double; then Pass is West's only legal call. Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 20 23:26:18 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:26:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <3E7A2206.6010903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c2ef38$1c08c8e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > Sven, you are being inconsistent: >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > > > Accepted, but I think it would make the laws more consistent if you = were > > required somehow to make it clear that you either play your diamonds > before > > you play your clubs or that you make sure you start with the DJ. = Except > for > > that comment I would have no problem with your claim under the = current > laws. > > >=20 >=20 > Either .. or. > I maintain that if you believe that one or other of those additions > would satisfy your criterion, then someone else would start saying > that you need to say both. Definitely not. As long as either line of play will work you need only specify one of them. But you should have to make it clear that you are = aware of the possibility of blocking the Diamonds so that you avoid the = "silly" play of first cashing the club entry to dummy and then fail to cash the = DJ first among the diamonds. Anyway, under the current laws I don't think I would hold an incomplete statement in this particular respect against you. But a point is that another Director might? ................ > > One purified example which was discussed some time ago: Spade is = trump; > > declarer holds the ten of spades together with the two red aces and > claims > > the rest without giving any particular statement. An opponent holds = the > Jack > > of spades together with the Ace and King of clubs. How many tricks? > > > > I have made some polls in Norway and the unanimous response is zero > tricks > > to the claimer. I understand there are some different views on this = one, > > many directors (outside Norway) will award two tricks to the = claimer. > > >=20 >=20 > This is a very valid example. It is one in which the definition of > "normal" needs to be refined. The EBLAC made a ruling that "for a > person who believes all trumps have gone from opponent's hands, and > all his other suits to be high, it is normal to play any suit first, > except trumps, which are held till last". > I realize that this may not be a self-evident fact, from the words of > the laws. But I don't see what is wrong with following that lead. > After all, isn't homogeneity what we are looking for, on blml? I seriously disagree that this can be stated as *the* normal play. I = know many players who just to be on the safe side will draw an extra trump = before cashing their side winners, especially when they feel sure that they in = any case hold the highest remaining trump.=20 We have for years been living with the principle that when a claimer apparently believes all his cards are high then he will play the cards = in a completely random order with no special treatment of his trump(s). I cannot understand how EBLAC can change this understanding and = "overnight" establish new rules as to what is "irrational" play. This seems like an attempt to change the laws without changing the laws. I hope that the = WBFLC will pay attention to the need for drawing the line between "irrational" = and "normal" if they do not make more dramatic changes to the laws in this respect. >=20 > > Is our bridge well served by a case like that being resolved = according > to > > opinions and assessments on what is irrational and what is not? I = don't > > think so. > > >=20 >=20 > I agree - which is why I believe it is important for such cases to be > viewed as precedent. If everyone follows the same principle, don't we > have the consistency that we want? But EBLAC telling all those people who are used to playing an extra = safety round of trumps that their play is irrational? I don't buy that one. Regards Sven From john@asimere.com Thu Mar 20 23:21:00 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:21:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3Z1cKRBczke+EwW6@asimere.com> In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >At 15:35 19/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > >>>Alain may have missed the beginning of the thread. West has misbid. >>>In the fantasy bidding system he is "playing," his 2NT artificially >>>shows heart support, and thus he has only one extra heart. The actual >>>hand also has two spades, where he might have had one or none. The >>>hand is much more defensively oriented than a typical heart raise. > >>AG : this is where I differ. The 2NT response is usually played as a >>balanced or semi-balanced heart raise, especially in Acol, where 54+ hands >>may use the DGR sequence. In this context, West has a minimum number of >>spades, and provides an unexpected 5th heart. > >It is irrelevant that *other* Acol players usually agree to >play 2NT as restricted to a balanced heart raise, rather >than agree to play 2NT as a heart raise with any shape. > >West misbid because West remembered the previous partnership >agreement. After UI, West is no longer entitled to remember >the current partnership agreement. Nor is West entitled to >bid according to a usual Acol system. West is obliged to >continue to bid according to the previous partnership >agreement. > >If, in the previous partnership agreement, passing a penalty >double is an LA; and if the UI demonstrably suggests removing >the penalty double; then Pass is West's only legal call. > Would I have passed a fast happy double? Not in a million years. Partner's double, the DAK and 5th H just guarantee that we'll make 4H. My bridge experience tells me that 3S will make far too often for me to leave it in when I have a cold game (or am one off when 3Sx makes). But Binky, John and DALB play for England and I don't, so I don't have a clue as usual. >Best wishes > >Richard > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Thu Mar 20 23:22:08 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:22:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030320171412.01f83ec0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000001c2ef19$72319c70$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E7A2206.6010903@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20030320171412.01f83ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article <5.2.0.9.0.20030320171412.01f83ec0@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 03:18 PM 3/20/03, Herman wrote: > >>Sven Pran wrote: > >>>One purified example which was discussed some time ago: Spade is trump; >>>declarer holds the ten of spades together with the two red aces and >>>claims >>>the rest without giving any particular statement. An opponent holds >>>the Jack >>>of spades together with the Ace and King of clubs. How many tricks? >>>I have made some polls in Norway and the unanimous response is zero >>>tricks >>>to the claimer. I understand there are some different views on this one, >>>many directors (outside Norway) will award two tricks to the claimer. > >Under ACBL guideline, this claimer gets zero tricks. I'd award zero tricks. john > >>This is a very valid example. It is one in which the definition of >>"normal" needs to be refined. The EBLAC made a ruling that "for a >>person who believes all trumps have gone from opponent's hands, and >>all his other suits to be high, it is normal to play any suit first, >>except trumps, which are held till last". -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 21 02:21:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:21:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: [snip] >The only problem is that West's double is >a bad idea, knowing that NS probably went >wrong (let them in their bad contract) ; and >that his double was probably motivated by >the knowledge that South would be under UI >constraints ; but I can't find anything in >the rules against this. > >Best regards, > > Alain. I do not believe West has caused a problem. I believe that West's motivation was perfectly ethical. West's deduction that South might be under UI constraint is fully consistent with Law 73D1: >>...inferences from such variation may >>appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and >>at his own risk. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 21 03:02:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:02:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: [snip] >>>The Director ruled that South possessed >>>unauthorized information when he bid >>>4NT, that Pass was a logical alternative to >>>this, and that the score be adjusted to NS >>>-300 in 4H doubled. >>> >>>NS appealed and suggested that the enquiry >>>about the redouble had no relevance to >>>East's hand. The effect of the question and >>>the ruling was that East had prevented NS >>>recovering from a systemic failure. >>> >>>As an AC member, with Law 12C3 enabled, how >>>would you rule? Eric Landau answered: >>TD's ruling stands. South had UI. South >>failed to meet the requirements of L16A. It >>is too farfetched to consider East's inquiry >>as a violation of L73F2; there was no "false >>inference". Correct. East's question resulted in South getting a _true_ inference about the North-South misunderstanding. In the Gratuitous Question thread, some blmlers argued that it was inequitable that an unnecessary question prevents the other side from recovering from a system failure. Therefore, on the grounds that Law 12C3 permits an AC to "vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity", the actual AC changed the score from NS -300 to NS +150. The WBF provided a lengthy comment, highly critical of the AC on several grounds. I found particularly interesting this paragraph - WBF Comment: [big snip] >The suggestion that EW had an ulterior >motive for asking the question is highly >speculative. Neither the Director nor the >committee could be expected to act upon >it. [snip] Hypothetical: Suppose the TD and/or the AC had demonstrable evidence that East had an ulterior motive for asking a question that would be legal without an ulterior motive. What Law, if any, has East infracted? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 21 04:01:06 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:01:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: >+=+ Which is in the CoP. > The examples in the Jurisprudence are actual >cases selected (as examples with a significant point >to make) by consensus of a group comprising >senior members of the WBF AC from several Zones. > ~ G ~ +=+ Imps, Dealer South, NS vul The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1C 1D Dble(1) 1H 2D ? (1) Negative You, East, hold: 7 5 3 J 8 2 A K 8 6 5 A 7 What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 21 04:42:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:42:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession Message-ID: One of the reasons Herman De Wael and Richard Hills claim is because: >>>I often claim just so I can no longer >>>revoke afterwards. Sven ruled: >>THAT is in my opinion an invalid argument >>for claiming! Yes, it appears that whenever we claim we are infracting Law 72A2 >A player must not knowingly accept either >the score for a trick that his side did not >win ... since we are knowingly depriving our opponents of the benefit of our demonstrably guaranteed future revokes. But this infraction is easily rectified; the TD simply makes a Law 70A ruling that it is a doubtful point whether we know how to follow suit. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 21 05:07:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:07:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat Message-ID: When it's so lucrative to cheat. Bear not false witness; let the lie Have time on its own wings to fly. In the thread Private Discussion with the TD, Alain claimed: >Now tell me what you would expect for >partner's double after 1D 4S : > >a) QJ109 Ax xxxx xxx >b) Kxx Ax xxx K10xxx > >I don't claim that there is an obvious >answer ; I claim that a majority (how >vast, I can't tell) would answer b). >People who favor b) will sometimes take >the double out, and the tempo of the >double is not relevant. I know that Alain is a highly ethical player, but I believe that his assessment of relevance leaves a loophole for less ethical players to let the lie fly. My counterclaim is that a vast majority should truthfully answer "both a) and b)". I further counterclaim that a significant fraction of that majority double quickly with a), and double slowly with b). And a segment of that fraction would deceptively or self-deceptively argue that that the system call with a) was Pass; so therefore a slow Double with b) does not provide any UI. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Mar 21 08:29:41 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:29:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000101c2ef38$1c08c8e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E7ACD75.6030305@skynet.be> OK Sorry, I misunderstood one thing. Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Either .. or. >>I maintain that if you believe that one or other of those additions >>would satisfy your criterion, then someone else would start saying >>that you need to say both. >> > > Definitely not. As long as either line of play will work you need only > specify one of them. But you should have to make it clear that you are aware > of the possibility of blocking the Diamonds so that you avoid the "silly" > play of first cashing the club entry to dummy and then fail to cash the DJ > first among the diamonds. > Sorry, I thought I needed to say either one to satisfy you. I see that I need to play either one. But my point remains. If you don't accept that I would play AKQ10x opp Jxx correctly, then why should you accept that I can play Ax Kx correctly? If you want me to make a statement about the diamonds, why not also about the clubs? And if you are satsisfied with a statement about the diamonds, but another director would rule against me because I said nothing about the clubs, are we not in exactly the same situation than at present, only at a different level? You see Sven, your "solution" is not a solution at all. > Anyway, under the current laws I don't think I would hold an incomplete > statement in this particular respect against you. But a point is that > another Director might? > Which would also be the case under "your" proposed claim law. Not under David's. But that is not a claim law, just a forbidding of claims. Yes, different directors might rule differently. Which is why we need blml to get them on the same wavelength. Which may well be to accept that all players who are capeable of claiming five tricks from AKQ10x opp Jxx are also capeable of making those five tricks. >> >>This is a very valid example. It is one in which the definition of >>"normal" needs to be refined. The EBLAC made a ruling that "for a >>person who believes all trumps have gone from opponent's hands, and >>all his other suits to be high, it is normal to play any suit first, >>except trumps, which are held till last". >>I realize that this may not be a self-evident fact, from the words of >>the laws. But I don't see what is wrong with following that lead. >>After all, isn't homogeneity what we are looking for, on blml? >> > > I seriously disagree that this can be stated as *the* normal play. I know > many players who just to be on the safe side will draw an extra trump before > cashing their side winners, especially when they feel sure that they in any > case hold the highest remaining trump. > > We have for years been living with the principle that when a claimer > apparently believes all his cards are high then he will play the cards in a > completely random order with no special treatment of his trump(s). > > I cannot understand how EBLAC can change this understanding and "overnight" > establish new rules as to what is "irrational" play. This seems like an > attempt to change the laws without changing the laws. I hope that the WBFLC > will pay attention to the need for drawing the line between "irrational" and > "normal" if they do not make more dramatic changes to the laws in this > respect. > That is a totally different discussion. As I said, this is a borderline case. There are arguments for and against calling this "normal". An eminent AC has decided that this is "normal". The one thing I agree with all of you about is that we need consistency. Why not arrive at consistency by accepting precedents in borderlline cases? > > But EBLAC telling all those people who are used to playing an extra safety > round of trumps that their play is irrational? I don't buy that one. > There is a big difference between playing an extra round for safety, and claiming. Claiming means one is certain they are all out. So playing "one more for safety" should be out of consideration. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From kaima13@hotmail.com Fri Mar 21 09:01:38 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:01:38 -0800 Subject: [blml] WBF documents References: Message-ID: > Imps, Dealer South, NS vul > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass > Pass 1C 1D Dble(1) > 1H 2D ? > > (1) Negative > > You, East, hold: > > 7 5 3 > J 8 2 > A K 8 6 5 > A 7 > > What are your logical alternatives? > > Best wishes > > Richard IMHO - Pass or 2H. *Pass=Nothing to add (I may not want to raise a passed hand partner with this balanced hand, knowing of bad heart break advertised by the neg double. Also possible that partner was bidding hearts for lead or as a cue or for other purposes, while holding true diamond support. Wait and see) *2H= Raise partner (even though my LHO opponent made neg X promising both majors, 4-1 break may not stop us from making 8 tricks, in case partner really has hearts. He may have diam tolerance or true support) Best regards Kaima From svenpran@online.no Fri Mar 21 09:15:21 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:15:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <3E7ACD75.6030305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c2ef8a$661b84c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 ............ > But my point remains. If you don't accept > that I would play AKQ10x opp Jxx correctly, then why should you accept > that I can play Ax Kx correctly? If you want me to make a statement > about the diamonds, why not also about the clubs? And if you are > satsisfied with a statement about the diamonds, but another director > would rule against me because I said nothing about the clubs, are we > not in exactly the same situation than at present, only at a different > level? The difference is that the sequence in which you play the cards is = important in one case but not in the other. When the sequence is important you = should have to show that you are aware of this importance with your statement, = when not it is sufficient to state that you have so many tricks regardless of = in which sequence you play your cards. > You see Sven, your "solution" is not a solution at all. I have never pretended that I have *the* solution, but I try to show = some general principles which should be observed in order to arrive at the solution.=20 The most extreme I can think of (but absolutely do not favor) is that opponents may specify every detail about your line of play which you = failed to specify yourself. In such a case you could be forced to play your = AKQJT2 suit bottom up rather than top down if you did not specify that you play = the suit from the top. (Yes that was once the rule on "incomplete" claims, = and even I consider that "irrational" within the meaning of that word in the current laws!) > > I cannot understand how EBLAC can change this understanding and > > "overnight" establish new rules as to what is "irrational" play. > > This seems like an attempt to change the laws without changing=20 > > the laws. I hope that the WBFLC will pay attention to the need > > for drawing the line between "irrational" and "normal" if they > > do not make more dramatic changes to the laws in this respect. >=20 > That is a totally different discussion. As I said, this is a > borderline case. There are arguments for and against calling this > "normal". An eminent AC has decided that this is "normal". The one > thing I agree with all of you about is that we need consistency.=20 > Why not arrive at consistency by accepting precedents in borderline=20 > cases? >=20 No, I don't believe this is a different discussion. In fact if we are = going to live with any kind of "irrational" versus "normal" in the laws we = shall need some better definition to help us know exactly where to draw the = line. And this definition must be included in the laws, not be left for = various AC's around the world to make. It is very little help when EBLAC drew the line where very few players = seem to accept it as a standard for separating "normal" from "irrational". > > But EBLAC telling all those people who are used to playing an extra > > safety round of trumps that their play is irrational? I don't buy > > that one. >=20 > There is a big difference between playing an extra round for safety, > and claiming. Claiming means one is certain they are all out. So > playing "one more for safety" should be out of consideration. >=20 Don't we agree that the adjudication after a claim shall be based upon = how the claimer could have played his cards, ignoring only "irrational" (God forgive me for using that word!) alternatives? Telling players that playing his last trump (the only remaining) is irrational is then the same as telling all those players who habitually = do exactly that just as an extra precaution when they have only high cards = left that their plays are irrational. If with four cards left you hold the four aces and claim, what is so irrational in playing your trump ace first even when you know that it is = the only trump left? This is still the same discussion, only driven to the extreme in order to make the principle perfectly clear.=20 Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Mar 21 09:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:56 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: According to Richard, The WBF asked: > Hypothetical: Suppose the TD and/or the AC had > demonstrable evidence that East had an ulterior > motive for asking a question that would be legal > without an ulterior motive. What Law, if any, > has East infracted? I don't know why they asked. They have clearly stated elsewhere that asking questions that may benefit partner when the asker does not need to know the answer constitutes illegal communication in breach of law 73a. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Mar 21 09:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:56 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: <3Z1cKRBczke+EwW6@asimere.com> Message-ID: John wrote: > Would I have passed a fast happy double? Not in a million years. > Partner's double, the DAK and 5th H just guarantee that we'll make 4H. > My bridge experience tells me that 3S will make far too often for me to > leave it in when I have a cold game (or am one off when 3Sx makes). But your partner would double 3S holding xx,AKxx,Qxx,AKxx and bid 3N with KQxx,AKxx,Qx,Qxx. Playing this double as penalties with spades sitting under is non-optimal. Playing it as extras and allowing a partner with spade values to pass is better. Whether pass is an LA depends on whether West might think he was playing the former. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Mar 21 11:11:35 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:11:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: <6195084.1048245095503.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Tim wrote: > But your partner would double 3S holding xx,AKxx,Qxx,AKxx and bid 3N with KQxx,AKxx,Qx,Qxx. Yours might. Mine would bid 4H with the former and double 3S for penalty with the latter, these actions being so obvious as to require no comment. >Playing this double as penalties with spades sitting under is non-optimal. Playing it as extras and allowing a partner with spade values to pass is better. Whether pass is an LA depends on This is the kind of breathtaking arrogance that is the real reason I think the rules of bridge should be as mechanical as possible. Suppose a ruling in a serious event were to be given by someone who claims to know what is and what is not "optimal" in the realm of competitive bidding. That ruling would in all probability be ridiculous, for so is that claim. The opinion Tim vouchsafes above is pretty much nonsense, yet it is the kind of nonsense that has permeated just about every message from Alain and others in this thread (again, with the honourable exception of Peter Gill, who alone among contributors seems to have realised that when our side has found an eight-card major suit fit and there is no question of making a game try, we do not need to make non-penalty doubles any more). The difficulty is that we are all "experts" now. We have all read Larry Cohen, so we apply the Law of Total Tricks to any and all situations; in particular, we believe that our opponents have read the great man's works also and would never dare to bid to the three level without nine trumps. We use absurd phrases like "sitting under", as if QJ109 of trumps would make more tricks over the bidder than under. Trusting Larry Cohen rather than the man sitting opposite, we interpret his penalty double in all kinds of mysterious ways - "value-showing", "strong no trump" and the like. The notion that he is doubling three spades because he thinks we can beat it never crosses our minds. And when we appear in front of appeals committees, they are all "experts" too. "Of course", they will say when we have cheated by pulling a double that partner is basing on the defence we have shown but do not have, "that double cannot be for penalty, for has not the great Larry Cohen said...?" So we are able to justify our illegal actions by appealing to the vanity of the committee. It works, too - "double for penalty is not an optimal treatment", says someone sagely (albeit absurdly), and we agree rather than be thought to entertain some Stone Age notion that (a) double is for penalty and (b) that is a sensible way to bid. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Mar 21 11:15:52 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:15:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000001c2ef8a$661b84c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E7AF468.5010805@skynet.be> Second reply to the same post: Sven Pran wrote: > >>>I cannot understand how EBLAC can change this understanding and >>>"overnight" establish new rules as to what is "irrational" play. >>>This seems like an attempt to change the laws without changing >>>the laws. I hope that the WBFLC will pay attention to the need >>>for drawing the line between "irrational" and "normal" if they >>>do not make more dramatic changes to the laws in this respect. >>> >>That is a totally different discussion. As I said, this is a >>borderline case. There are arguments for and against calling this >>"normal". An eminent AC has decided that this is "normal". The one >>thing I agree with all of you about is that we need consistency. >>Why not arrive at consistency by accepting precedents in borderline >>cases? >> >> > > No, I don't believe this is a different discussion. In fact if we are going > to live with any kind of "irrational" versus "normal" in the laws we shall > need some better definition to help us know exactly where to draw the line. > And this definition must be included in the laws, not be left for various > AC's around the world to make. > No, I don't believe that. This is but one case. There are a great number of others. None of them completely similar. It is impossible to create a correct definition which can be included in the laws. I feel the approach that Grattan is attempting (create lists of examples for people to refer to) is a good one. General principles (non-trump suits in any order, generally top-down) are directives, not laws. There are too many exceptions to such general principles for us to cast them in iron. > It is very little help when EBLAC drew the line where very few players seem > to accept it as a standard for separating "normal" from "irrational". > What do you mean "very few"? Five people around one table accepted this. Most of blml accepts this. About four or five people on blml have spoken out against this, and at least the same number on blml have defended the line. I would venture most players would see this ruling as fair. > >>>But EBLAC telling all those people who are used to playing an extra >>>safety round of trumps that their play is irrational? I don't buy >>>that one. >>> >>There is a big difference between playing an extra round for safety, >>and claiming. Claiming means one is certain they are all out. So >>playing "one more for safety" should be out of consideration. >> >> > Don't we agree that the adjudication after a claim shall be based upon how > the claimer could have played his cards, ignoring only "irrational" (God > forgive me for using that word!) alternatives? > Indeed. And I don't believe this player would have played his last trump first. > Telling players that playing his last trump (the only remaining) is > irrational is then the same as telling all those players who habitually do > exactly that just as an extra precaution when they have only high cards left > that their plays are irrational. > I don't believe that many players actually do this. Keeping the last trump as precaution is exactly the same rationale. But we have agreed that this is a borderline case. So why continue to discuss it? > If with four cards left you hold the four aces and claim, what is so > irrational in playing your trump ace first even when you know that it is the > only trump left? This is still the same discussion, only driven to the > extreme in order to make the principle perfectly clear. > But that is not the extreme. We are not talking of the trump ace. We are talking of the trump 2. With four cards left, three aces and the trump two, do we accept the same rationale? Don't forget that we think the trumps are last - the others are high. That is not the same as believing in 3NT that all ones cards are high. The situations are not the same, so why should the ruling be the same? I go along with a general rule that says that "cashing a penultimate trump, even if one is certain that none are left, is a normal play". I could even live with a rule that says the same for an ultimate trump honour, but I cannot live with a rule that says that the trump suit is just another suit. People don't cash the trump 2 (*), they keep that to ruff their final ace. (* except when executing a squeeze) > Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Mar 21 11:15:55 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:15:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000001c2ef8a$661b84c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E7AF46B.8030307@skynet.be> Sven, this is still a discussion I am interested in. Strangely we seem to still have points to add. But is has become two different discussions. I'll write two posts: Sven Pran wrote: >>But my point remains. If you don't accept >>that I would play AKQ10x opp Jxx correctly, then why should you accept >>that I can play Ax Kx correctly? If you want me to make a statement >>about the diamonds, why not also about the clubs? And if you are >>satsisfied with a statement about the diamonds, but another director >>would rule against me because I said nothing about the clubs, are we >>not in exactly the same situation than at present, only at a different >>level? >> > > The difference is that the sequence in which you play the cards is important > in one case but not in the other. When the sequence is important you should > have to show that you are aware of this importance with your statement, when > not it is sufficient to state that you have so many tricks regardless of in > which sequence you play your cards. > No Sven, won't wash. The order in which I play AQx Kxx doesn't matter, true. But it does in AQx Kx. I find the difference between the two far too small for you to be the place where you draw your line. This is child stuff. Any bridge player who has heard the word "claim" knows how to handle these suits. All of them. So drawing the line somewhere between AQx Kxx and AQx Kx is a silly thing to do. And certainly not a helpful one. > >>You see Sven, your "solution" is not a solution at all. >> > > I have never pretended that I have *the* solution, but I try to show some > general principles which should be observed in order to arrive at the > solution. > > The most extreme I can think of (but absolutely do not favor) is that > opponents may specify every detail about your line of play which you failed > to specify yourself. In such a case you could be forced to play your AKQJT2 > suit bottom up rather than top down if you did not specify that you play the > suit from the top. (Yes that was once the rule on "incomplete" claims, and > even I consider that "irrational" within the meaning of that word in the > current laws!) > That extreme point _is_ a valid solution to the problem you perceive. If you want to do away with judgment, then this is the only valid solution. Do away with judgment completely and specify that all legal plays must be considered. We both know what the majority of players would think of that solution. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john@asimere.com Fri Mar 21 11:49:58 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:49:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <3E7AF46B.8030307@skynet.be> References: <000001c2ef8a$661b84c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E7AF46B.8030307@skynet.be> Message-ID: In article <3E7AF46B.8030307@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Sven, this is still a discussion I am interested in. Strangely we seem >to still have points to add. >But is has become two different discussions. I'll write two posts: > >Sven Pran wrote: > >>>But my point remains. If you don't accept >>>that I would play AKQ10x opp Jxx correctly, then why should you accept >>>that I can play Ax Kx correctly? If you want me to make a statement >>>about the diamonds, why not also about the clubs? And if you are >>>satsisfied with a statement about the diamonds, but another director >>>would rule against me because I said nothing about the clubs, are we >>>not in exactly the same situation than at present, only at a different >>>level? >>> >> >> The difference is that the sequence in which you play the cards is important >> in one case but not in the other. When the sequence is important you should >> have to show that you are aware of this importance with your statement, when >> not it is sufficient to state that you have so many tricks regardless of in >> which sequence you play your cards. >> > > >No Sven, won't wash. The order in which I play AQx Kxx doesn't matter, >true. But it does in AQx Kx. I find the difference between the two far >too small for you to be the place where you draw your line. >This is child stuff. Any bridge player who has heard the word "claim" >knows how to handle these suits. All of them. So drawing the line >somewhere between AQx Kxx and AQx Kx is a silly thing to do. And >certainly not a helpful one. I've, on a number of occasions, drawn the line at KTxx AQ9xx my recollection is that this is considered about right on blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Mar 21 12:47:33 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:47:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000001c2ef8a$661b84c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3E7AF46B.8030307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3E7B09E5.80103@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>knows how to handle these suits. All of them. So drawing the line >>somewhere between AQx Kxx and AQx Kx is a silly thing to do. And >>certainly not a helpful one. >> > > I've, on a number of occasions, drawn the line at KTxx AQ9xx > seems a very logical choice. So logical that I cannot infer from your post whether or not you would accept this. It can be either the last lay-out you would accept or the first one you would not. Maybe the level of player is needed, although I would do this right out of nature ("cash a double honour rather than a single one"). But I agree - the line lies here somewhere, certainly not lower. > my recollection is that this is considered about right on blml > I don't believe even Sven would argue against this. IIRC, Sven is also talking of the hypothetically better claim laws, not the actual current ones - right ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 21 13:05:51 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:05:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <002801c2ef06$ac2d7e20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <200303192320.SAA24103@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030321135955.02d38120@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:31 20/03/2003 -0800, Marvin French wrote: >From: "Steve Willner" > > > > When there is no statement, we are left to guess which line is > > intended. In the "finesse" cases, many BLML contributors believe it is > > "normal" to duck. If so -- and not everyone agrees -- claimer has to > > lose a trick. > > >I polled a number of very experienced players at our high-level Wednesday >night game last night, several of whom have been playing for 40 years or >more. They were unanimous in saying that they have never seen a competent >player make this sort of duck. AG : last time I saw this was yesterday night, in a trump suit which was Axxx / KJ10xx. The player began with the Ace, and when LHO didn't follow to the second round, he ducked. I think this might *also* be prompted by fears of miscounting, eg is declarer didn't see LHO not following to the 1st round (ie trumps being 4-0), then ducking might prove better. >When there is a miscount, players play high >and express surprise when the honor drops. Maybe it's a cultural thing. I >could imagine a player in one country over there "normally" surrendering a >trick earlier rather than later. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Mar 21 12:59:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: <6195084.1048245095503.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: > Tim wrote: > > > But your partner would double 3S holding xx,AKxx,Qxx,AKxx and bid 3N > > with KQxx,AKxx,Qx,Qxx. > > Yours might. Mine would bid 4H with the former and double 3S for > penalty with the latter, these actions being so obvious as to require > no comment. They are obvious within your approach/agreements. They are wrong in my preferred agreements. I play as you do when playing rubber bridge and it is certainly workable. > >Playing this double as penalties with spades sitting under is > non-optimal. Playing it as extras and allowing a partner with spade > values to pass is better. Whether pass is an LA depends on > > This is the kind of breathtaking arrogance that is the real reason I > think the rules of bridge should be as mechanical as possible. Suppose > a ruling in a serious event were to be given by someone who claims to > know what is and what is not "optimal" in the realm of competitive > bidding. Whether it is optimal or not is matter of opinion (I'm happy with mine). Personally I don't play enough bridge to reserve a call for hands with QJT9 of a suit which opponents have bid and supported. There is an enormous difference between this and holdings like KJ9x depending on position. > That ruling would in all probability be ridiculous, for so is > that claim. Had you bothered to read what I wrote you would have seen that my ruling depended on how I considered West might be playing the double - not what was optimal. I recognise that both approaches are possible (as should you were you less arrogant). > The difficulty is that we are all "experts" now. We have all read Larry > Cohen, so we apply the Law of Total Tricks to any and all situations; > in particular, we believe that our opponents have read the great man's > works also and would never dare to bid to the three level without nine > trumps. We use absurd phrases like "sitting under", as if QJ109 of > trumps would make more tricks over the bidder than under. Trusting > Larry Cohen rather than the man sitting opposite, we interpret his > penalty double in all kinds of mysterious ways - "value-showing", > "strong no trump" and the like. The notion that he is doubling three > spades because he thinks we can beat it never crosses our minds. It crossed my mind. Why didn't occur to you that in the system West though he was playing it might be value-showing? Why not investigate. EW have recently changed system, there is every chance that we can find out what West thought the double was and rule accordingly. IF we still have doubts we will rule in favour of the NOS. > And when we appear in front of appeals committees, they are all > "experts" too. "Of course", they will say when we have cheated by > pulling a double that partner is basing on the defence we have shown > but do not have, "that double cannot be for penalty, for has not the > great Larry Cohen said...?" So we are able to justify our illegal > actions by appealing to the vanity of the committee. It works, too - > "double for penalty is not an optimal treatment", says someone sagely > (albeit absurdly), and we agree rather than be thought to entertain > some Stone Age notion that (a) double is for penalty and (b) that is a > sensible way to bid. A competent AC should be capable of recognising that non-optimal methods exist in abundance (and even of disputing manifestly "absurd" opinions, although I have to say that my opinion on how the double should be played is far from unusual). Anyway, someone on the radio has started blithering that bridge is a sport. When it comes to absurd opinions that just about takes the biscuit. Time for me to take a rest. Tim West-Meads From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Mar 21 13:29:46 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:29:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: <7866667.1048253386163.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> TWM wrote: >They are obvious within your approach/agreements. They are wrong in my preferred agreements. Tim, you show me anyone who will attest to the notion that, prior to the emergence of this thread you have discussed with him or her the sequence: West North East South 1H 1S 2NT 3S Dble where 2NT shows a heart raise, and I will retract every word I have said. These "agreements" you claim to have are with yourself; they are fantasies; they do not exist. >There is an enormous difference between this and holdings like KJ9x depending on position. Sure there is. Declarer is bound to be able to get to dummy three times to take spade finesses (and is of course also bound to have AQ10, rather than Axxxx with Q10x in the dummy). > Had you bothered to read what I wrote you would have seen that my ruling depended on how I considered West might be playing the double Yes, I know it did. And how you considered West might be playing the double would depend on your own view that it is "best" played as non-penalty. That view is (a) wrong and (b) not something that ought to be considered in any case. > It crossed my mind. Why didn't occur to you that in the system West though he was playing it might be value-showing? Because the chance that East-West have discussed this auction is vanishingly small - about as large as the chance that you have discussed it, despite what you say about "your agreements". > there is every chance that we can find out what West thought the double was and rule accordingly. Of course there is. If we ask West what he thought double meant, what do you think he is going to tell us? David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 21 13:49:53 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:49:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030321143737.02d35e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:01 21/03/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >+=+ Which is in the CoP. > > The examples in the Jurisprudence are actual > >cases selected (as examples with a significant point > >to make) by consensus of a group comprising > >senior members of the WBF AC from several Zones. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > >Imps, Dealer South, NS vul >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass >Pass 1C 1D Dble(1) >1H 2D ? > >(1) Negative > >You, East, hold: > >7 5 3 >J 8 2 >A K 8 6 5 >A 7 > >What are your logical alternatives? AG : pass and 2H are certainly. Partner's 2H may be made on a strong 4-carder, so bidding 2H is not at all automatic, but raising partner can't be a very bad idea. Pass is always a LA when your hand is neither much stronger nor much more shapely than you've already said, provided the sequence is nonforcing. A competitive double, if you play such, is also a LA, and probably the best option. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 21 14:01:55 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:01:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: References: <6195084.1048245095503.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030321145537.00a92950@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:59 21/03/2003 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > The difficulty is that we are all "experts" now. We have all read Larry > > Cohen, so we apply the Law of Total Tricks to any and all situations; > > in particular, we believe that our opponents have read the great man's > > works also and would never dare to bid to the three level without nine > > trumps. We use absurd phrases like "sitting under", as if QJ109 of > > trumps would make more tricks over the bidder than under. Trusting > > Larry Cohen rather than the man sitting opposite, we interpret his > > penalty double in all kinds of mysterious ways - "value-showing", > > "strong no trump" and the like. The notion that he is doubling three > > spades because he thinks we can beat it never crosses our minds. > >It crossed my mind. Why didn't occur to you that in the system West >though he was playing it might be value-showing? Why not investigate. >EW have recently changed system, there is every chance that we can find >out what West thought the double was and rule accordingly. IF we still >have doubts we will rule in favour of the NOS. AG : who knows, you might even find on E/W's CC or notes a line like 'optional doubles, showing spread values, after either pair has found a fit'. You'll find it on mine. And since NS have found one (even not taking into account West's idea of the 2NT bid), it would apply here. Did somebody care to endeavour this research ? I remember, in a case about tempo, a team having their NPC testify that he advocates 'no penalty doubles below game' and that a team member's slow double didn't give out UI that it was no penalty double, because it obviously wasn't. The NPC (Pierre Schemeil) was well known for his writings on competitive doubles, and the appeal was accepted. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 21 14:07:05 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:07:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: <7866667.1048253386163.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030321150229.00a8ea10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:29 21/03/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >TWM wrote: > > >They are obvious within your approach/agreements. They are wrong in my > preferred agreements. > >Tim, you show me anyone who will attest to the notion that, prior to the >emergence of this thread you have discussed with him or her the sequence: > >West North East South > 1H 1S >2NT 3S Dble > >where 2NT shows a heart raise, and I will retract every word I have said. >These "agreements" you claim to have are with yourself; they are >fantasies; they do not exist. AG : see my previous thread. They do. Playing NO penalty doubles over freely-fitting opponents is quite common. Such an agreement would encompass this hand, whatever 2NT means. You won't solve any case through dogmatism. thought the double was and rule accordingly. >Of course there is. If we ask West what he thought double meant, what do >you think he is going to tell us? AG : what will his CC tell us ? Mine will tell you that it is optional in nature, typically Hxx in their suit, not strictly a trump stack. I will gladly send it to you in attach if you state you don't believe me. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Mar 21 14:36:56 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:36:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: <5552806.1048257416673.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote: > AG : see my previous thread. They do. Playing NO penalty doubles over freely-fitting opponents is quite common. Of course it is. Why, it is well-known that in the sequence: West North East South 1H 1S 2H 4S Double East is invited to bid five hearts unless he has four spade tricks. > You won't solve any case through dogmatism. On the contrary - you will solve a great deal more cases by having rules about which it is possible to be dogmatic, to assert that "the rules say this, and do not say anything else", than you will solve by opinion polls, or by being psychoanalysed by Herman de Wael to decide what kind of a mistake you have made. When it comes to the rules of a game, it is fair to say that you will not solve anything other than by dogmatism. We have tried, and look at the mess we are in. > AG : what will his CC tell us ? Nothing, of course. >Mine will tell you that it is optional in nature, typically Hxx in their suit, not strictly a trump stack. I will gladly send it to you in attach if you state you don't believe me. Oh, I believe you. You have got some principle or other somewhere on the card, which you can assert applies to any auction you like. But it does not mean that you play double as "optional in nature" in the auction I have given above, whatever it says. David Burn London, England From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Fri Mar 21 15:08:11 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:08:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: from "Alain Gottcheiner" at Mar 21, 2003 03:07:05 PM Message-ID: <200303211508.h2LF8BLC032148@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:07:05 +0100 > > At 13:29 21/03/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > > AG : see my previous thread. They do. Playing NO penalty doubles over > freely-fitting opponents is quite common. Such an agreement would encompass > this hand, whatever 2NT means. > You won't solve any case through dogmatism. > > > > thought the double was and rule accordingly. > > >Of course there is. If we ask West what he thought double meant, what do > >you think he is going to tell us? > > AG : what will his CC tell us ? Mine will tell you that it is optional in > nature, typically Hxx in their suit, not strictly a trump stack. I will > gladly send it to you in attach if you state you don't believe me. > TY: Obviously we cannot make you rule differently if you are going to be persistent, but we can point out that you are in violation of the Laws. Go back and read L16A. Nowhere does it say anything about having a non-standard agreement. What it says is that if you have a sequence, you cannot choose a LA that is suggested over another LA by the UI. In this case the UI suggests that bidding will be more successful. Even when doubles are value-showing, strong-notrump showing, or optional pass is still a valid LA and any other call than pass is suggested by the UI since you know that partner has bid based on a hand that you do not have. Unless you have it strictly on your card that competitive doubles on the three level are definitely takeout convertible only when you hold trump holdings, will you get me to believe that pass is not a LA. Going back to a previous thread of mine "KO match: how would you rule?" I'll take a comment of Eric Landau's: "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." Change the "5H" to "anything other than pass" for this situation and you still have the argument. Any reasonably experienced or expert-level pair will be able to find a justification for any restricted call. The point is that the laws don't allow you to rule on justifications. The laws do not allow the TD any analysis of the hand so that the rulings are consistent. It is left for the OS to take the ruling to appeal and an AC can use judgement on the situation to determine whether there was justification to overturn the ruling, but there isn't such latitude for the TD. No one is arguing the merit of bidding on, that is clear. The point is that the TD isn't permitted to allow the option and should rule accordingly. -Ted. From gester@lineone.net Fri Mar 21 15:35:21 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:35:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD References: <200303211508.h2LF8BLC032148@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <001b01c2efbf$9d247780$91182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Private discussion with the TD > > > > TY: Obviously we cannot make you rule > differently if you are going to be persistent, > but we can point out that you are in violation > of the Laws. Go back and read L16A. > Nowhere does it say anything about having > a non-standard agreement. < +=+ " A logical alternative is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and *using the methods of the partnership*, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it." [WBF definition of 'logical alternative'] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 21 16:23:16 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:23:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: <001b01c2efbf$9d247780$91182850@pacific> References: <200303211508.h2LF8BLC032148@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030321172021.00a4c080@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:35 21/03/2003 +0000, gester@lineone.net wrote: >Grattan Endicott^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >"If we find the answer to that ....... it would >be the ultimate triumph of human reason - >for then we would know the mind of God. " > ~ Stephen Hawking. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ted Ying" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:08 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Private discussion with the TD > > > > > > > > > TY: Obviously we cannot make you rule > > differently if you are going to be persistent, > > but we can point out that you are in violation > > of the Laws. Go back and read L16A. > > Nowhere does it say anything about having > > a non-standard agreement. >< >+=+ " A logical alternative is a different action >that, amongst the class of players in question >and *using the methods of the partnership*, would >be given serious consideration by a significant >proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable >to think some might adopt it." > [WBF definition of 'logical alternative'] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ AG : let's see if I understood this right. Say that pair A-B plays forcing passes in a competitive situation where most pairs don't. (and they're able to prove it) Then, pass is not a LA for this pair, even if it is for other players of their class. Right ? Then Ted's comment is wrong. Best regards, and thanks to Grattan. Alain. From svenpran@online.no Fri Mar 21 16:06:42 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:06:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <3E7AF468.5010805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c2efc3$dd1d95c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ........ > > It is very little help when EBLAC drew the line where very > > few players seem to accept it as a standard for separating > > "normal" from "irrational". > >=20 >=20 > What do you mean "very few"? Five people around one table accepted > this. Most of blml accepts this. About four or five people on blml > have spoken out against this, and at least the same number on blml > have defended the line. I would venture most players would see this > ruling as fair. "Most of blml accepts this"? That isn't my impression. But I believe I = have made my point: Something must be done with the terms "irrational" versus "normal" the way these terms are used in the current laws.=20 I don't think there is much disagreement that these terms are = interpreted differently today from how they were intended in for instance the laws = of 1987. The fact that the late decisions have created so much stir should = be the best evidence that WBFLC has some work to do. ......... > > Don't we agree that the adjudication after a claim shall be based = upon > how > > the claimer could have played his cards, ignoring only "irrational" = (God > > forgive me for using that word!) alternatives? > > >=20 >=20 > Indeed. And I don't believe this player would have played his last > trump first. Not even when I tell you I have seen several players regularly do just = that? (for reasons best known to themselves) >=20 > But that is not the extreme. We are not talking of the trump ace. We > are talking of the trump 2. With four cards left, three aces and the > trump two, do we accept the same rationale? Don't forget that we think > the trumps are last - the others are high. Exactly my point, he not only believes all his cards are high, he is = certain they are. So the sequence he plays his cards does not matter. So if he happens to grab his last trump first - what does that matter? You were talking about the trump 2 - I was not. And again - where do you draw the line? With the King? - the Queen? - maybe the ten or the nine? = - maybe even as low as with the five or the four? This question has no answer and is indeed irrelevant. When a player is certain that all his cards are high it just doesn't matter in what = sequence he plays them, so there is no reason for him to hold on to his trump as = the last card, nor is there any reason for him to play it first. I am repeating myself, but my point should be clear. End of story Regards Sven From adam@tameware.com Fri Mar 21 16:41:08 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:41:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Demonstrably Suggested -- COP Example 2 Message-ID: The latest (proposed?) WBF Code of Practice is available as I am concerned about COP Example 2. According to the write-up both the director and the committee agreed that East had UI and that pass was a logical alternative to 6C. Unfortunately neither noted whether the UI demonstrably suggested one alternative over the other, nor did they demonstrate it. I like the committee's decision, and I would like to learn how to make it while following Law 16. To see the problem consider this case -- the East hand is the same: None vul S J 8 7 H K Q 9 8 6 4 D K 6 3 C 8 S A Q 3 2 S T H J T 7 2 H A D Q 7 D J T 9 4 2 C 9 7 5 C A K Q T 3 2 S K 9 6 5 4 H 5 3 D A 8 5 C J 6 4 W N W S 2H 4C! P 5C all pass 11 tricks were scored. 4C showed both minors. It took two minutes for the tray to return with the 5C call. Since 4C was non-forcing it seemed clear that West was considering whether or not to raise. Surely West would have raised more quickly were his diamond honor the K or the A. How would you rule? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Fri Mar 21 16:43:03 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:43:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: from "gester@lineone.net" at Mar 21, 2003 03:35:21 PM Message-ID: <200303211643.h2LGh3Uj006932@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: > Subject: Re: [blml] Private discussion with the TD > Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:35:21 -0000 > > Grattan Endicott ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > "If we find the answer to that ....... it would > be the ultimate triumph of human reason - > for then we would know the mind of God. " > ~ Stephen Hawking. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ted Ying" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:08 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Private discussion with the TD > > > > TY: Obviously we cannot make you rule > > differently if you are going to be persistent, > > but we can point out that you are in violation > > of the Laws. Go back and read L16A. > > Nowhere does it say anything about having > > a non-standard agreement. > < > +=+ " A logical alternative is a different action > that, amongst the class of players in question > and *using the methods of the partnership*, would > be given serious consideration by a significant > proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable > to think some might adopt it." > [WBF definition of 'logical alternative'] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > TY: Sorry, the statement about non-standard agreements was part of a previous argument. When I changed tactics in writing I forgot to delete the sentence. If you go back and see the rest of the argument, the comment was not relevent and as Grattan points out, also not correct. However, the point is that even if you play non-standard agreements such as optional doubles, strong-NT doubles, or value/card-showing doubles, pass is still a LA. As long as it is, and some of us here believe that it is, so AG's 100% poll is not collective outside of his circle of peers, then pass should be mandated. I'm a little concerned about the precedent that these arguments are trying to set. It is my understanding of the rules that the rules should favor the NOS. If there is any question (and there is more than question, but actual debate here), the ruling should be in favor of the NOS and against the OS. If either pair feels aggrieved, then it should be the OS that has to appeal a ruling and not the NOS. For a NOS to be forced to appeal a ruling to get back to what "should" (and I only use should from the NOS perspective, not absolute) have happened. As the OS, the pair responsible should be the one, if any, to appeal a ruling and have to convince an AC that they were justified. -Ted. From adam@tameware.com Fri Mar 21 17:15:45 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:15:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Demonstrably Suggested -- COP Example 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 11:41 AM -0500 3/21/03, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >I am concerned about COP Example 2. And I should have provided a better example hand: S J 8 7 H Q 9 8 6 4 2 D A 3 C J 8 S A Q 3 S T H J T 7 3 H A D Q 7 5 D J T 9 4 2 C 9 7 5 C A K Q T 3 2 S K 9 6 5 4 2 H K 5 D K 8 6 C 6 4 Replacing the DQ with a higher honor in this West hand really does provide good play for a slam. For what it's worth both the North and West hands are now unchanged from the original deal. >W N W S > 2H 4C! P >5C all pass > >11 tricks were scored. > >4C showed both minors. It took two minutes for the tray to return >with the 5C call. Since 4C was non-forcing it seemed clear that West >was considering whether or not to raise. Surely West would have >raised more quickly were his diamond honor the K or the A. > >How would you rule? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 21 17:47:42 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:47:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Demonstrably Suggested -- COP Example 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030321184341.00aa3020@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:15 21/03/2003 -0500, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 11:41 AM -0500 3/21/03, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>I am concerned about COP Example 2. > >And I should have provided a better example hand: > > S J 8 7 > H Q 9 8 6 4 2 > D A 3 > C J 8 > >S A Q 3 S T >H J T 7 3 H A >D Q 7 5 D J T 9 4 2 >C 9 7 5 C A K Q T 3 2 > > S K 9 6 5 4 2 > H K 5 > D K 8 6 > C 6 4 > >Replacing the DQ with a higher honor in this West hand really does provide >good play for a slam. For what it's worth both the North and West hands >are now unchanged from the original deal. > >>W N W S >> 2H 4C! P >>5C all pass >> >>11 tricks were scored. >> >>4C showed both minors. It took two minutes for the tray to return with >>the 5C call. Since 4C was non-forcing it seemed clear that West was >>considering whether or not to raise. Surely West would have raised more >>quickly were his diamond honor the K or the A. AG : it might as well be that West considered bidding 6. Don't you ever consider raising a nonforcing bid to slam ? He could have D/AKQ and no major-suit control, among other possibilities. >>How would you rule? AG : as usual when the hesitation could be based on "more" or on "less" : no LA is demonstrably suggested. Score stands. What do you suggest ? That East, who described his hand fairly well (55+ minors and about 4 losing tricks), should commit the monstruosity of bidding 6, because his partner hesitated ? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 21 21:21:33 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:21:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Birthdays Message-ID: David asked me to forward this to the list. :-) ====== Forwarded Message ====== Date: 3/21/03 1:50 AM Received: 3/20/03 8:54 PM From: David Stevenson To: Ed Reppert --------------------------------------------------------------- On April 5th, Nanki Poo will be ten. Yippee! Furthermore, Minke will have his first [?] birthday on April 7th. Anyway, he will be one year old. They would love emails from you - Minke has not had a single one yet from a bridge newsgroup member - so please: Nanki Poo Minke If you want to see them then go to http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/cat_menu.htm#catpic1 --------------------------------------------------------------- ====== End Forwarded Message ====== From adam@tameware.com Fri Mar 21 22:10:41 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:10:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Demonstrably Suggested -- COP Example 2 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030321184341.00aa3020@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030321184341.00aa3020@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: At 6:47 PM +0100 3/21/03, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>How would you rule? > >AG : as usual when the hesitation could be based on "more" or on >"less" : no LA is demonstrably suggested. Score stands. If no LA is demonstrably suggested then what able the example in the COP where East bids 6C and finds West with a better hand? Would you let the score stand there as well? >What do you suggest ? That East, who described his hand fairly well >(55+ minors and about 4 losing tricks), should commit the >monstruosity of bidding 6, because his partner hesitated ? I would not adjust in this case. I would like to adjust in the case quoted in the COP, and I'm looking for a legal reason to do so. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Mar 21 22:46:56 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:46:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Demonstrably Suggested -- COP Example 2 Message-ID: <200303212246.RAA06059@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Wildavsky > I would not adjust in this case. I would like to adjust in the case > quoted in the COP, and I'm looking for a legal reason to do so. Why do you want to adjust in the original case? (West has D-Kxx, East bids slam after the pause, and the 50% slam makes.) Is it that a 2-minute hesitation shows extras because a hand that is weak, barely worth a 5C raise, will never pause so long? Whether the ruling is correct or not, it is a very poor example to show as "approved jurisprudence." Neither the TD nor the AC addressed the issue of how one should know that the pause shows extra strength rather than weakness. (Go to http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/BiB/b1/default.asp to download the pdf file of "WBF Appeals Examples.") From karel@esatclear.ie Sat Mar 22 08:33:54 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel De Raeymaeker) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:33:54 -0800 Subject: [blml] Pass always LA ?? Message-ID: Dealer N Imps N/S vul North S Axx H Axx D QJxxx C xx South S KQxx H KJxxx D Axx C x Bidding N E S W 1D 2C 2H 4C P P Dbl** P 4H P P P ** Pause agreed by all. North has 2 calls available Pass or 4H. The argument is that Pass while a poor bid especially at Imps is still LA - you will undoubtedly dig up a few players who will pass. Having said that the vast majority for all the right reasons will bid 4H, pause, normal tempo, fast tempo whatever. So what do we rule ?? K. From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Mar 22 01:45:53 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:45:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pass always LA ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030321203903.00bc5180@mail.comcast.net> At 03:33 AM 3/22/2003, Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: >Dealer N Imps N/S vul > >North >S Axx >H Axx >D QJxxx >C xx > > >South >S KQxx >H KJxxx >D Axx >C x > >Bidding >N E S W >1D 2C 2H 4C >P P Dbl** P >4H P P P > >** Pause agreed by all. > >North has 2 calls available Pass or 4H. The argument is that Pass while a >poor bid especially at Imps is still LA - you will undoubtedly dig up a few >players who will pass. Having said that the vast majority for all the right >reasons will bid 4H, pause, normal tempo, fast tempo whatever. So what do >we rule ?? You have forgotten a key issue: is pass demonstrably suggested by the hesitation? South's double shows a good hand, not a club stack; this is standard expert practice, and in any case, given North's two clubs, there aren't enough clubs left for South to have a club stack. North has no idea what South was considering. If South was considering a pass, North should leave the double in since game may not make. If South was considering pass, then North should pass, as 4H is unlikely to make. If South was considering 4D or 4H, then North should bid 4H, as he has a fit he has not yet shown. Since either one is likely, I rule that North is free to bid as he chooses. If North's pass was forcing by partnership agreement, then South's double shows only a preference for defending over bidding on, and thus the slow double does demonstrably suggest pulling. However, this is unlikely given the actual South hand; it is an offensive hand and would bid 4D over a forcing pass. From adam@irvine.com Sat Mar 22 02:01:50 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:01:50 -0800 Subject: [blml] Pass always LA ?? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:45:53 EST." <5.1.1.6.0.20030321203903.00bc5180@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <200303220201.SAA00493@mailhub.irvine.com> David Grabiner wrote: > At 03:33 AM 3/22/2003, Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: > >Dealer N Imps N/S vul > > > >North > >S Axx > >H Axx > >D QJxxx > >C xx > > > > > >South > >S KQxx > >H KJxxx > >D Axx > >C x > > > >Bidding > >N E S W > >1D 2C 2H 4C > >P P Dbl** P > >4H P P P > > > >** Pause agreed by all. > > > >North has 2 calls available Pass or 4H. The argument is that Pass while a > >poor bid especially at Imps is still LA - you will undoubtedly dig up a few > >players who will pass. Having said that the vast majority for all the right > >reasons will bid 4H, pause, normal tempo, fast tempo whatever. So what do > >we rule ?? > > You have forgotten a key issue: is pass demonstrably suggested by the > hesitation? South's double shows a good hand, not a club stack; this is > standard expert practice, and in any case, given North's two clubs, there > aren't enough clubs left for South to have a club stack. North has no idea > what South was considering. If South was considering a pass, North should > leave the double in since game may not make. If South was considering > pass, then North should pass, as 4H is unlikely to make. If South was > considering 4D or 4H, then North should bid 4H, as he has a fit he has not > yet shown. Since either one is likely, I rule that North is free to bid as > he chooses. > > If North's pass was forcing by partnership agreement, then South's double > shows only a preference for defending over bidding on, and thus the slow > double does demonstrably suggest pulling. However, this is unlikely given > the actual South hand; it is an offensive hand and would bid 4D over a > forcing pass. I disagree with the last paragraph. Even if there is no agreement that North's pass is forcing, it seems that it should be at least 95% forcing just by bridge logic. North has an opening hand, South has shown a good hand---not quite a game force, but certainly game invitational---and IMHO it would be quite unusual for N/S to start like this and then just suddenly let the bidding die with the opponents undoubled at the four level. So to me, the hesitation does demonstrably suggest pulling, even with no agreement. The fact that South doubled on this hand rather than bidding isn't evidence of anything; if you think South shouldn't double over a forcing pass, then that just means either South made an inferior call or he thought the double was sort-of-takeout-oriented. -- Adam From adam@tameware.com Sat Mar 22 03:25:09 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:25:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pass always LA ?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:33 AM -0800 3/22/03, Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: >North has 2 calls available Pass or 4H. The argument is that Pass while a >poor bid especially at Imps is still LA - you will undoubtedly dig up a few >players who will pass. Having said that the vast majority for all the right >reasons will bid 4H, pause, normal tempo, fast tempo whatever. So what do >we rule ?? The answer is in the question. There is UI, and it demonstrably suggests 4H over P, so if P is a LA we must assign a result or results in 4C X. I am not arguing that P is a LA -- I'm asserting that if it is we must adjust. Note that there is evidence that S would not normally double with a singleton. If he would then he'd have had no reason to hesitate before doubling here. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Mar 22 05:19:29 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:19:29 -0800 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 Message-ID: <001f01c2f033$6178cbe0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Subject: Unauthorized Information Silver Ribbon Pairs, March 9, Second qualifying session Bd: 28 Dlr: West Vul N/S Q 9 4 5 4 3 A4 9 8 7 3 2 10 8 AK 5 K Q 9 10 8 7 6 2 K 8 7 Q 6 5 K Q 10 6 4 A J J 7 6 3 2 A J J 10 9 3 2 5 West North East South 1C P 1H 1NT P(1) P Dbl 2D 2H 2S Dbl All Pass (1) Asked about 1NT, told it was strong (N/S's agreement according to their Convention Card) The Facts: 2S. doubled made two, +670 for N/S. The opening lead was the .A. The Director was called at the end of the play. At some point South said to North, "I thought I was showing the other two suits," at which point North said, "I finally realized that." (E/W thought these comments were made after the auction but before the lead; N/S thought they were made after dummy came down.) The Director determined that South's explanation of 1NT as natural was in accord with N/S's agreement (their CC had nothing about sandwich notrumps listed) and in any case that East's own hand and the auction strongly suggested that South could not have a strong notrump. Thus, there had been no violation of Law 75B and no misinformation to E/W. The Director ruled that the table result would stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. E/W were concerned that an agreement appeared to exist because of North's free 2S bid and his later statement that he figured his partner had spades. They believed that North's successful fielding of his partner's 2D bid indicated that some implicit agreement existed. If there was, then they believed that North owed them an explanation before he bid rather than after the hand. The Committee Decision: Normally in cases of misinformation versus misbid, the alleged offenders bear a heavy burden to show that a call was a misbid. In this case the Director determined that sandwich notrumps were not on N/S's CC and concluded that there had been a misbid. The Committee decided that in the face of North's comment and his free 2S bid, the absence of sandwich notrump from the CC was not sufficient to conclude that South had misbid. N/S might have been able to convince the Committee otherwise but were they were not present at the hearing. Therefore, the Committee found that there had been misinformation. If E/W had been properly informed of this imputed agreement, they would have been very likely to have bid 4H. Therefore, the Committee changed the contract to 4H by East making five, for both pairs. The Committee briefly considered whether South's pull of 1NT doubled to 2D was aided by unauthorized information from North's failure to Alert 1NT and his subsequent explanation of the bid as natural. They rejected that approach since they believed that passing 1NT doubled was not a logical alternative. Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): E/W's appeal was based on their belief that before North bid 2S he should have Alerted that he now believed that his side had an agreement that 1NT was for takeout. However, North had already passed 1NT, properly reacting to his understanding that 1NT showed a strong hand. The laws do not require a player (in this case North) to notify the opponents if he infers from his own hand and the subsequent auction that he believes his partner might have misbid, mistakenly bidding 1NT to show a diamond-spade two-suiter when his agreement was that it was natural, as indicated on their CCs. (However, if North laterdecided that his explanation of 1NT as natural was in error and that his actual agreement was that 1NT showed the other two suits he was required to call the Director and correct the misexplanation.) Furthermore, it should have been clear to East, holding 14 HCP (after his partner opened the bidding), that South was bidding on distribution. I would allow North to bid 2S and would have allowed the table result of 2S doubled made two, +670 for N/S, to stand. Dissenting Opinion (Aaron Silverstein): After further consideration I believe that we made the wrong decision for several reasons. First, I think the timing of the Director call (at the end of the hand instead of when dummy appeared) suggested that E/W were not upset with the dummy but rather were upset with the result. Second, since North passed 1NT and only later bid 2S, E/W should have known he did not have long spades, at which point the whole table should have known that there had been a misunderstanding. I think we probably should have forced N/S to play 1NT doubled. I do believe that the onus is on the side who has bid as though they have an agreement to prove that they don't. In this case, however, 4H made five is the wrong decision. If we do not require N/S to play 1NT doubled we should allow the table result to stand. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Michael Houston (chair), Ed Lazarus, Jeff Meckstroth, Aaron Silverstiein, Eddie Wold Aaron is right, 1NT doubled or table result. I'm with Ed, table result stands.Evidently the AC knew what adjustment they wanted to make, and jiggled the Laws to get it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Mar 22 11:46:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: <7866667.1048253386163.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: > >They are obvious within your approach/agreements. They are wrong in > my preferred agreements. > > Tim, you show me anyone who will attest to the notion that, prior to > the emergence of this thread you have discussed with him or her the > sequence: > > West North East South > 1H 1S > 2NT 3S Dble There is nobody with whom I have discussed this sequence. There are a number of people with whom I have agreements like "In undiscussed sequences doubles below game are only penalty if obvious". Here we have a sequence where we would both be aware that reasonable (even if non-optimal) approaches exist as to whether this should be values or penalty. Thus our meta-agreement kicks in and the double is not penalty. I would expect a TD to treat it as MI if the X were described as undiscussed. > >There is an enormous difference between this and holdings like KJ9x > depending on position. > > Sure there is. Declarer is bound to be able to get to dummy three times > to take spade finesses (and is of course also bound to have AQ10, > rather than Axxxx with Q10x in the dummy). KJ9x plays for two tricks when sitting over 2 honours, one trick sitting under. Yes there may be two honours in the short hand but that is well against the odds. Tim From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Mar 22 11:59:27 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:59:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 References: <001f01c2f033$6178cbe0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3E7C501F.90707@skynet.be> I don't really have an opinion on this case itself, but I don't agree=20 with many of the comments made in this report: Marvin French wrote: [snip] >=20 > The Committee decided that in the face of North's comment and his free = 2S > bid, the absence of sandwich notrump from the CC was not sufficient to > conclude that South had misbid. N/S might have been able to convince th= e > Committee otherwise but were they were not present at the hearing. > Therefore, the Committee found that there had been misinformation. If E= /W > had been properly informed of this imputed agreement, they would have b= een > very likely to have bid 4H. Therefore, the Committee changed the contra= ct to > 4H by East making five, for both pairs. >=20 >=20 > Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): E/W's appeal was based on their belief= that > before North bid 2S he should have Alerted that he now believed > that his side had an agreement that 1NT was for takeout. However, North= had > already passed 1NT, properly reacting to his understanding > that 1NT showed a strong hand. The laws do not require a player (in thi= s > case North) to notify the opponents if he infers from his own hand and > the subsequent auction that he believes his partner might have misbid, > mistakenly bidding 1NT to show a diamond-spade two-suiter when his agre= ement > was that it was natural, as indicated on their CCs. (However, if North > laterdecided that his explanation of 1NT as natural was in error > and that his actual agreement was that 1NT showed the other two suits h= e was > required to call the Director and correct the misexplanation.) > Furthermore, it should have been clear to East, holding 14 HCP (after h= is > partner opened the bidding), that South was bidding on distribution. I = would > allow North to bid 2S and would have allowed the table result of 2S dou= bled > made two, +670 for N/S, to stand. >=20 Bullshit. North indeed does not have to inform the opponents if he=20 believes there is a misbid. But the AC decided it was not a misbid,=20 but MI. SO North should have said something. I don't blam=F9e North for=20 not saying anything, but if the bid is considered systemic, then EW=20 should be replaced in a position as if North had indeed said it. > Dissenting Opinion (Aaron Silverstein): After further consideration I > believe that we made the wrong decision for several reasons. First, I t= hink > the timing of the Director call (at the end of the hand instead of when > dummy appeared) suggested that E/W were not upset with the dummy but ra= ther > were upset with the result.=20 Bullshit. There is no limit on when to call the director. People often=20 don't call the director because they know he can't do anything at the=20 moment other than requiring them to finish the board. No reason to=20 upset the opponents by calling when one thinks that 2Sx-1 will be a=20 good result. And every reason to call when it turns out to make. Second, since North passed 1NT and only later > bid 2S, E/W should have known he did not have long spades, at which poi= nt > the whole table should have known that there had been a misunderstandin= g. I > think we probably should have forced N/S to play 1NT doubled. I do beli= eve > that the onus is on the side who has bid as though they have an agreeme= nt to > prove that they don't. In this case, however, 4H made five is the wrong > decision. If we do not require N/S to play 1NT doubled we should allow = the > table result to stand. >=20 > DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff > Committee: Michael Houston (chair), Ed Lazarus, > Jeff Meckstroth, Aaron Silverstiein, Eddie Wold >=20 > Aaron is right, 1NT doubled or table result. I'm with Ed, table result > stands.Evidently the AC knew what adjustment they wanted to make, and > jiggled the Laws to get it. >=20 Bullshit. The AC ruled. No jiggling of laws needed. Not putting something on your CC is no proof of not having an=20 agreement, surely? Benefit of the doubt to non-offenders. > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California >=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 karel@esatclear.ie Sat Mar 22 21:52:16 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel De Raeymaeker) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:52:16 -0800 Subject: [blml] Pass always LA ?? In-Reply-To: <200303220201.SAA00493@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: [snip ...] > >Dealer N Imps N/S vul > > > >North > >S Axx > >H Axx > >D QJxxx > >C xx > > > > > >South > >S KQxx > >H KJxxx > >D Axx > >C x > > > >Bidding > >N E S W > >1D 2C 2H 4C > >P P Dbl** P > >4H P P P > > > >** Pause agreed by all. [snip ... ] So to me, the hesitation does demonstrably suggest pulling, even with no agreement. The fact that South doubled on this hand rather than bidding isn't evidence of anything; if you think South shouldn't double over a forcing pass, then that just means either South made an inferior call or he thought the double was sort-of-takeout-oriented. +++ most of the points have already been covered .. but the real issue is "is pass La or not ?". The forcing pass argument which technically may or may not be better is irrelevant as there is no evidence to suggest this particular N/S had such an agreement. My own feeling on this auction is that N/S are not an advanced pair and that the double by South is pretty much open ended. N eventually came up with IMO the correct bid .... BUT ... and this is my question .... .... Given that you can find a minority of players who will make various "Bad" bids including pass on almost any auction ... how can the LA argument work ?? Where is the cut off point ?? When does the minority bid not become LA ?? Just because I feel that this auction + the scoring makes N's 4H bid pretty clearcut so what .. it's just my opinion. It's well concievable (and has been proven on many an occasion) that my idea's on any auction may not be correct or in the majority. This appeal will result in a different outcome depending on the AC members and THEIR notions. Is there not a more objective, mechanical, structured approach to deciding such cases ?? K. From karel@esatclear.ie Sat Mar 22 22:12:55 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel De Raeymaeker) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:12:55 -0800 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <3E7C501F.90707@skynet.be> Message-ID: [Snip ... ] Bullshit. North indeed does not have to inform the opponents if he believes there is a misbid. But the AC decided it was not a misbid, but MI. SO North should have said something. I don't blam=F9e North for not saying anything, but if the bid is considered systemic, then EW should be replaced in a position as if North had indeed said it. [snip ...] Bullshit. The AC ruled. No jiggling of laws needed. Not putting something on your CC is no proof of not having an agreement, surely? Benefit of the doubt to non-offenders. +++ While there may have been no proof that 1NT here is natural on the CC= , surely its pushing the boat to say ... well its not down on the CC so you can't prove it and well we think you're lying ... cripes I don't even wan= t to imagine the repercussions of this line of thinking!! If N was under a= ny illusion that 1NT was anything other than Nat he would surely have bid 1s= t time round. The bidding proceeds and S pulls the Double to 2D. Now N compete's with = a 3 card suit ?? I don't know ... It looks to me that he implied from the bidding (maybe the atmosphere at the table etc) that S may have bid 1NT n= ow as sandwhich. He could have been wrong !! He took a risk. What if he alerted 1NT as now probably sandwich and found his pd with a strong NT wi= th diamonds ?? As for the result - I don't think N/S will ever play in 1NT doubled. 2D is a perfectly normal bid even if S did have a Str NT hand. I'd let the result stand. K. From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Mar 22 15:13:44 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:13:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 References: Message-ID: <3E7C7DA8.60907@skynet.be> Karel, no need to put your comments on mine. I was neither defending=20 nor attacking the AC decision. I was attacking the comments which were=20 incorrect. However: Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: > [Snip ... ] > Bullshit. North indeed does not have to inform the opponents if he > believes there is a misbid. But the AC decided it was not a misbid, > but MI. SO North should have said something. I don't blam=F9e North for > not saying anything, but if the bid is considered systemic, then EW > should be replaced in a position as if North had indeed said it. >=20 > [snip ...] > Bullshit. The AC ruled. No jiggling of laws needed. > Not putting something on your CC is no proof of not having an > agreement, surely? Benefit of the doubt to non-offenders. >=20 > +++ While there may have been no proof that 1NT here is natural on the = CC, > surely its pushing the boat to say ... well its not down on the CC so y= ou > can't prove it and well we think you're lying ... cripes I don't even w= ant > to imagine the repercussions of this line of thinking!! If N was under= any > illusion that 1NT was anything other than Nat he would surely have bid = 1st > time round. >=20 OK. a player makes a conventional call. his partner does not alert. They claim misbid and provide you with a beer mat with 3 lines. Surely=20 you don't accept that as proof for the non-conventional nature of the=20 call? Well, the Phil AC decided similarly. Without a copy of the CC, it's=20 not up to us to decide whether or not they were right. But the ruling=20 is certainly possible. > The bidding proceeds and S pulls the Double to 2D. Now N compete's wit= h a 3 > card suit ?? I don't know ... It looks to me that he implied from the > bidding (maybe the atmosphere at the table etc) that S may have bid 1NT= now > as sandwhich. He could have been wrong !! He took a risk. What if he > alerted 1NT as now probably sandwich and found his pd with a strong NT = with > diamonds ?? As for the result - I don't think N/S will ever play in 1N= T > doubled. 2D is a perfectly normal bid even if S did have a Str NT hand. > I'd let the result stand. >=20 As I said, I'm not commenting on the case itself. Gotta go now. Wales have just pulled a try back against Ireland. But I=20 imagine you're also watching that, Karel? > K. >=20 >=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 cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Mar 21 08:29:31 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:29:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat References: Message-ID: <000a01c2f0b4$bab55260$104ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 5:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat > > And a segment of that fraction would > deceptively or self-deceptively argue that > that the system call with a) was Pass; so > therefore a slow Double with b) does not > provide any UI. > +=+ Well now, could one suggest that always in a disagreement between A and B each might say the other is deceiving himself? ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Mar 21 08:32:17 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:32:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: Message-ID: <000b01c2f0b4$bb823f50$104ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 4:42 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Implausible Concession > > One of the reasons Herman De Wael and > Richard Hills claim is because: > > >>>I often claim just so I can no longer > >>>revoke afterwards. > > Sven ruled: > > >>THAT is in my opinion an invalid argument > >>for claiming! > > Yes, it appears that whenever we claim we > are infracting Law 72A2 > > >A player must not knowingly accept either > >the score for a trick that his side did not > >win ... > > since we are knowingly depriving our > opponents of the benefit of our demonstrably > guaranteed future revokes. > > But this infraction is easily rectified; the > TD simply makes a Law 70A ruling that it is a > doubtful point whether we know how to follow > suit. > +=+ Dear me, do I detect a tiny hint of irony? Help, David! Someone is wearing my clothes. And '72A2', is that the bit about not prolonging play? ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sat Mar 22 21:30:13 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:30:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <000b01c2f0b4$bb823f50$104ae150@endicott> Message-ID: <000301c2f0ba$39836190$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott ......... > > One of the reasons Herman De Wael and > > Richard Hills claim is because: > > > > >>>I often claim just so I can no longer > > >>>revoke afterwards. > > > > Sven ruled: > > > > >>THAT is in my opinion an invalid argument > > >>for claiming! > > > > Yes, it appears that whenever we claim we > > are infracting Law 72A2 > > > > >A player must not knowingly accept either > > >the score for a trick that his side did not > > >win ... > > > > since we are knowingly depriving our > > opponents of the benefit of our demonstrably > > guaranteed future revokes. > > > > But this infraction is easily rectified; the > > TD simply makes a Law 70A ruling that it is a > > doubtful point whether we know how to follow > > suit. > > > +=+ Dear me, do I detect a tiny hint of irony? > Help, David! Someone is wearing my clothes. > And '72A2', is that the bit about not > prolonging play? No - it is "thou shalt not accept a score thou dost not deserve" (Did I remember the ancient grammar correctly?) regards Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Mar 22 22:26:37 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:26:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000b01c2f0b4$bb823f50$104ae150@endicott> Message-ID: <007001c2f0c2$1aa15ea0$853127d9@pbncomputer> Grattan wrote: > +=+ Dear me, do I detect a tiny hint of irony? > Help, David! Someone is wearing my clothes. Don't look at me, guv'nor. Alain plays: 1H 1S 2H 4S Double as "une proposition de punition (avec des atouts et du jeu, pas seulement avec une grosse opposition, donc toujours enlevables avec une main irrégulière)". Of course, if the 2H bidder has such as: x xxx Jxxx Axxxx he is entirely at liberty to bid five hearts, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. But because I do not actually believe this, he won't talk to me any more. I also do not believe that he plays: Pass 1H Pass 2C Pass 2D Pass 2S Double as "purement d’appel (bien que niant généralement une chicane)", even though that is what his convention card says that he plays. But there is not a great deal of point being ironic around here; a scrap metal yard is the place for the likes of us. David Burn London, England From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Mar 23 08:31:33 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:31:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000301c2f0ba$39836190$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000601c2f12a$873d09c0$2e18e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 9:30 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Implausible Concession > > > > > +=+ Dear me, do I detect a tiny hint of irony? > > Help, David! Someone is wearing my clothes. > > And '72A2', is that the bit about not > > prolonging play? > > No - it is "thou shalt not accept a score thou dost > not deserve" > > (Did I remember the ancient grammar correctly?) > > regards Sven > +=+ Ah! Then verily the truth is not in any of us.+=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Mar 23 10:51:33 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:51:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000b01c2f0b4$bb823f50$104ae150@endicott> <007001c2f0c2$1aa15ea0$853127d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000701c2f12a$880ed8b0$2e18e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Implausible Concession > > he is entirely at liberty to bid five hearts, and don't > let anyone tell you otherwise. But because I do not > actually believe this, he won't talk to me any more. < +=+ "toujours enlevables avec une main irrégulière" - I am not sure of the interpretation here, does it mean that if I have been bidding (as usual) like an idiot I am allowed to go on bidding like an idiot? The question causes me to think: given the WBF definition of 'logical alternative' and given that what is normal does not include what is irrational for the class of player, when making a Law 70D decision am I to rule 'normal' anything utterly irrational that a player has on his card? Possibly so, regarding him as a unique player of his class - and with only figmental peers to judge by ? ~ G ~ +=+ From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Mar 23 22:22:08 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:22:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 References: <001f01c2f033$6178cbe0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004001c2f18a$abe9c3c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Table result. No second or third choice. I assume that there is no real agreement that 1NT is a twosuiter. I assume that either the system is natural or that there is no agreement. This seems reasonable given the presentation of the facts. 1. 2D is normal. Even without alert I will allow that. You might argue that pas shows a hand that wants to play 1NT but even then 2D is normal bridge after the double. And it is automatic if you are not sure how partner takes 1NT. 2. West is not damaged in any way. All his bids are fairly 'automatic'. He ended up describing a minimum opening with some heart support. 3. Maybe North should say something, maybe not (if this is not a regular partnership or when 1NT is natural why the hell should he say something). But when he bids 2S it is clear he is giving preference because with a spade suit he would have bid 2S one round earlier. So east has all relevant information (he knows given his HCP that south is 55 or so and he knows north freely bid 2S showing some playing strength opposite 55). If unsure he could have posed some questions at this stage. He decided to double. Poor decision. End of story (I assume silver ribbon excludes beginners and such). 4. Herman uses 'bullshit' a couple of times in this thread. Indeed an adequate qualification of his own remarks. But is not Herman one of the first to complain when he considers other people rude. So why Marvin and two others have to be bullshited? Apart from the fact that Marvin and those two others make much more sense to me than Herman. Not a big surprise to me but then maybe I am prejudiced. 5. The AC also produced a 'bullshit' ruling. They said 'when EW are properly informed ....'. Please give me one piece of info which is not immediately and completely obvious from the auction. I agree completely with Marvin's assertion that the AC first decided where they wanted to end and just dreamed up some 'bullshit' to justify their ruling. All this with NS not present. Nice way to do justice. Maybe in the end the ACBL is as crazy as the EBL. Or maybe ruling the game with (or without) the current rules is too difficult. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 6:19 AM Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 > Subject: Unauthorized Information > Silver Ribbon Pairs, March 9, Second qualifying session > Bd: 28 > Dlr: West Vul N/S > > Q 9 4 > 5 4 3 > A4 > 9 8 7 3 2 > > 10 8 AK 5 > K Q 9 10 8 7 6 2 > K 8 7 Q 6 5 > K Q 10 6 4 A J > > J 7 6 3 2 > A J > J 10 9 3 2 > 5 > > West North East South > 1C P 1H 1NT > P(1) P Dbl 2D > 2H 2S Dbl All Pass > > (1) Asked about 1NT, told it was strong (N/S's agreement according to their > Convention Card) > > The Facts: 2S. doubled made two, +670 for N/S. The opening lead was the .A. > The Director was called at the end of the play. At some point South said to > North, "I thought I was showing the other two suits," at which point North > said, "I finally realized that." (E/W thought these comments were made after > the auction but before the lead; N/S thought they were made after dummy came > down.) > > The Director determined that South's explanation of 1NT as natural was in > accord with N/S's agreement (their CC had nothing about sandwich notrumps > listed) and in any case that East's own hand and the auction strongly > suggested that South could not have a strong notrump. Thus, there had been > no violation of Law 75B and no misinformation to E/W. The Director ruled > that the table result would stand. > > The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to > attend the hearing. E/W were concerned that an agreement appeared to exist > because of North's free 2S bid and his later statement that he figured his > partner had spades. They believed that North's successful fielding of his > partner's 2D bid indicated that some implicit agreement existed. If there > was, then they believed that North owed them an explanation before he bid > rather than after the hand. > > The Committee Decision: Normally in cases of misinformation versus misbid, > the alleged offenders bear a heavy burden to show that a call was a misbid. > In this case the Director determined that sandwich notrumps were not on > N/S's CC and concluded that there had been a misbid. > > The Committee decided that in the face of North's comment and his free 2S > bid, the absence of sandwich notrump from the CC was not sufficient to > conclude that South had misbid. N/S might have been able to convince the > Committee otherwise but were they were not present at the hearing. > Therefore, the Committee found that there had been misinformation. If E/W > had been properly informed of this imputed agreement, they would have been > very likely to have bid 4H. Therefore, the Committee changed the contract to > 4H by East making five, for both pairs. > > The Committee briefly considered whether South's pull of 1NT doubled to 2D > was aided by unauthorized information from North's failure to Alert 1NT and > his subsequent explanation of the bid as natural. They rejected that > approach since they believed that passing 1NT doubled was not a logical > alternative. > > Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): E/W's appeal was based on their belief that > before North bid 2S he should have Alerted that he now believed > that his side had an agreement that 1NT was for takeout. However, North had > already passed 1NT, properly reacting to his understanding > that 1NT showed a strong hand. The laws do not require a player (in this > case North) to notify the opponents if he infers from his own hand and > the subsequent auction that he believes his partner might have misbid, > mistakenly bidding 1NT to show a diamond-spade two-suiter when his agreement > was that it was natural, as indicated on their CCs. (However, if North > laterdecided that his explanation of 1NT as natural was in error > and that his actual agreement was that 1NT showed the other two suits he was > required to call the Director and correct the misexplanation.) > Furthermore, it should have been clear to East, holding 14 HCP (after his > partner opened the bidding), that South was bidding on distribution. I would > allow North to bid 2S and would have allowed the table result of 2S doubled > made two, +670 for N/S, to stand. > > Dissenting Opinion (Aaron Silverstein): After further consideration I > believe that we made the wrong decision for several reasons. First, I think > the timing of the Director call (at the end of the hand instead of when > dummy appeared) suggested that E/W were not upset with the dummy but rather > were upset with the result. Second, since North passed 1NT and only later > bid 2S, E/W should have known he did not have long spades, at which point > the whole table should have known that there had been a misunderstanding. I > think we probably should have forced N/S to play 1NT doubled. I do believe > that the onus is on the side who has bid as though they have an agreement to > prove that they don't. In this case, however, 4H made five is the wrong > decision. If we do not require N/S to play 1NT doubled we should allow the > table result to stand. > > DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff > Committee: Michael Houston (chair), Ed Lazarus, > Jeff Meckstroth, Aaron Silverstiein, Eddie Wold > > Aaron is right, 1NT doubled or table result. I'm with Ed, table result > stands.Evidently the AC knew what adjustment they wanted to make, and > jiggled the Laws to get it. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Sun Mar 23 22:37:01 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:37:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <000701c2f12a$880ed8b0$2e18e150@endicott> References: <000b01c2f0b4$bb823f50$104ae150@endicott> <007001c2f0c2$1aa15ea0$853127d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030323172949.01f71ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:51 AM 3/23/03, Grattan wrote: > The question causes me to think: given the WBF >definition of 'logical alternative' and given that what >is normal does not include what is irrational for the >class of player, when making a Law 70D decision >am I to rule 'normal' anything utterly irrational that a >player has on his card? > Possibly so, regarding him as a unique player >of his class - and with only figmental peers to judge >by ? We can only be grateful that TFLB requires us to concern ourselves with "'normal'", "irrational", "class of player involved" and all that only with respect to the play of the cards, that nowhere do the laws suggest that these concepts are to be applied to bidding methods. When it comes to the selection of bidding methods, it is only sensible to regard anything imaginable as normal, nothing as irrational, and "class of player" as immaterial. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Mar 23 22:34:58 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:34:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pass always LA ?? References: <200303220201.SAA00493@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <006101c2f18c$705aa7a0$25b54351@noos.fr> LA !?!?! 1. These kind of doubles are never very quick because these are difficult situations. So I will not rule break in tempo very easily. 2. Souths double has no real relation to his club holding. He is just looking for a fit somewhere. Slow or quick, there is not a lot of UI because the double means 'I don't know what to do'. Roughly the same as 'thinking' means. 3. 4H is 100% automatic. Holding Axx you have to support partner. The reason North passed 4C was to slow down the auction because he has a sub minimum hand. He is afraid that 4H might excite south too much. And he doesn't mind defending 4C if south cannot find another bid. 4. I agree with Karel that you can always find a poor player or two who might pass but this doesn't make it a LA. If so you might as well change the law that after a pause you award a zero (or equi) to the pair if the partner still has to take some kind of decision. Come on. There has to be some kind of real UI and there has to be some kind of realistic LA. Both are lacking in this case. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 3:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Pass always LA ?? > > David Grabiner wrote: > > > At 03:33 AM 3/22/2003, Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: > > >Dealer N Imps N/S vul > > > > > >North > > >S Axx > > >H Axx > > >D QJxxx > > >C xx > > > > > > > > >South > > >S KQxx > > >H KJxxx > > >D Axx > > >C x > > > > > >Bidding > > >N E S W > > >1D 2C 2H 4C > > >P P Dbl** P > > >4H P P P > > > > > >** Pause agreed by all. > > > > > >North has 2 calls available Pass or 4H. The argument is that Pass while a > > >poor bid especially at Imps is still LA - you will undoubtedly dig up a few > > >players who will pass. Having said that the vast majority for all the right > > >reasons will bid 4H, pause, normal tempo, fast tempo whatever. So what do > > >we rule ?? > > > > You have forgotten a key issue: is pass demonstrably suggested by the > > hesitation? South's double shows a good hand, not a club stack; this is > > standard expert practice, and in any case, given North's two clubs, there > > aren't enough clubs left for South to have a club stack. North has no idea > > what South was considering. If South was considering a pass, North should > > leave the double in since game may not make. If South was considering > > pass, then North should pass, as 4H is unlikely to make. If South was > > considering 4D or 4H, then North should bid 4H, as he has a fit he has not > > yet shown. Since either one is likely, I rule that North is free to bid as > > he chooses. > > > > If North's pass was forcing by partnership agreement, then South's double > > shows only a preference for defending over bidding on, and thus the slow > > double does demonstrably suggest pulling. However, this is unlikely given > > the actual South hand; it is an offensive hand and would bid 4D over a > > forcing pass. > > I disagree with the last paragraph. Even if there is no agreement > that North's pass is forcing, it seems that it should be at least 95% > forcing just by bridge logic. North has an opening hand, South has > shown a good hand---not quite a game force, but certainly game > invitational---and IMHO it would be quite unusual for N/S to start > like this and then just suddenly let the bidding die with the > opponents undoubled at the four level. So to me, the hesitation does > demonstrably suggest pulling, even with no agreement. The fact that > South doubled on this hand rather than bidding isn't evidence of > anything; if you think South shouldn't double over a forcing pass, > then that just means either South made an inferior call or he thought > the double was sort-of-takeout-oriented. > > -- Adam > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jrmayne@mindspring.com Sun Mar 23 23:03:47 2003 From: jrmayne@mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:03:47 -0800 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 References: <001f01c2f033$6178cbe0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3E7E3D53.4080205@mindspring.com> Marvin French wrote: > Subject: Unauthorized Information > Silver Ribbon Pairs, March 9, Second qualifying session > Bd: 28 > Dlr: West Vul N/S > > Q 9 4 > 5 4 3 > A4 > 9 8 7 3 2 > > 10 8 AK 5 > K Q 9 10 8 7 6 2 > K 8 7 Q 6 5 > K Q 10 6 4 A J > > J 7 6 3 2 > A J > J 10 9 3 2 > 5 > > West North East South > 1C P 1H 1NT > P(1) P Dbl 2D > 2H 2S Dbl All Pass > > (1) Asked about 1NT, told it was strong (N/S's agreement according to their > Convention Card) > > The Facts: 2S. doubled made two, +670 for N/S. The opening lead was the .A. > The Director was called at the end of the play. At some point South said to > North, "I thought I was showing the other two suits," at which point North > said, "I finally realized that." (E/W thought these comments were made after > the auction but before the lead; N/S thought they were made after dummy came > down.) > > The Director determined that South's explanation of 1NT as natural was in > accord with N/S's agreement (their CC had nothing about sandwich notrumps > listed) and in any case that East's own hand and the auction strongly > suggested that South could not have a strong notrump. Thus, there had been > no violation of Law 75B and no misinformation to E/W. The Director ruled > that the table result would stand. > > The Appeal: [Snip] > > Dissenting Opinion (Aaron Silverstein): After further consideration I > believe that we made the wrong decision for several reasons. First, I think > the timing of the Director call (at the end of the hand instead of when > dummy appeared) suggested that E/W were not upset with the dummy but rather > were upset with the result. Second, since North passed 1NT and only later > bid 2S, E/W should have known he did not have long spades, at which point > the whole table should have known that there had been a misunderstanding. I > think we probably should have forced N/S to play 1NT doubled. I do believe > that the onus is on the side who has bid as though they have an agreement to > prove that they don't. In this case, however, 4H made five is the wrong > decision. If we do not require N/S to play 1NT doubled we should allow the > table result to stand. > I think Aaron got it right here, all the way, including his comment that 1Nx-5 is the right ruling. I'm surprised no one seems to support 1Nx-5; why would S rescue 1N to 2D here if there were no MI? Pass is what a lot of good players would do, and it's surely an LA. Partner will pass that; 1Nx -5 looks right, even with the delayed call of the director. In this case, E-W don't know that there was an LA until they know declarer's hand. Waiting until the end ought not destroy their options. --JRM > DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff > Committee: Michael Houston (chair), Ed Lazarus, > Jeff Meckstroth, Aaron Silverstiein, Eddie Wold > > Aaron is right, 1NT doubled or table result. I'm with Ed, table result > stands.Evidently the AC knew what adjustment they wanted to make, and > jiggled the Laws to get it. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 24 01:29:16 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:29:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: I asked: >>Hypothetical: Suppose the TD and/or the AC had >>demonstrable evidence that East had an ulterior >>motive for asking a question that would be legal >>without an ulterior motive. What Law, if any, >>has East infracted? Tim replied: >I don't know why they asked. They [the WBF] have >clearly stated elsewhere that asking questions that >may benefit partner when the asker does not need to >know the answer constitutes illegal communication >in breach of law 73a. My understanding is that the WBF ruling is that asking a question to which you already know the answer is in breach of Law 73A. (Kaplan question.) My further understanding is that the WBF has *not* outlawed asking a question to which you do not already know the answer. So, if: a) East can legally ask a question to which East does not know the answer; and b) East has an *additional* ulterior motive for the answer by North to give UI to South, thus restricting South's choice of LAs; then what Law has East infracted? Law 73A1 does not apply, since that merely prevents East communicating with West, not East causing North and South to communicate with each other. Best wishes Richard From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 21 16:14:45 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:14:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD In-Reply-To: <5552806.1048257416673.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030321170121.00a93840@pop.ulb.ac.be> --=====================_12754648==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 14:36 21/03/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > >Mine will tell you that it is optional in nature, typically Hxx in their= =20 > suit, not strictly a trump stack. I will gladly send it to you in attach= =20 > if you state you don't believe me. > >Oh, I believe you. You have got some principle or other somewhere on the=20 >card, which you can assert applies to any auction you like. But it does=20 >not mean that you play double as "optional in nature" in the auction I=20 >have given above, whatever it says. AG : in other words : if it happened to me, even if our CC and notes states= =20 that the double is not penalties, David won't believe me. Okay, here is the text of our notes. I will let everyone judge. Since David is basically saying that I intend to lie if such a case happens= =20 to me, I don't feel the need to answer any more. I install a filter against= =20 his messages. I hope nobody but him will percieve it as outrageous. The important sentence is the one marked with ***, which translates as such= : "Should be considered as a penalty suggestion (with trumps and cards, not=20 merely a big stack, thus always allowing a take-out with a shapely hand) : All cases but those defined otherwise" and it applies to said case, since no other case does. Now, the complete text. Contres. Sont =E0 consid=E9rer comme purement d=92appel (bien que niant= g=E9n=E9ralement=20 une chicane) : - les contres faits au premier tour d=92ench=E8res, jusqu=92=E0 3P - les contres de r=E9veil de l=92ouvreur sur un partenaire muet (1T-x-p-1P-x ou 1T-p-p-1P-x) - les contres sur des adversaires fitt=E9s, lorsque le partenaire n=92a rien= dit (1C-p-2C-x, =E9quivaut =E0 2C-x) - les contres jusqu=92=E0 2P, lorsque le partenaire n=92a rien dit (1P-p-1SA-p-2P-x, qui montre un bicolore ; mais le contre est punitif=20 sur 3P) [dans tous ces cas, le partenaire peut avoir 0] Sont =E0 consid=E9rer comme principalement d=92appel, mais transformables= : - les contres faits au premier tour d=92ench=E8res, au niveau de 4T-K-C, sur= un=20 partenaire muet - les contres qui suivent la s=E9quence 1 mineure-X-XX - les contres au niveau de 2 sur des adversaires fitt=E9s, lorsque le=20 partenaire a boug=E9 - le contre de l'intervention naturelle sur notre ouverture de 1SA (1T-1C-x-2C-p-p-x ou 1C-2T-2C-x) [dans le premier cas, il peut =EAtre bon de transformer si l=92on n=92a pas= de=20 couleur ; dans les trois autres, on peut transformer avec une bonne=20 opposition, car nous sommes majoritaires ; dans ces trois cas, il faut donc= =20 au moins 2 cartes pour contrer] Sont =E0 consid=E9rer comme une proposition de punition (avec des atouts= et=20 du jeu, pas seulement avec une grosse opposition, donc toujours enlevables= =20 avec une main irr=E9guli=E8re) : *** - tous les autres contres exemples : 1T-x-1C-x 1C-x-3C-x (mais le contre serait d=92appel sur 2C) 1K-x-xx-2T-x (mais le contre serait d=92appel si= l=92ouverture=20 =E9tait 1T) 1T-1P-x-1SA-p-2K(ou 2P)-x 1C-p-1SA-2K-x 1C-x-p-1P-2T-x ne pas alerter ! Quand il existe un contre propositionnel au palier de 3, 3SA est un appel=20 (distribution plus ou moins violente selon le contexte : 1C-x-3P-3SA peut=20 =EAtre un 54 mineur ; 1SA-3C-3SA est typiquement un 4432 ou un 4441 ;=20 1T-1P-x-3P-3SA garantit un singleton ) Parfois, il existe une ench=E8re =ABimpossible=BB qui peut servir de contre= =20 d=92appel ; 1T-1K-x-3K-p-p-3C (car on n=92a pas 5 ) ; mais 1T-2K-x-3K-p-p-3C= =20 est naturel (car on ne peut dire 2C avec un jeu fort). Sont hyper-punitifs : - les contres, lorsqu=92on a pass=E9, et que l=92on contre ensuite la m=EAme= =20 d=E9nomination, alors que le partenaire a boug=E9, ou au palier de 3=20 (1C-p-1SA-p-3C-x ou 1T-1P-p-2P-p-p-x ou 1C-p-p-x-2C-x ; dans ce dernier=20 cas, contrer une autre couleur serait simplement propositionnel : r=E8gle=20 g=E9n=E9rale) --=====================_12754648==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 14:36 21/03/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote:

>Mine will tell you that it is optional in nature, typically Hxx in their suit, not strictly a trump stack. I will gladly send it to you in attach if you state you don't believe me.

Oh, I believe you. You have got some principle or other somewhere on the card, which you can assert applies to any auction you like. But it does not mean that you play double as "optional in nature" in the auction I have given above, whatever it says.

AG : in other words : if it happened to me, even if our CC and notes states that the double is not penalties, David won't believe=20 me.

Okay, here is the text of our notes. I will let everyone judge.=20

Since David is basically saying that I intend to lie if such a case happens to me, I don't feel the need to answer any more. I install a filter against his messages. I hope nobody but him will percieve it as outrageous.

The important sentence is the one marked with ***, which translates as such :

"Should be considered as a penalty suggestion (with trumps and cards, not merely a big stack, thus always allowing a take-out with a shapely hand) :
All cases but those defined otherwise"

and it applies to said case, since no other case does.

Now, the complete text.

Contres.

  Sont =E0 consid=E9rer comme purement d=92appel (bien que niant g=E9n=E9ralement une chicane) :
- les contres faits au premier tour d=92ench=E8res, jusqu=92=E0 3P
- les contres de r=E9veil de l=92ouvreur sur un partenaire muet
  (1T-x-p-1P-x ou 1T-p-p-1P-x)
- les contres sur des adversaires fitt=E9s, lorsque le partenaire n=92a rien dit
  (1C-p-2C-x, =E9quivaut =E0 2C-x)
- les contres jusqu=92=E0 2P, lorsque le partenaire n=92a rien dit
  (1P-p-1SA-p-2P-x, qui montre un bicolore ; mais le contre est punitif sur 3P)
[dans tous ces cas, le partenaire peut avoir 0]

 Sont =E0 consid=E9rer comme principalement d=92appel, mais transformab= les :
- les contres faits au premier tour d=92ench=E8res, au niveau de 4T-K-C, sur un partenaire muet
- les contres qui suivent la s=E9quence 1 mineure-X-XX
- les contres au niveau de 2 sur des adversaires fitt=E9s, lorsque le partenaire a boug=E9
- le contre de l'intervention naturelle sur notre ouverture de 1SA
  (1T-1C-x-2C-p-p-x  ou 1C-2T-2C-x)
[dans le premier cas, il peut =EAtre bon de transformer si l=92on n= =92a pas de couleur ; dans les trois autres, on peut transformer avec une bonne opposition, car nous sommes majoritaires ; dans ces trois cas, il faut donc au moins 2 cartes pour contrer]

 Sont =E0 consid=E9rer comme une proposition de punition (avec des atouts et du jeu, pas seulement avec une grosse opposition, donc toujours enlevables avec une main irr=E9guli=E8re) : ***
 - tous les autres contres
exemples :      1T-x-1C-x
         =        1C-x-3C-x (mais le contre serait d=92appel sur 2C)
         =        1K-x-xx-2T-x (mais le contre serait d=92appel si l=92ouverture =E9tait 1T)
         =        1T-1P-x-1SA-p-2K(ou 2P)-x
         =        1C-p-1SA-2K-x
         =        1C-x-p-1P-2T-x
 
ne pas alerter !

Quand il existe un contre propositionnel au palier de 3, 3SA est un appel (distribution plus ou moins violente selon le contexte : 1C-x-3P-3SA peut =EAtre un 54 mineur ; 1SA-3C-3SA est typiquement un 4432 ou un 4441 ; 1T-1P-x-3P-3SA garantit un singleton )
Parfois, il existe une ench=E8re =ABimpossible=BB qui peut servir de contre d=92appel ; 1T-1K-x-3K-p-p-3C (car on n=92a pas 5 ) ; mais 1T-2K-x-3K-p-p-3C est naturel (car on ne peut dire 2C avec un jeu fort).

 Sont hyper-punitifs :
- les contres, lorsqu=92on a pass=E9, et que l=92on contre ensuite la m=EAme d=E9nomination, alors que le partenaire a boug=E9, ou au palier de 3 (1C-p-1SA-p-3C-x ou 1T-1P-p-2P-p-p-x  ou 1C-p-p-x-2C-x ; dans ce dernier cas, contrer une autre couleur serait simplement propositionnel : r=E8gle g=E9n=E9rale)
 --=====================_12754648==_.ALT-- From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 21 16:19:35 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:19:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Private discussion with the TD Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030321171802.00a94d10@pop.ulb.ac.be> --=====================_13044643==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:14:45 +0100 >To: dalburn@btopenworld.com, blml@rtflb.org >From: Alain Gottcheiner >Subject: Re: [blml] Private discussion with the TD > >At 14:36 21/03/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > >> >Mine will tell you that it is optional in nature, typically Hxx in=20 >> their suit, not strictly a trump stack. I will gladly send it to you in= =20 >> attach if you state you don't believe me. >> >>Oh, I believe you. You have got some principle or other somewhere on the= =20 >>card, which you can assert applies to any auction you like. But it does=20 >>not mean that you play double as "optional in nature" in the auction I=20 >>have given above, whatever it says. AG : in other words : if it happened to me, even if our CC and notes states= =20 that the double is not penalties, David won't believe me. Okay, here is the text of our notes. I will let everyone judge. Since David is basically saying that I intend to lie if such a case happens= =20 to me, I don't feel the need to answer any more. I install a filter against= =20 his messages. I hope nobody but him will percieve it as outrageous. The important sentence is the one marked with ***, which translates as such= : "Should be considered as a penalty suggestion (with trumps and cards, not=20 merely a big stack, thus always allowing a take-out with a shapely hand) : All cases but those defined otherwise" and it applies to said case, since no other case does. Now, the complete text. Contres. Sont =E0 consid=E9rer comme purement d=92appel (bien que niant= g=E9n=E9ralement=20 une chicane) : - les contres faits au premier tour d=92ench=E8res, jusqu=92=E0 3P - les contres de r=E9veil de l=92ouvreur sur un partenaire muet (1T-x-p-1P-x ou 1T-p-p-1P-x) - les contres sur des adversaires fitt=E9s, lorsque le partenaire n=92a rien= dit (1C-p-2C-x, =E9quivaut =E0 2C-x) - les contres jusqu=92=E0 2P, lorsque le partenaire n=92a rien dit (1P-p-1SA-p-2P-x, qui montre un bicolore ; mais le contre est punitif=20 sur 3P) [dans tous ces cas, le partenaire peut avoir 0] Sont =E0 consid=E9rer comme principalement d=92appel, mais transformables= : - les contres faits au premier tour d=92ench=E8res, au niveau de 4T-K-C, sur= un=20 partenaire muet - les contres qui suivent la s=E9quence 1 mineure-X-XX - les contres au niveau de 2 sur des adversaires fitt=E9s, lorsque le=20 partenaire a boug=E9 - le contre de l'intervention naturelle sur notre ouverture de 1SA (1T-1C-x-2C-p-p-x ou 1C-2T-2C-x) [dans le premier cas, il peut =EAtre bon de transformer si l=92on n=92a pas= de=20 couleur ; dans les trois autres, on peut transformer avec une bonne=20 opposition, car nous sommes majoritaires ; dans ces trois cas, il faut donc= =20 au moins 2 cartes pour contrer] Sont =E0 consid=E9rer comme une proposition de punition (avec des atouts= et=20 du jeu, pas seulement avec une grosse opposition, donc toujours enlevables= =20 avec une main irr=E9guli=E8re) : *** - tous les autres contres exemples : 1T-x-1C-x 1C-x-3C-x (mais le contre serait d=92appel sur 2C) 1K-x-xx-2T-x (mais le contre serait d=92appel si= l=92ouverture=20 =E9tait 1T) 1T-1P-x-1SA-p-2K(ou 2P)-x 1C-p-1SA-2K-x 1C-x-p-1P-2T-x ne pas alerter ! Quand il existe un contre propositionnel au palier de 3, 3SA est un appel=20 (distribution plus ou moins violente selon le contexte : 1C-x-3P-3SA peut=20 =EAtre un 54 mineur ; 1SA-3C-3SA est typiquement un 4432 ou un 4441 ;=20 1T-1P-x-3P-3SA garantit un singleton ) Parfois, il existe une ench=E8re =ABimpossible=BB qui peut servir de contre= =20 d=92appel ; 1T-1K-x-3K-p-p-3C (car on n=92a pas 5 ) ; mais 1T-2K-x-3K-p-p-3C= =20 est naturel (car on ne peut dire 2C avec un jeu fort). Sont hyper-punitifs : - les contres, lorsqu=92on a pass=E9, et que l=92on contre ensuite la m=EAme= =20 d=E9nomination, alors que le partenaire a boug=E9, ou au palier de 3=20 (1C-p-1SA-p-3C-x ou 1T-1P-p-2P-p-p-x ou 1C-p-p-x-2C-x ; dans ce dernier=20 cas, contrer une autre couleur serait simplement propositionnel : r=E8gle=20 g=E9n=E9rale) --=====================_13044643==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:14:45 +0100
To: dalburn@btopenworld.com, blml@rtflb.org
From: Alain Gottcheiner <agot@ulb.ac.be>
Subject: Re: [blml] Private discussion with the TD

At 14:36 21/03/2003 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote:

>Mine will tell you that it is optional in nature, typically Hxx in their suit, not strictly a trump stack. I will gladly send it to you in attach if you state you don't believe me.

Oh, I believe you. You have got some principle or other somewhere on the card, which you can assert applies to any auction you like. But it does not mean that you play double as "optional in nature" in the auction I have given above, whatever it says.

AG : in other words : if it happened to me, even if our CC and notes states that the double is not penalties, David won't believe=20 me.

Okay, here is the text of our notes. I will let everyone judge.=20

Since David is basically saying that I intend to lie if such a case happens to me, I don't feel the need to answer any more. I install a filter against his messages. I hope nobody but him will percieve it as outrageous.

The important sentence is the one marked with ***, which translates as such :

"Should be considered as a penalty suggestion (with trumps and cards, not merely a big stack, thus always allowing a take-out with a shapely hand) :
All cases but those defined otherwise"

and it applies to said case, since no other case does.

Now, the complete text.

Contres.

  Sont =E0 consid=E9rer comme purement d=92appel (bien que niant g=E9n=E9ralement une chicane) :
- les contres faits au premier tour d=92ench=E8res, jusqu=92=E0 3P
- les contres de r=E9veil de l=92ouvreur sur un partenaire muet
  (1T-x-p-1P-x ou 1T-p-p-1P-x)
- les contres sur des adversaires fitt=E9s, lorsque le partenaire n=92a rien dit
  (1C-p-2C-x, =E9quivaut =E0 2C-x)
- les contres jusqu=92=E0 2P, lorsque le partenaire n=92a rien dit
  (1P-p-1SA-p-2P-x, qui montre un bicolore ; mais le contre est punitif sur 3P)
[dans tous ces cas, le partenaire peut avoir 0]

 Sont =E0 consid=E9rer comme principalement d=92appel, mais transformab= les :
- les contres faits au premier tour d=92ench=E8res, au niveau de 4T-K-C, sur un partenaire muet
- les contres qui suivent la s=E9quence 1 mineure-X-XX
- les contres au niveau de 2 sur des adversaires fitt=E9s, lorsque le partenaire a boug=E9
- le contre de l'intervention naturelle sur notre ouverture de 1SA
  (1T-1C-x-2C-p-p-x  ou 1C-2T-2C-x)
[dans le premier cas, il peut =EAtre bon de transformer si l=92on n= =92a pas de couleur ; dans les trois autres, on peut transformer avec une bonne opposition, car nous sommes majoritaires ; dans ces trois cas, il faut donc au moins 2 cartes pour contrer]

 Sont =E0 consid=E9rer comme une proposition de punition (avec des atouts et du jeu, pas seulement avec une grosse opposition, donc toujours enlevables avec une main irr=E9guli=E8re) : ***
 - tous les autres contres
exemples :      1T-x-1C-x
         =        1C-x-3C-x (mais le contre serait d=92appel sur 2C)
         =        1K-x-xx-2T-x (mais le contre serait d=92appel si l=92ouverture =E9tait 1T)
         =        1T-1P-x-1SA-p-2K(ou 2P)-x
         =        1C-p-1SA-2K-x
         =        1C-x-p-1P-2T-x
 
ne pas alerter !

Quand il existe un contre propositionnel au palier de 3, 3SA est un appel (distribution plus ou moins violente selon le contexte : 1C-x-3P-3SA peut =EAtre un 54 mineur ; 1SA-3C-3SA est typiquement un 4432 ou un 4441 ; 1T-1P-x-3P-3SA garantit un singleton )
Parfois, il existe une ench=E8re =ABimpossible=BB qui peut servir de contre d=92appel ; 1T-1K-x-3K-p-p-3C (car on n=92a pas 5 ) ; mais 1T-2K-x-3K-p-p-3C est naturel (car on ne peut dire 2C avec un jeu fort).

 Sont hyper-punitifs :
- les contres, lorsqu=92on a pass=E9, et que l=92on contre ensuite la m=EAme d=E9nomination, alors que le partenaire a boug=E9, ou au palier de 3 (1C-p-1SA-p-3C-x ou 1T-1P-p-2P-p-p-x  ou 1C-p-p-x-2C-x ; dans ce dernier cas, contrer une autre couleur serait simplement propositionnel : r=E8gle g=E9n=E9rale)


--=====================_13044643==_.ALT-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 24 02:18:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:18:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 Message-ID: Herman wrote: >Bullshit. There is no limit on when to call the >director. People often don't call the director >because they know he can't do anything at the >moment other than requiring them to finish the >board. No reason to upset the opponents by >calling when one thinks that 2Sx-1 will be a >good result. And every reason to call when it >turns out to make. I both agree and disagree with Herman. In this particular case the TD did not need to be called because no attention had been drawn to an infraction, nor was there substantial reason to believe that an opponent had committed an infraction. However, if Herman intended his comment as a general rule on the promptness of TD calls, then perhaps he should reread Law 9B1 and Law 11A. >Bullshit. The AC ruled. No jiggling of laws >needed. On this point I agree with Herman. The AC's ruling was not contrary to Law, as the AC's conclusions lawfully followed the AC's judgement of fact. (I believe that the AC showed poor assessment of its factual judgements, but that is irrelevant in a discussion of bridge laws.) [snip] >Benefit of the doubt to non-offenders. However, it is ridiculous to argue "benefit of doubt to non-offenders" when *neither* side is an offender if a misbid is the correct determination of fact. Herman perhaps meant "benefit of doubt to the non-offenders" as a paraphrase of his favourite clause in the Laws, the footnote to Law 75: >>the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, >>rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of >>evidence to the contrary But here there is evidence to the contrary - the evidence written on the system card. Therefore, in my opinion, the relevant law is no longer the footnote to Law 75, but instead the evidence assessing Law 85A. If the AC determined that the evidence of strong 1NT overcalls written on the pair's CC meant that there was a 60% chance that it was factual that the pair had that agreement, then, in my opinion, that balance of probabilities assessment is equivalent to the "satisfied" criterion of Law 85A. Merely because there is a 40% chance that an infraction has occurred does not mean that the other side are lawfully entitled to a "benefit of the doubt". Best wishes Richard From Peter Newman" Hi All, I would be interested in feedback on what an AAS should be in butler pairs. L12C1 refers to L86 for team play (+3 imps) and L88 for pairs play (60% or matchpoints scored or...). What does one do for a butler pairs game? If using L88 how does one calculate a 60% score? Is there some other law that could be used to assign an 'equitable' result? TIA, Peter From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 24 03:50:00 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:50:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs Message-ID: Peter Newman wrote: >I would be interested in feedback on what an AAS should >be in butler pairs. > >L12C1 refers to L86 for team play (+3 imps) "Should" is a good word to use in this context. The +3 imps used in team play is too great to be used in the typical butler pairs (which is scored against a datum), since datum scoring flattens the swings gained or lost. For the same reason, a BFACT condition of contest for *14*-board butler pairs (scored against a datum) matches is that the WBF *12*-board VP scale is used. In the ABF National Butler Pairs (scored against a datum), the ABF specifies AAS as +2 imps. I understand that the NSWBA is considering specifying an AAS for the butler pairs (scored against a datum) NSWBA Selection Trial as +1.5 imps. The exact amount an AAS "should" be for a butler pairs (scored against a datum) is slightly variable, depending upon the size of the field, the number of outriding scores excluded in striking a datum, and the VP scale being used. >and L88 for pairs play (60% or matchpoints scored >or...). > >What does one do for a butler pairs game? Law 86A and Law 88 are not relevant to butler pairs, which uses a third form of scoring, so an SO can freely regulate whatever quantum of AAS it desires, via its power to regulate special methods of scoring granted by Law 78D. Best wishes Richard From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon Mar 24 03:17:30 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:17:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030323215256.00bc6948@mail.comcast.net> Stratified open pairs East dealer, neither side vulnerable J3 KJ87642 Q KQ3 QT8764 K - QT95 KT53 J764 T65 9742 A952 A3 A982 AJ8 W N E S P 1NT 2S! 4D! P 4H AP 2S is natural but weak (E-W play DONT, so West could double and then bid 2S with a good hand). 4D is a transfer. S6 lead, won by South. HA, finding the bad news. DA, diamond ruff, club to the J, diamond ruff, CK, CA, diamond ruff, SJ led from dummy and won by West as East pitches a club. The three-card ending, with West on lead, should be clear to all four players. - KJ8 - - T87 - - QT9 - - - - 95 3 - - West leads the ST, and South says, "Well, I guess it doesn't work; you get two tricks." However, he has set up the endplay perfectly, and should lose only one trick. How do you rule? My inclination is to rule only one trick to South. South does know that East has three hearts, and ruffing with the HK is irrational. However, ruffing with the HJ is merely careless; if he hasn't kept proper track of the spots and thinks East has QT7 rather than QT9, then either the HJ or H8 leads to an endplay. On the actual layout, the HJ overruffed by the HQ gives East two tricks. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 24 05:33:51 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:33:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) Message-ID: [big snip] >And when we appear in front of appeals committees, they >are all "experts" too. "Of course", they will say when >we have cheated by pulling a double that partner is >basing on the defence we have shown but do not have, >"that double cannot be for penalty, for has not the >great Larry Cohen said...?" So we are able to justify >our illegal actions by appealing to the vanity of the >committee. It works, too - "double for penalty is not >an optimal treatment", says someone sagely (albeit >absurdly), and we agree rather than be thought to >entertain some Stone Age notion that (a) double is for >penalty and (b) that is a sensible way to bid. > >David Burn >London, England Like David Burn, I mostly reside in the Paleolithic Era, so I agree with his comments as a general rule. However, I note that some experts have non-sensible, even irrational, partnership agreements. For example, I met a multi-international Australian player yesterday, and noted on his system card the agreement, "negative doubles to 6S." He proudly related how an auction once started with a 1C opening, a 6S overcall, and his side was able to systemically double for takeout for the unbid suits with 6-6 in the reds. It is irrational to have an agreement to play highly infrequent negative doubles of slams, while eschewing highly frequent penalty doubles of slams. But such an irrational pair have a lawful basis to remove such an irrational negative double of a slam on the once-in-a- blue-moon time that the irrational negative double of a slam occurs. Best wishes Richard From adam@tameware.com Mon Mar 24 05:34:27 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:34:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030323215256.00bc6948@mail.comcast.net> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030323215256.00bc6948@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: At 10:17 PM -0500 3/23/03, David J. Grabiner wrote: >West leads the ST, and South says, "Well, I guess it doesn't work; >you get two tricks." However, he has set up the endplay perfectly, >and should lose only one trick. How do you rule? > >My inclination is to rule only one trick to South. South does know >that East has three hearts, and ruffing with the HK is irrational. >However, ruffing with the HJ is merely careless; if he hasn't kept >proper track of the spots and thinks East has QT7 rather than QT9, >then either the HJ or H8 leads to an endplay. On the actual layout, >the HJ overruffed by the HQ gives East two tricks. I don't think any other ruling is sustainable. South has announced his intention to concede two tricks, and there's a line that will lose them. It would be presumptuous of us to conclude that he did not intend to take that line. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 24 06:44:13 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:44:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pass always LA ?? Message-ID: Karel asked: [snip] >.... Given that you can find a minority of players who >will make various "Bad" bids including pass on almost >any auction ... how can the LA argument work ?? Where >is the cut off point ?? When does the minority bid not >become LA ?? [snip] >This appeal will result in a different outcome depending >on the AC members and THEIR notions. Is there not a >more objective, mechanical, structured approach to >deciding such cases ?? The only current way to enhance objectivity in determining what an LA is, and to reduce the subjective distortion of an individual's possibly eccentric judgement, is to follow the WBF recommendation that an AC consist of at least three members. In 2050 LAs will be mechanically determined by computers. These will be programmed with the complete history of all calls and plays a particular partnership has perpetrated during its career. Until then, various ACs will continue to make different decisions in borderline cases. C'est la vie. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 24 07:22:13 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:22:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: I asked: >Imps, Dealer South, NS vul >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass >Pass 1C 1D Dble(1) >1H 2D ? > >(1) Negative > >You, East, hold: > >7 5 3 >J 8 2 >A K 8 6 5 >A 7 > >What are your logical alternatives? * * * The blml consensus was that both Pass and 2H were logical alternatives. At the table East actually chose Pass. This proved to be a highly successful choice, since West had psyched the 1H bid. If East had chosen the 2H logical alternative, it was probable that EW would have scored less well than they did at the table. Is successfully choosing between logical alternatives sufficient evidence in and of itself for a ruling of a CPU (alias Red Psyche) under Law 40B? Best wishes Richard From adam@tameware.com Mon Mar 24 06:44:31 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:44:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 5:22 PM +1000 3/24/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Is successfully choosing between logical alternatives >sufficient evidence in and of itself for a ruling of a CPU >(alias Red Psyche) under Law 40B? Surely that can't be so. In fact it puzzled me when you phrased your original question as you did. I agree that Pass and 2H are LAs, but I don't think that's relevant to the proper ruling. One could plausibly bring the LA concept to bear, even though it's from a different law, but in the opposite way. It might be appropriate to consider a call tentative evidence of a concealed partnership understanding only when it is *not* one of the LA's that would be considered by a player's peers. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Mar 24 07:08:07 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 07:08:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) References: Message-ID: <003b01c2f1d8$ca726600$4a1be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 5:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) > > It is irrational to have an agreement to play highly > infrequent negative doubles of slams, while eschewing > highly frequent penalty doubles of slams. But such an > irrational pair have a lawful basis to remove such an > irrational negative double of a slam on the once-in-a- > blue-moon time that the irrational negative double of a > slam occurs. > +=+ I have seen a few but enough cards showing 'neg dbls thru 6H' at international level to refrain from judging the method 'irrational'. Richard's statement is of course the opinion to which he is entitled. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Mar 24 07:39:48 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 07:39:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030323215256.00bc6948@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <003c01c2f1d8$cb35dd10$4a1be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "David J. Grabiner" Cc: Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 5:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? > > I don't think any other ruling is sustainable. South has > announced his intention to concede two tricks, and > there's a line that will lose them. It would be presumptuous > of us to conclude that he did not intend to take that line. > +=+ It does, perhaps, merit consideration whether, among talented players, "it doesn't work", following evident preparation of a position, is to be deemed a statement as required by 68C. ( And, if so, what is to be understood of 'it'). ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 24 08:05:09 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:05:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 References: <001f01c2f033$6178cbe0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004001c2f18a$abe9c3c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E7EBC35.7090509@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Table result. No second or third choice. > > I assume that there is no real agreement that 1NT is a twosuiter. I assume > that either the system is natural or that there is no agreement. This seems > reasonable given the presentation of the facts. > and the AC assumed otherwise. End of discussion. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 24 08:24:46 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:24:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 References: <001f01c2f033$6178cbe0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004001c2f18a$abe9c3c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E7EC0CE.5030201@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > 4. Herman uses 'bullshit' a couple of times in this thread. Indeed an > adequate qualification of his own remarks. But is not Herman one of the > first to complain when he considers other people rude. So why Marvin and two > others have to be bullshited? Apart from the fact that Marvin and those two > others make much more sense to me than Herman. Not a big surprise to me but > then maybe I am prejudiced. > Come on Jaap, read the comments again. Maybe my choice of word is a bit harsh, but the comments really don't make any sense. One commentator was complaining that the AC ruled MI because they considered it MI. Another commentator found it necessary to again use the argument that the non-offenders only complained because they felt damaged. Both those comments really are BS. Apart from that, I have not made a single comment on the content of the discussion. The AC ruled that the evidence that was presented to support the case for misbid was insufficient. The have every right to decide thus and we cannot form any judgment on that. They ruled misinformation. I haven't even commented on whether or not there was damage, consequent or subsequent. I don't even care. This is not a case we should be discussing. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 24 08:33:28 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:33:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030323215256.00bc6948@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <3E7EC2D8.4060704@skynet.be> Easy one, IMO. Only one trick to declarer. What is declarer's mistake? Not seeing that the 8 is the correct play to make 2 tricks. He is stuck to that mistake. Claims ARE easy. I wonder what stick this reply will get me from Jaap and David. (not even David will find a way to award zero tricks to this claimer) David J. Grabiner wrote: > [snip]> -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Mar 24 09:17:18 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:17:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 Message-ID: Or maybe ruling the game with (or without) the > current rules is too > difficult. > > Jaap You should remove the parentheses and then I am afraid I have to agree with you. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Mar 24 09:22:54 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:22:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs Message-ID: > > In the ABF National Butler Pairs (scored against > a datum), the ABF specifies AAS as +2 imps. > we do the same in the Netherlands, and yes even that score might be too high so something to say for the NSW approach. ton > I understand that the NSWBA is considering > specifying an AAS for the butler pairs (scored > against a datum) NSWBA Selection Trial as +1.5 imps. > From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Mar 24 09:44:14 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:44:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? Message-ID: > - > KJ8 > - > - > T87 - > - QT9 > - - > - - > 95 > 3 > - > - > > West leads the ST, and South says, "Well, I guess it doesn't > work; you get > two tricks." However, he has set up the endplay perfectly, > and should lose > only one trick. How do you rule? declarer South knows for sure that east has all remaining trumps (summary of the facts). It might please David to hear that this is a clear case of loosing two tricks, in my opinion. A throw-in is a quite complicated figure and announcing you don't see it makes it impossible to get it. Now the case where declarer without saying anything about the play puts his remaining 3 cards in the South pocket and announces '11 tricks'. Those 11 tricks should be awarded. David will not agree with me, but had he be East he would have put his own cards in his pocket after seeing the fourth diamond from declarer being ruffed in dummy, mumbling 'well played' and silently continuing 'though it was obvious'. ton From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 24 08:13:42 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:13:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession References: <000b01c2f0b4$bb823f50$104ae150@endicott> <007001c2f0c2$1aa15ea0$853127d9@pbncomputer> <000701c2f12a$880ed8b0$2e18e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000001c2f1ee$27f25aa0$4dc14c51@pc> Has this anything to do with dress code ? - and with only figmental peers to judge > by ? > ~ G ~ +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Mar 24 10:43:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > >>Hypothetical: Suppose the TD and/or the AC had > >>demonstrable evidence that East had an ulterior > >>motive for asking a question that would be legal > >>without an ulterior motive. What Law, if any, > >>has East infracted? > > Tim replied: > > >I don't know why they asked. They [the WBF] have > >clearly stated elsewhere that asking questions that > >may benefit partner when the asker does not need to > >know the answer constitutes illegal communication > >in breach of law 73a. > > My understanding is that the WBF ruling is that > asking a question to which you already know the > answer is in breach of Law 73A. (Kaplan question.) What they actually said was "15. It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply." Now if we judge that the player asking either knew (or had no need to know) it would seem to me that the necessary requirements for ruling an infraction have been met. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Mar 24 11:36:57 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:36:57 +1200 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: <022701c2f1a6$dc0d9ce0$e010ac89@au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: <000d01c2f1f9$b0a85dd0$dece36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Peter Newman > Sent: Monday, 24 March 2003 1:44 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs > > > Hi All, > > I would be interested in feedback on what an AAS should be in > butler pairs. > > L12C1 refers to L86 for team play (+3 imps) and L88 for pairs > play (60% or > matchpoints scored or...). > > What does one do for a butler pairs game? > > If using L88 how does one calculate a 60% score? > > Is there some other law that could be used to assign an > 'equitable' result? > > TIA, > > Peter "The hundreds of headings and sub-headings can help a Director find the section of a Law that is applicable to the facts of a case (these headings are for convenience of reference only; headings are not considered to be part of the Laws)." "LAW 86 - IN TEAM PLAY A. Average Score at IMP Play When the Director chooses to award an artificial adjusted score of average plus or average minus in IMP play, that score is plus 3 IMPs or minus 3 IMPs respectively." The law refers to and therefore applies to IMP play not team play. Butler is IMP play and therefore I expect a +/-3 IMP score to be assigned. You may argue the law is bad but it is the law. Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john@asimere.com Mon Mar 24 12:03:03 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:03:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: <022701c2f1a6$dc0d9ce0$e010ac89@au.fjanz.com> References: <022701c2f1a6$dc0d9ce0$e010ac89@au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: In article <022701c2f1a6$dc0d9ce0$e010ac89@au.fjanz.com>, Peter Newman writes >Hi All, > >I would be interested in feedback on what an AAS should be in butler pairs. > >L12C1 refers to L86 for team play (+3 imps) and L88 for pairs play (60% or >matchpoints scored or...). > >What does one do for a butler pairs game? +2 imps is equivalent to 60%. It's a pretty good match in terms of severity/bonus. The YC has long determined that over 27 boards, 46 imps is equivalent to 60% (We counted 10 years of scores of 60% and above and then found the match for the Butler imp game), so the figure makes sense. > >If using L88 how does one calculate a 60% score? > >Is there some other law that could be used to assign an 'equitable' result? > >TIA, > >Peter > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Mon Mar 24 12:13:14 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:13:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Kooijman, A. writes > >> >> In the ABF National Butler Pairs (scored against >> a datum), the ABF specifies AAS as +2 imps. >> > > we do the same in the Netherlands, and yes even that score might be too >high so something to say for the NSW approach. > >ton > This is quite interesting. Over 20 years we, at the YC, have determined there's not much difference between Butler imps and cross-imps, in either the ranking list or in the absolute scores. Geoffrey Butler got it more right than one could believe possible. Now if we assume that Butler imps, and cross-imps (divided by the number of results) are the same for practical purposes the question becomes one of "what should we do for cross imps?" Cross-imps empirically must be scored by dividing by number of results, otherwise one needs different VP scales for different field sizes, and such research as I have done suggests that the VP scale does not need to be modified if one divides by number of results. Given a head to head is *two* results, the imp score must be divided by 2. (3 reslults, divide by 3, etc). A standard PP for head to head is 3 imps, and this would lead to using 1.5 imps as the standard for cross-imps. What I am sure of is that is lies between 1.5 and 2 imps, and my gut feel is it's closer to 2 than 1.5. I have discussed this with Max Bavin over the years, and he tends to agree. > > >> I understand that the NSWBA is considering >> specifying an AAS for the butler pairs (scored >> against a datum) NSWBA Selection Trial as +1.5 imps. >> > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Mon Mar 24 12:15:13 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:15:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: <000d01c2f1f9$b0a85dd0$dece36d2@Desktop> References: <022701c2f1a6$dc0d9ce0$e010ac89@au.fjanz.com> <000d01c2f1f9$b0a85dd0$dece36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: In article <000d01c2f1f9$b0a85dd0$dece36d2@Desktop>, Wayne Burrows writes > > snip > >"The hundreds of headings and sub-headings can help a Director find the >section of a Law that is applicable to the facts of a case (these >headings are for convenience of reference only; headings are not >considered to be part of the Laws)." > >"LAW 86 - IN TEAM PLAY >A. Average Score at IMP Play >When the Director chooses to award an artificial adjusted score of >average plus or average minus in IMP play, that score is plus 3 IMPs or >minus 3 IMPs respectively." > >The law refers to and therefore applies to IMP play not team play. > >Butler is IMP play and therefore I expect a +/-3 IMP score to be >assigned. Butler is *not* the same as head-to-head team play, by any stretch of the imagination. See my discussion elsewhere in the thread. I'd settle for 2 imps, 1.5 imps, or ideally 1.9 imps. cheers john > >You may argue the law is bad but it is the law. > >Wayne >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 24 12:40:25 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:40:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c2f202$8adeaa60$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ........ > This is quite interesting. Over 20 years we, at the YC, have = determined > there's not much difference between Butler imps and cross-imps, in > either the ranking list or in the absolute scores. Geoffrey Butler got > it more right than one could believe possible. Now if we assume that > Butler imps, and cross-imps (divided by the number of results) are the > same for practical purposes the question becomes one of "what should = we > do for cross imps?" >=20 > Cross-imps empirically must be scored by dividing by number of = results, > otherwise one needs different VP scales for different field sizes, and > such research as I have done suggests that the VP scale does not need = to > be modified if one divides by number of results. Given a head to head = is > *two* results, the imp score must be divided by 2. (3 reslults, divide > by 3, etc). So far everything appears OK, and I agree completely that cross-imps = should be "normalized" in that the aggregate IMP difference should be divided = by the count of comparisons made. > A standard PP for head to head is 3 imps, and this would > lead to using 1.5 imps as the standard for cross-imps. But I have a big problem with the reasoning leading to this statement. PP or not, the 3 IMPs is the standard compensation to an innocent participant who cannot obtain any score on a board I seems to me as if your logic is that each of the two pairs on the team = has been awarded half of this compensation so that the compensation per pair = is 1,5 IMPs. Experience may indicate that 1.5 IMPs is a reasonable = compensation and I suppose the sponsoring organization has every right to specify = what the IMP compensation for A+ should amount to, but I fail to see why the = IMPs assigned should be split between the pairs when no special regulation addressing this question has been given. The logic seems comparable to a pair's competition where a player on one pair has been substituted during part of the event if the final score = for that pair should be reduced in some way because the score has been = obtained with three rather than with just two players? Regards Sven=20 From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 24 13:03:44 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:03:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs References: <000501c2f202$8adeaa60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E7F0230.8000402@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst > ........ > >>This is quite interesting. Over 20 years we, at the YC, have determined >>there's not much difference between Butler imps and cross-imps, in >>either the ranking list or in the absolute scores. Geoffrey Butler got >>it more right than one could believe possible. Now if we assume that >>Butler imps, and cross-imps (divided by the number of results) are the >>same for practical purposes the question becomes one of "what should we >>do for cross imps?" >> >>Cross-imps empirically must be scored by dividing by number of results, >>otherwise one needs different VP scales for different field sizes, and >>such research as I have done suggests that the VP scale does not need to >>be modified if one divides by number of results. Given a head to head is >>*two* results, the imp score must be divided by 2. (3 reslults, divide >>by 3, etc). >> > > So far everything appears OK, and I agree completely that cross-imps should > be "normalized" in that the aggregate IMP difference should be divided by > the count of comparisons made. > No Sven, read again - by the count of results, not of comparisons. That's one unit difference. And John is right in assuming it has to be results, not comparisons. > >>A standard PP for head to head is 3 imps, and this would >>lead to using 1.5 imps as the standard for cross-imps. >> > > But I have a big problem with the reasoning leading to this statement. > 3/2 = 1.5 ! > PP or not, the 3 IMPs is the standard compensation to an innocent > participant who cannot obtain any score on a board > Yes, an innocent team! That's two pairs. One of the objectives of a butler scoring is to see how many IMPs a pair would contribute to a team result. > I seems to me as if your logic is that each of the two pairs on the team has > been awarded half of this compensation so that the compensation per pair is > 1,5 IMPs. Experience may indicate that 1.5 IMPs is a reasonable compensation > and I suppose the sponsoring organization has every right to specify what > the IMP compensation for A+ should amount to, but I fail to see why the IMPs > assigned should be split between the pairs when no special regulation > addressing this question has been given. > > The logic seems comparable to a pair's competition where a player on one > pair has been substituted during part of the event if the final score for > that pair should be reduced in some way because the score has been obtained > with three rather than with just two players? > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From kaima13@hotmail.com Mon Mar 24 13:46:45 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:46:45 -0800 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) References: Message-ID: Richard wrote: >SNIP > It is irrational to have an agreement to play highly > infrequent negative doubles of slams, while eschewing > highly frequent penalty doubles of slams. SNIP IMO it is far from irrational to play negative doubles through 6S, even 7D... Where I play, most players who have adopeted modern bidding principles and are past the novice/intermediate level, actually do so, regardless of what is written on the cc. It is common sense that a double on the higher levels is not to tell partner "I have a trump stack" . Also, negative double does not mean that one is OBLIGATED to pull it. Best regards Kaima From kaima13@hotmail.com Mon Mar 24 13:55:35 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:55:35 -0800 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 References: <001f01c2f033$6178cbe0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004001c2f18a$abe9c3c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E7EC0CE.5030201@skynet.be> Message-ID: snip snip snip Herman wrote: This is not a > case we should be discussing. IMO any appeals case that causes players, law experts, TDs or other thinking people to second guess an AC decision, is worth discussing. Who is the judge on what is to be discussed on this list??? Personally, I found the Phildelphia Appeal 4 disturbing the minute I raid it in the Philadelphia Bulletin and agreed with the dissenter. Kaima From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 24 13:59:12 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:59:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: <3E7F0230.8000402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c2f20d$8c9fba50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ......... > > So far everything appears OK, and I agree completely that=20 > > cross-imps should be "normalized" in that the aggregate > > IMP difference should be divided by the count of=20 > > comparisons made. > > >=20 >=20 > No Sven, read again - by the count of results, not of comparisons. > That's one unit difference. > And John is right in assuming it has to be results, not comparisons. OK, to me the "results" are the calculated IMPs (one for each = comparison), to you they are the board scores used to calculate the IMPs.=20 But why you divide the accumulated IMPs on each board with one more than = the count of IMP results to obtain the average (or normalized) IMP result is beyond me.=20 ............. > One of the objectives of a butler scoring is to see how many IMPs a > pair would contribute to a team result. Is it? How come then that the sum of the IMPs to the two pairs of a team seems rather seldom to match the IMP score for that team in each match? Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 24 15:12:56 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:12:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: <200303241512.KAA19955@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > >>Hypothetical: Suppose the TD and/or the AC had > >>demonstrable evidence that East had an ulterior > >>motive for asking a question that would be legal > >>without an ulterior motive. What Law, if any, > >>has East infracted? It depends on what the "ulterior motive" might be. If the motive is, for example, to communicate illegally with partner, the Law infracted is likely to be 73. If the motive is to put the opposition into a UI position, there doesn't seem to be anything illegal about the question. (Many of us wish things were otherwise.) > My understanding is that the WBF ruling is that > asking a question to which you already know the > answer is in breach of Law 73A. (Kaplan question.) Twice wrong. Tim gives the correct text of the WBF minute: > What they actually said was "15. It is held illegal to ask a question in > order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply." And as a matter of terminology, the "pro question" seems to be what the WBF was mainly addressing. The "Kaplan question" is where the opponents have already given MI. While the WBF minute also on its face outlaws the Kaplan question, in practice the opponents -- who are after all the original offenders -- are not likely to get redress. > So, if: > > a) East can legally ask a question to which East > does not know the answer; and > > b) East has an *additional* ulterior motive for the > answer by North to give UI to South, thus > restricting South's choice of LAs; Unless the question illegally communicates to West (or unless you can find some other violation), there is no infraction. It makes no difference whether East knows the answer to the question or not. According to the WBFLC minute, the only issue is whether the purpose of the question is a legal one or not. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 24 15:16:28 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:16:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? Message-ID: <200303241516.KAA20016@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Wildavsky > South has announced > his intention to concede two tricks, and there's a line that will > lose them. It would be presumptuous of us to conclude that he did not > intend to take that line. With some regret, I have to agree with Adam. Note, however, that the ruling would be quite different if South had said, "Play the eight, but you get the last two tricks." Here South has stated a line of play, and he gets the benefit when it happens to work. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 24 16:11:03 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:11:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 References: <001f01c2f033$6178cbe0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004001c2f18a$abe9c3c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E7EC0CE.5030201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3E7F2E17.9040109@skynet.be> kaima wrote: > snip snip snip > Herman wrote: > This is not a > >>case we should be discussing. >> > > IMO any appeals case that causes players, law experts, TDs or other > thinking people to second guess an AC decision, is worth discussing. Who is > the judge on what is to be discussed on this list??? Personally, I found > the Phildelphia Appeal 4 disturbing the minute I raid it in the Philadelphia > Bulletin and agreed with the dissenter. > Kaima > In general, I agree that we could be discussing any case. But the discussion has to be a real one. What have we got here? The CC says something (or rather does not say something). The AC has decided that this piece of evidence is to be considered of less value than the prima facie evidence of one player using a particular method. So - what can we discuss ? We can discuss whether or not the AC has this power. I don't doubt that anyone will disagree that the AC has the power to weigh evidence. And decide upon that evidence. And then ? And then nothing. We don't have the CC. We don't have the statement made by the (offending) pair. So who are we to discuss this decision? That's my whole point. And if you believe this decision is wrong simply based on this write-up, then you can believe what you want. But it serves no real purpose. Now maybe in America CC's are always so well filled-out that not mentioning what one plays after a complicated sequence is equivalent to playing a natural system. But that is certainly not the case over here. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 24 16:13:25 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:13:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs References: <000701c2f20d$8c9fba50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E7F2EA5.8090706@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >> > ......... > >> >>No Sven, read again - by the count of results, not of comparisons. >>That's one unit difference. >>And John is right in assuming it has to be results, not comparisons. >> > > OK, to me the "results" are the calculated IMPs (one for each comparison), > to you they are the board scores used to calculate the IMPs. > > But why you divide the accumulated IMPs on each board with one more than the > count of IMP results to obtain the average (or normalized) IMP result is > beyond me. > ............. > Then read my treatise on the subject at: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/calcula/calcul14.html > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Mar 24 16:43:31 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:43:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 References: <001f01c2f033$6178cbe0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004001c2f18a$abe9c3c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E7EC0CE.5030201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004701c2f224$87bc3c40$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman: > This is not a case we should be discussing. You are not to decide what we want to discuss. But if you take yourself serious you should just shut up discussing this case. Herman: > They have every right to decide thus and we cannot form any judgment on that An AC can decide that spades are pumpkins. This doesn't mean I or anybody else cannot form a judgement on the AC's performance. Herman: > The AC ruled that the evidence that was presented to support the case for misbid was insufficient. Well of course you cannot challenge that in a legal sense. Still I think it is rather extreme to overrule the TD without the pair present. So the AC basically decided they knew the system of NS better then NS themselves without checking on NS. Not so strange to complain about the AC, but the pumpkins remain pumpkins. Herman: > I haven't even commented on whether or not there was > damage, consequent or subsequent. I don't even care. There was no damage IMHO because any east but a complete beginner knows exactly what is going on. This is the my main argument why I agree with Marvin that the AC probably was just looking for a (bogus) argument to justify a prearranged verdict. That is worth discussing IMHO. Second mail of Herman: Jaap: >> I assume that there is no real agreement that 1NT is a twosuiter. I assume >> that either the system is natural or that there is no agreement. This seems >> reasonable given the presentation of the facts. Herman: > and the AC assumed otherwise. End of discussion. I just tried to say how I read the case. Essential info was missing as usual. The AC used the rather legalistic argument that there was insufficient proof it was a misbid. The kind of argument you can use to twist any fact any which way you want. Given the write-up they seemed to use the same assumptions as I did. Anyway I still think the AC is way out of line. It is close to overruling a TD on facts. The TD had ruled misbid and the AC had no info the TD didn't have, since NS were not there. Herman: > Come on Jaap, read the comments again. Maybe my choice of word is a > bit harsh, but the comments really don't make any sense. Ok here you go. Herman on Lazarus: > Bullshit. North indeed does not have to inform the opponents if he > believes there is a misbid. But the AC decided it was not a misbid, > but MI. SO North should have said something. I don't blamùe North for > not saying anything, but if the bid is considered systemic, then EW > should be replaced in a position as if North had indeed said it. Lazarus says among other things exactly what you say. Read again his comment. But his dissenting opinion happens to be misbid. What is BS about that? Your remark makes no sense whatsoever. You probably didn't read Lazarus carefully. Herman on Silverstein: > Bullshit. There is no limit on when to call the director. People often > don't call the director because they know he can't do anything at the > moment other than requiring them to finish the board. No reason to > upset the opponents by calling when one thinks that 2Sx-1 will be a > good result. And every reason to call when it turns out to make. Here Herman is right. Although Herman's argument is kind of bullshit. If you don't call a TD because you have to finish the board anyway (true) it is irrelevant what you think about the final contract and the possible results. Still it is quite common and very practical to mention your opinion about possible MI etc. before playing the hand (no TD is needed at this stage whith experienced players) . The argument of Silverstein is not that crazy and definitly not BS. Herman on Marvin: > Bullshit. The AC ruled. No jiggling of laws needed. > Not putting something on your CC is no proof of not having an > agreement, surely? Benefit of the doubt to non-offenders. Some others have already reacted to this. This happens to be Herman's opinion against Marv's opinion (and some others). There are some interesting issues here worth discussing. But to call Marv's opinion bullshit can and should be considered as true Belgian Bullshit. Jaap From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Mar 24 17:00:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: <200303241512.KAA19955@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > It depends on what the "ulterior motive" might be. If the motive is, > for example, to communicate illegally with partner, the Law infracted > is likely to be 73. If the motive is to put the opposition into a UI > position, there doesn't seem to be anything illegal about the > question. (Many of us wish things were otherwise.) We can never prove motive. It seemed to me that if a question was deemed patently unnecessary then we could *assume* a motive of making partner aware (or at least assume that such *might* have been the motive). If we are not allowed such an assumption then we can never enforce the WBFLC minute. However if we are forced (perhaps by the testimony of the asker) to accept that his motive was to create UI *deliberately* then I guess we can fall back on: L74b2 A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. 5 Tops seems like a suitable fine. Tim From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Mar 24 17:17:31 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:17:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? References: Message-ID: <002e01c2f229$44c77b20$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton: > Now the case where declarer without saying anything about the play puts his > remaining 3 cards in the South pocket and announces '11 tricks'. Those 11 > tricks should be awarded. > David will not agree with me, but had he be East he would have put his own > cards in his pocket after seeing the fourth diamond from declarer being > ruffed in dummy, mumbling 'well played' and silently continuing 'though it > was obvious'. I don't know if I agree, probably not, and David doesn't for sure. Why the hell cannot declarer state 'small trump 11 tricks'. In this sense David is right. Makes life much easier for everybody. The problem is that it is probably a random AC decision (close to tossing a coin) when this get's claimed for 11 tricks without line of play. Now maybe David's solution to this problem is not the best one. I tend to be more liberal than David when it comes to the wording of claims. Still we need a solution to avoid AC's taking random shots at this kind of problems. I would not mind a rule that any non trivial line of play (= almost anything but cashing winners) should be stated clearly. In which case the claim '11 tricks' results in 10 tricks. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'David J. Grabiner'" ; Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 10:44 AM Subject: RE: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? > > > - > > KJ8 > > - > > - > > T87 - > > - QT9 > > - - > > - - > > 95 > > 3 > > - > > - > > > > West leads the ST, and South says, "Well, I guess it doesn't > > work; you get > > two tricks." However, he has set up the endplay perfectly, > > and should lose > > only one trick. How do you rule? > > > declarer South knows for sure that east has all remaining trumps (summary of > the facts). > It might please David to hear that this is a clear case of loosing two > tricks, in my opinion. A throw-in is a quite complicated figure and > announcing you don't see it makes it impossible to get it. > > Now the case where declarer without saying anything about the play puts his > remaining 3 cards in the South pocket and announces '11 tricks'. Those 11 > tricks should be awarded. > David will not agree with me, but had he be East he would have put his own > cards in his pocket after seeing the fourth diamond from declarer being > ruffed in dummy, mumbling 'well played' and silently continuing 'though it > was obvious'. > > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Mar 24 17:54:50 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:54:50 GMT Subject: [blml] Pass always LA ?? Message-ID: <3e7f466a.2cb.0@esatclear.ie> {snip ...] >4. I agree with Karel that you can always find a poor player or two who >might pass but this doesn't make it a LA. If so you might as well change the >law that after a pause you award a zero (or equi) to the pair if the partner >still has to take some kind of decision. Come on. There has to be some kind >of real UI and there has to be some kind of realistic LA. Both are lacking >in this case. +++ again I completely agree and if I were on the AC 4H gets my vote. What worries me is that there will be appeals which will be decided by lots of subjective factors. Infact the AC sometimes is not qualified to rule on a case. You will get a different ruling with each AC you choose. Is this the best we can do ?? Maybe a mechanical objective roat approach will give more consistent rulings ?? K. -- http://www.iol.ie From adam@tameware.com Mon Mar 24 18:15:30 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:15:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] WBF documents / Gratuitous question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:43 AM +0000 3/24/03, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Richard wrote: > > > My understanding is that the WBF ruling is that >> asking a question to which you already know the >> answer is in breach of Law 73A. (Kaplan question.) > >What they actually said was "15. It is held illegal to ask a question in >order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply." > >Now if we judge that the player asking either knew (or had no need to >know) it would seem to me that the necessary requirements for ruling an >infraction have been met. Surely not! There are four players at the table. If East is not asking for his own benefit or for partner's he can still be asking because he wants an opponent to hear the answer. I think this problem, if it is a problem, is of recent origin. Strangely enough it's caused in part by the improvement of director and committee rulings in recent years. The issue is unlikely to occur unless the questioner can be confident that the director or the committee will apply the UI laws properly. There is something I don't understand in the COP. The authors write: "We would note, however, that if the answer could not affect East's action on the round it would be desirable to defer the question, probably until the auction is completed. This would avoid any possibility of conveying unauthorized information to West, and also the suspicions engendered in the North-South players." "Desirable" to whom? And suspicions of what? That the questioner was exercising his rights under the law in an attempt to improve his score? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Mar 24 18:54:42 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:54:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? References: <002e01c2f229$44c77b20$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <006501c2f237$b53f1ad0$96dff1c3@LNV> > Ton: > > Now the case where declarer without saying anything about the play puts > his > > remaining 3 cards in the South pocket and announces '11 tricks'. Those 11 > > tricks should be awarded. > > David will not agree with me, but had he be East he would have put his own > > cards in his pocket after seeing the fourth diamond from declarer being > > ruffed in dummy, mumbling 'well played' and silently continuing 'though it > > was obvious'. > > I don't know if I agree, probably not, and David doesn't for sure. Why the > hell cannot declarer state 'small trump 11 tricks'. In this sense David is > right. Makes life much easier for everybody. If that is the statement to be dealt with we all agree, life is is much easier then. And I go further: he should say so, but the penalty is not to deprive him of a trick he would have made for sure. > The problem is that it is probably a random AC decision (close to tossing a > coin) when this get's claimed for 11 tricks without line of play. And here we don''t agree. There shouldn't be any randomness (that word doesn't exist in my not that small dictionary) in this decision. It is stubbornness that makes such decisions unpredictable. ton Now maybe > David's solution to this problem is not the best one. I tend to be more > liberal than David when it comes to the wording of claims. Still we need a > solution to avoid AC's taking random shots at this kind of problems. I would > not mind a rule that any non trivial line of play (= almost anything but > cashing winners) should be stated clearly. In which case the claim '11 > tricks' results in 10 tricks. > > Jaap From john@asimere.com Mon Mar 24 18:59:51 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:59:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: <000701c2f20d$8c9fba50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3E7F0230.8000402@skynet.be> <000701c2f20d$8c9fba50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000701c2f20d$8c9fba50$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> Herman De Wael >......... >> > So far everything appears OK, and I agree completely that >> > cross-imps should be "normalized" in that the aggregate >> > IMP difference should be divided by the count of >> > comparisons made. >> > >> >> >> No Sven, read again - by the count of results, not of comparisons. >> That's one unit difference. >> And John is right in assuming it has to be results, not comparisons. > >OK, to me the "results" are the calculated IMPs (one for each comparison), >to you they are the board scores used to calculate the IMPs. > >But why you divide the accumulated IMPs on each board with one more than the >count of IMP results to obtain the average (or normalized) IMP result is >beyond me. >............. 4 results, say 2 games made and 2 defeated. Scores +10, and zero being the two outcomes at x-imps. If you won the swing you get 20/3 in your scenario and I get 20/4 8 results four of each. You score 40/7 and I score 40/8. my scenario gives a score normalised for field size, yours doesn't. It's the same as Ascherman for pairs vs Neuberg, btw. John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 24 19:15:24 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:15:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs Message-ID: <200303241915.OAA21919@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > my scenario > gives a score normalised for field size, yours doesn't. It's the same as > Ascherman for pairs vs Neuberg, btw. John Let's be a little careful here. Both methods give a score that is "normalized." The question is, which method is correct or at least preferable. This is subject to some argument and depends on what you want to achieve. That said, if you like Aschermann or Neuberg for matchpoint pairs -- they are equivalent, by the way -- then John's and Herman's divisor, namely the number of results scored on the board, is the one to use. If you prefer straight factoring for matchpoints, then divide by the number of comparisons, i.e., one less than the number of results. There are valid arguments for either position, but most SO's have regulations mandating Neuberg/Aschermann for matchpoints. If those SO's want to be consistent, then the divisor should be results, not comparisons. (The ACBLscore program is inconsistent; it uses Neuberg for matchpoints but comparisons for IMP pairs. Don't ask me why.) From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 24 19:57:37 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:57:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession Message-ID: <200303241957.OAA21988@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > However, if we had a law change to the effect that a player who knows the > remaining cards well enough to make a claim should also be able to make a > precise claim statement not leaving any doubt whatsoever with his claim, .... Change? Let me draw your attention to L68C and especially to that word "should," which according to the Preface, makes the failure to offer a claim statement an infraction. I claim (heh) that when L68C is followed, there is little problem. Claimer may or may not get the tricks he wants (or may on rare occasions get more), but there should seldom be doubt about how to rule or how many tricks claimer gets. The arguments are about what to do when 68C is not followed. From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Mar 24 20:24:51 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:24:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? References: <002e01c2f229$44c77b20$25b54351@noos.fr> <006501c2f237$b53f1ad0$96dff1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <001d01c2f243$76d50dc0$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton: >And here we don''t agree. There shouldn't be any randomness (that word >doesn't exist in my not that small dictionary) in this decision. It is >stubbornness >that makes such decisions unpredictable. So we seem to agree that randomness should be avoided. But I am sure that under current rules AC's might well take different views on a '11 tricks' claim. What is stubborn about that? However easy this endplay is, it is an endplay. Not exactly the kind of technique we (tend to) allow a claimer without a clear statement. And where do we draw the line. As long as the line is undefined we keep random AC decisions. The only stubbornness I can think of in this context is the stubbornness of the lawmakers to resist making clear laws. I am right that your goal is fuzzy laws with consistent AC rulings? Such seems to me unachievable. By the way, given a certain level of play, and given a certain table TD ruling I can imagine ruling myself 11 tricks on the '11 tricks' claim. But given different circumstances I can imagine ruling myself 10 tricks. Clear laws should solve this problem. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? > > > > Ton: > > > Now the case where declarer without saying anything about the play puts > > his > > > remaining 3 cards in the South pocket and announces '11 tricks'. Those > 11 > > > tricks should be awarded. > > > David will not agree with me, but had he be East he would have put his > own > > > cards in his pocket after seeing the fourth diamond from declarer being > > > ruffed in dummy, mumbling 'well played' and silently continuing 'though > it > > > was obvious'. > > > > I don't know if I agree, probably not, and David doesn't for sure. Why the > > hell cannot declarer state 'small trump 11 tricks'. In this sense David is > > right. Makes life much easier for everybody. > > If that is the statement to be dealt with we all agree, life is is much > easier then. And I go further: he should say so, but the penalty is not to > deprive him of a trick he would have made for sure. > > > > > The problem is that it is probably a random AC decision (close to tossing > a > > coin) when this get's claimed for 11 tricks without line of play. > > And here we don''t agree. There shouldn't be any randomness (that word > doesn't exist in my not that small dictionary) in this decision. It is > stubbornness > that makes such decisions unpredictable. > > ton > > Now maybe > > David's solution to this problem is not the best one. I tend to be more > > liberal than David when it comes to the wording of claims. Still we need a > > solution to avoid AC's taking random shots at this kind of problems. I > would > > not mind a rule that any non trivial line of play (= almost anything but > > cashing winners) should be stated clearly. In which case the claim '11 > > tricks' results in 10 tricks. > > > > Jaap > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Mon Mar 24 20:55:46 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:55:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: <200303241915.OAA21919@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200303241915.OAA21919@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article <200303241915.OAA21919@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> my scenario >> gives a score normalised for field size, yours doesn't. It's the same as >> Ascherman for pairs vs Neuberg, btw. John > >Let's be a little careful here. Both methods give a score that is >"normalized." ok, my method (results) gives a normalised score which is independent of the field size. Comparisons doesn't. > The question is, which method is correct or at least >preferable. This is subject to some argument and depends on what you >want to achieve. > >That said, if you like Aschermann or Neuberg for matchpoint pairs -- >they are equivalent, by the way -- then John's and Herman's divisor, >namely the number of results scored on the board, is the one to use. >If you prefer straight factoring for matchpoints, then divide by the >number of comparisons, i.e., one less than the number of results. > >There are valid arguments for either position, but most SO's have >regulations mandating Neuberg/Aschermann for matchpoints. If those >SO's want to be consistent, then the divisor should be results, not >comparisons. (The ACBLscore program is inconsistent; it uses Neuberg >for matchpoints but comparisons for IMP pairs. Don't ask me why.) Neuberg uses comparisons, Ascherman uses results, since a bottom scores 1 (1/2 in ACBLspeak), and is independent of field size. It's a subtle point, but Herman's article covers it IIRC. cheers john > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 24 21:22:41 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:22:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs Message-ID: <200303242122.QAA22067@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > ok, my method (results) gives a normalised score which is independent of > the field size. Comparisons doesn't. Sorry, John. Your method (dividing by number of results) results in the same score _if you simply scale up the field size_. The argument is about whether that is the correct thing to do. The alternative approach (dividing by number of comparisons) removes "my" score, then scales up the rest of the field size, then matchpoints or IMPs against the rest of the field. It is mathematically "correct" in the sense that a given result has the same expectation value, independent of field size. This is exactly the same as factoring a matchpoint score, and there are the same arguments for and against. As it happens, I agree that John's method is preferable, but there is no mathematical proof that this is so. It all depends on what one is trying to achieve. The mathematicians will generally argue for the second approach. I am sure we have been through this before. > Neuberg uses comparisons, Ascherman uses results, since a bottom scores > 1 (1/2 in ACBLspeak), and is independent of field size. It's a subtle > point, but Herman's article covers it IIRC. cheers john I am sure Herman's article covers it. The point is that factoring Aschermann is equivalent to using Neuberg on ordinary matchpoint scores. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 24 22:30:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:30:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: >>It depends on what the "ulterior motive" might be. If the motive is, >>for example, to communicate illegally with partner, the Law infracted >>is likely to be 73. If the motive is to put the opposition into a UI >>position, there doesn't seem to be anything illegal about the >>question. (Many of us wish things were otherwise.) Tim replied: [snip] >However if we are forced (perhaps by the testimony of the asker) to >accept that his motive was to create UI *deliberately* then I guess we >can fall back on: > >L74b2 A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might >cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere >with the enjoyment of the game. > >5 Tops seems like a suitable fine. Using Law 74B2 to outlaw a bridge action which is otherwise legal puts the camel's nose into the tent. For example - Richard: 3S LHO: Director! Director Tim comes galloping to the table. LHO: Richard's preempt has caused me annoyance. TD Tim: Richard, you have infracted Law 74B2. 5 tops fine. :-) Best wishes Richard From Peter Newman" <000d01c2f1f9$b0a85dd0$dece36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <023d01c2f24f$972110e0$e010ac89@au.fjanz.com> Hi All, There were 2 problems that I posed: (1) What should an AAS be for butler pairs. I seem to have received a variety of helpful answers (basically from1.5-2 seems OK) (2) What is the legal basis for assigning a particular AAS in butler pairs if you haven't defined before the tournament starts some value. I still am not sure what the answer to (2) is. Despite Wayne pointing out that L86 heading says for IMP play L12C1 only takes you to L86 for team play and this is pairs. Am I correct in saying that the others are you using L12C1/L88 and even though this refers to matchpoints using an empirical guesstimate of 60% to justify the legality of +2 imps (eg. JohnP) [In general if you aren't using matchpoints for a pairs event and haven't defined in advance an AAS value how should they be *legally* determined?] Any contributions appreciated. Thx again, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 11:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] AAS in butler pairs > In article <000d01c2f1f9$b0a85dd0$dece36d2@Desktop>, Wayne Burrows > writes > > > > > snip > > > >"The hundreds of headings and sub-headings can help a Director find the > >section of a Law that is applicable to the facts of a case (these > >headings are for convenience of reference only; headings are not > >considered to be part of the Laws)." > > > >"LAW 86 - IN TEAM PLAY > >A. Average Score at IMP Play > >When the Director chooses to award an artificial adjusted score of > >average plus or average minus in IMP play, that score is plus 3 IMPs or > >minus 3 IMPs respectively." > > > >The law refers to and therefore applies to IMP play not team play. > > > >Butler is IMP play and therefore I expect a +/-3 IMP score to be > >assigned. > > Butler is *not* the same as head-to-head team play, by any stretch of > the imagination. See my discussion elsewhere in the thread. I'd settle > for 2 imps, 1.5 imps, or ideally 1.9 imps. cheers john > > > >You may argue the law is bad but it is the law. > > > >Wayne > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 24 21:59:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:59:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: <3E7F2EA5.8090706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c2f250$93adedb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > > ......... > > But why you divide the accumulated IMPs on > > each board with one more than the count of > > IMP results to obtain the average (or > > normalized) IMP result is beyond me. > > ............. > Then read my treatise on the subject at: > > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/calcula/calcul14.html I'm sorry Herman, but the contents of that (single) page just didn't make any sense to me at all. Where is your demonstration of why it is better to divide by the number of boards rather than by the number of comparisons? Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 24 22:15:50 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:15:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c2f252$ee059ae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst > >But why you divide the accumulated IMPs on each board with one more than > the > >count of IMP results to obtain the average (or normalized) IMP result is > >beyond me. > >............. > > 4 results, say 2 games made and 2 defeated. Scores +10, and zero being > the two outcomes at x-imps. If you won the swing you get 20/3 in your > scenario and I get 20/4 > > 8 results four of each. You score 40/7 and I score 40/8. my scenario > gives a score normalised for field size, yours doesn't. It's the same as > Ascherman for pairs vs Neuberg, btw. John At least a reasoning that could seem to make some sense. However: If you are the only pair to make the game then with 4 results my normalized scores will be 30/3 and 70/7 while "yours" will be 30/4 and 70/8. Whose method is now the best one to normalize for field size? (And don't mix the alleged difference between Ascherman and Neuberg into this. If you always calculate scores as plus and minus relative to average then you should discover that the Ascherman and Neuberg formulae are identical!) regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 24 22:20:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:20:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <200303241957.OAA21988@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000401c2f253$9809c660$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > > From: "Sven Pran" > > However, if we had a law change to the effect > > that a player who knows the > > remaining cards well enough to make a claim > > should also be able to make a precise claim > > statement not leaving any doubt whatsoever > > with his claim, > .... > > Change? > > Let me draw your attention to L68C and especially to that word > "should," which according to the Preface, makes the failure to offer a > claim statement an infraction. > > I claim (heh) that when L68C is followed, there is little problem. > Claimer may or may not get the tricks he wants (or may on rare > occasions get more), but there should seldom be doubt about how to rule > or how many tricks claimer gets. > > The arguments are about what to do when 68C is not followed. The real doubt is mainly caused by the interpretation of the word "irrational" which occurs so many places in the laws. Regards Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Mar 24 22:27:13 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:27:13 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > For example, I met a multi-international Australian > player yesterday, and noted on his system card the > agreement, "negative doubles to 6S." He proudly > related how an auction once started with a 1C opening, > a 6S overcall, and his side was able to systemically > double for takeout for the unbid suits with 6-6 in the > reds. Wimps. "Negative doubles through 7H" is a common, though minority, agreement among tournament players in my area -- you are pretty much guaranteed to see it at least once per session in any pairs game at a regional. I don't care for it myself, but I wouldn't call it irrational. If both partners are good at reopening doubles and penalty passes, negative to any level still works well. (And, as Marv French will no doubt remind us, if you are aren't afraid to pull often, penalty doubles to any level downward can work well too.) Interestingly, I've not seen anyone play it through 6S. Negative through 3S is far and away most common, despite ACBL deciding the cutoff ought to be at 4H for Alerting purposes. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 24 23:32:52 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:32:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Down in the dumps Message-ID: This year's playoff for the selection of the Australian team was flawed by conditions of contest which provided incentives for teams to dump matches. Unlike some NCBOs, the ABF is willing to learn from its mistakes, and has issued this statement: >The Player Liaison Committee has been asked by the ABF >Tournament Committee to make recommendations which reflect >the views of the bridge playing public concerning the format >of the Australian Teams Playoffs. > >We consequently request that those to whom this matter is of >interest consult the questions addressed at > >http://www.abf.com.au/members/liaison/playoffs/question03_1.html > >and respond with their views. Blmlers interested in the complete questionnaire should visit the URL above. Below are some selected excerpts: >1. Tournament format: >In 2002 there was a single round robin - a total of 15 matches. >The top three finishers formed the team. >Other formats have been suggested: > >(A) Play a Butler with Imp scoring (one or two stages as > in question #4). Top 6 pairs form two teams. 1st chooses > one pair then 2nd chooses a pair. If 1st chooses 2nd, that > unit get next choice of the remaining pairs. If 1st does > not choose 2nd, then 2nd will choose a pair to form the > opposing team, then 1st will choose its third pair from > the remaining two pairs. The remaining pair goes to #2. > Then play a match of, say, 96 boards with forced pair > rotation so each pair plays 64 boards. > > OR > >(B) After the round-robin stage, the leading pair is "on the > team" and pairs finishing 2nd to 5th form two teams of > four (2nd place chooses team-mates) to play a final (64 > boards) to make up the team. > > OR [snip] Question 1 - Given the following assumptions: (1) Either format (A) or format (B) is used; (2) The three best pairs in the field finish in a random order in the first five places of the field; (3) The pair finishing in first place is one of the three best pairs in the field; which of the two formats is more likely to result in the three best pairs becoming the Australian team? >2.Scoring in the Butler stage: > >(D) Imp scoring should be against all the scores, as in 2002 > >OR > >(E) Imp scoring should be against a datum, dropping top and > bottom scores of the 8 tables, as in the ANC Butler? Question 2 - Which out of (D) or (E) or none of the above - is the best method of scoring a butler from both a practical and mathematical point of view? Qestion 2A - If (D) is the best choice, then >When Imp scoring is done against all the scores, there is >currently a maximum cut-off per board. There have been >suggestions that there should be a maximum cut-off per >match. Which of these do you prefer? > >(F) Maximum cut-off per board but no maximum cut-off per match >(G) Maximum cut-off per match but no maximum cut-off per board >(H) Maximum cut off per board AND maximum cut-off per match [snip] >7. Captains; > >(a) Should the ABF choose a captain before the event? >(b) Should the ABF ask for expressions of interest, at the end > of the trials, for the captaincy, allowing for losing > trialists to be considered? >(c) Should the existing method, with the team proposing captains > to the ABF, be continued? Question 3 - Option 7(c) [and to a lesser extent, option 7(b)] provides a marginal incentive for a player to dump a match to that player's friends. Is this marginal incentive sufficiently large to make continued use of option 7(c) undesirable? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 24 23:48:03 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:48:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs Message-ID: Law 86A: >>>>When the Director chooses to award an artificial adjusted score >>>>of average plus or average minus in IMP play, that score is >>>>plus 3 IMPs or minus 3 IMPs respectively." Wayne Burrows wrote: >>>The law refers to and therefore applies to IMP play not team play. >>> >>>Butler is IMP play and therefore I expect a +/-3 IMP score to be >>>assigned. >>> >>>You may argue the law is bad but it is the law. John (MadDog) Probst replied: >>Butler is *not* the same as head-to-head team play, by any stretch >>of the imagination. See my discussion elsewhere in the thread. I'd >>settle for 2 imps, 1.5 imps, or ideally 1.9 imps. cheers john MadDog is correct. In order to determine what the words "IMP play" in Law 86A mean, one should refer to the Lawful definition of IMP in Chapter One of the Laws. The Chapter One definition refers to Law 78B, which states in part: >In international matchpoint scoring, on each board the total point >difference between the two scores compared Butler does *not* have "two scores compared"; it has one score compared with an artificial datum. Therefore, Butler is *not* IMP play. Best wishes Richard From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Mar 24 22:43:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >5 Tops seems like a suitable fine. > > Using Law 74B2 to outlaw a bridge action which is otherwise legal puts > the camel's nose into the tent. Bridge action? Bridge actions consist *solely* of calls and plays. I know questions are a necessary facet of disclosure but they are *not* bridge actions - questions unrelated to disclosure are certainly extraneous and can be dealt with under L73/74 etc. If you say questions are intrinsically legal then "What NT are you playing you incompetent f**kwit?" is legal. Surely I can use L74b2 to deal with this situation. Just as I can use it for badgering questions, questions intended to cause annoyance or embarrassment or any other questions that have no place in the game. I did say that I would only fall back on L74b2 when it was the avowed *purpose* of the questioner to create UI between his opponents. If you really think that deliberately and maliciously placing opps in UI situations is part of the game I can only say that I pity you. > Richard: 3S > LHO: Director! > > Director Tim comes galloping to the table. > > LHO: Richard's preempt has caused me annoyance. TD Tim: Richard, was your intent in bidding 3S to annoy LHO Richard: Indeed so, that's why I shoved the bidding card up his nose TD Tim: 5 tops fine:) It is not dissimilar to psyching. Psyching is part of the game which happens to cause annoyance in some people. Psyching remains legal, frivolous psyching intended primarily to annoy opps is illegal. Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 25 00:00:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:00:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) Message-ID: A competent Aussie pair have a doubly irrational agreement. Firstly, they have agreed to play Acol with a Strong Club. Secondly, these are the descriptions of their one-level openings: 1C = 16+ any shape 1D = 11-15, 4+ diamonds 1H = 11-15, 4+ hearts 1S = 11-15, 4+ spades 1NT = 12-14 balanced Should a TD rule that their system card is an automatic MI infraction? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 25 01:10:11 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:10:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: Apologies for a lengthy post. Best wishes Richard Tim wrote: >>>5 Tops seems like a suitable fine. Richard replied: >>Using Law 74B2 to outlaw a bridge action which is otherwise legal puts >>the camel's nose into the tent. Tim riposted: >Bridge action? Bridge actions consist *solely* of calls and plays. Richard parried: Apparently a paraphrase of Law 73A1. But Law 73A1 only prohibits communication between partners. Therefore, some non call-and-play actions may be legal bridge actions if those actions are not a communication with partner. Tim riposted: >I know questions are a necessary facet of disclosure but they are >*not* bridge actions - questions unrelated to disclosure are >certainly extraneous and can be dealt with under L73/74 etc. > >If you say questions are intrinsically legal Richard parried: This is a straw man argument; I did not say this. What I proposed was this: If a question is otherwise legal (including the requirement that the questioner does not already know the answer to be disclosed), then an *additional* motive of hoping an opponent generates UI does not render the question illegal under the current Laws. Tim riposted: >then "What NT are you playing you incompetent f**kwit?" is legal. >Surely I can use L74b2 to deal with this situation. Just as I can >use it for badgering questions, questions intended to cause annoyance >or embarrassment Richard parried: Another straw man argument. I am in total agreement with Tim that *non*-bridge actions such as verbal abuse are the proper province of the Law 74 courtesy requirements. In my opinion, the camel's nose occurs when Law 74 is used to outlaw otherwise legal bridge actions. Tim riposted: >or any other questions that have no place in the game. Richard parried: Aye, there's the camel's nose. Michael Rosenberg says that OLOOTs have no place in the game. But a TD should rule according to Law, not rule contrary to Law due to the TD's sense of fair play. Tim riposted: >I did say that I would only fall back on L74b2 when it was the avowed >*purpose* of the questioner to create UI between his opponents. If >you really think that deliberately and maliciously placing opps in UI >situations is part of the game I can only say that I pity you. Richard parried: Ad hominem. I did not say that I would personally ask such a question. My position is aligned with Steve Willner, who wrote, "If the motive is to put the opposition into a UI position, there doesn't seem to be anything illegal about the question. (Many of us wish things were otherwise.)" Richard replied: >>Richard: 3S >>LHO: Director! >> >>Director Tim comes galloping to the table. >> >>LHO: Richard's preempt has caused me annoyance. Tim riposted: >TD Tim: Richard, was your intent in bidding 3S to annoy LHO >Richard: Indeed so, that's why I shoved the bidding card up his nose >TD Tim: 5 tops fine:) Richard parried: Red herring. Assaulting an opponent's nose with a bidding card is a non- bridge action. Preempting is a Law 18 bridge action. Asking a question is a Law 20 bridge action. Tim riposted: >It is not dissimilar to psyching. Psyching is part of the game which >happens to cause annoyance in some people. Psyching remains legal, >frivolous psyching intended primarily to annoy opps is illegal. Richard parried: A psyche perpetrated with the demonstrable bridge reason of improving your score on the board is legal. If you have an *additional* motive that your psyche annoys the opponents, then the psyche remains a legal Law 40A bridge action. However, I do agree with Tim that frivolous psyching - ie without demonstrable bridge reason - is contrary to Law 74B1. From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Tue Mar 25 01:16:23 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:16:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030324201202.046db330@mail.fscv.net> At 05:27 PM 24/03/2003, Gordon Bower wrote: >"Negative doubles through 7H" is a common, though minority, agreement >among tournament players in my area ... I recall Marty Bergen being an advocate of "Negative through 7H". Basically this just shows balanced strength in the other three suits (promises support if you think pulling is correct). The higher the level the double is made on the more likely it is to be converted for penalties, of course. Walt From henk@ripe.net Tue Mar 25 01:50:33 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:50:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > A competent Aussie pair have a doubly irrational > agreement. > > Firstly, they have agreed to play Acol with a Strong Club. What is so irrational about that? I've played that system though we called it Blue Bar Club: 1 C = 17+ 1 D = 11-16, 3+ 1 H/S = 11-16, 4+ 1 N = 10-12 NV, 14-16 V 2 C = 11-16, 5+ With 11-16, unbalanced, one opened the longest suit and then bid naturally. With 11-13 or 13-16 balanced, one opened 1D with 3D-4/5C, or 1M with 4M-4C, then rebid 1NT. Worked fine. > Secondly, these are the descriptions of their > one-level openings: > > 1C = 16+ any shape > 1D = 11-15, 4+ diamonds > 1H = 11-15, 4+ hearts > 1S = 11-15, 4+ spades > 1NT = 12-14 balanced > > Should a TD rule that their system card is an automatic MI infraction? It depends on how they describe their other opening bids. If 2C is described as "11-15, 4+C, not suitable for 1D-1N" and they actually play that, then the system is a bit silly but the description fits what they play, so the card is correct. (And you might want to ask if a 4C-333, 11 or 15 count is indeed opened 2C). 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 25 04:49:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:49:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) Message-ID: Walt Flory wrote: >I recall Marty Bergen being an advocate of "Negative >through 7H". Basically this just shows balanced >strength in the other three suits (promises support >if you think pulling is correct). The higher the >level the double is made on the more likely it is to >be converted for penalties, of course. It is the word "basically" which causes large numbers of AC hearings. The Paul Lavings style of 1C-6S-X showing 6-6 in the reds, and 1C-6S-Pass possibly being a trap pass, is only slightly irrational, as it has the merits of consistency. The Marty Bergen style of 1C-6S-X as being sort of negative, sort of penalties, is *highly* irrational. This two-way double agreement means that Bergenists whose partners make a slow double with a 6-6 shape are required to pass, and Bergenists whose partners make a fast double with balanced strength shall be compelled to bid if bidding is a logical alternative opposite a 6-6 reds shape. A more typical highly irrational agreement is those partnerships who play "optional double over preempts": a) 3H - fast double = penalty double/3NT overcall b) 3H - slow double = singleton/void in hearts Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 25 05:11:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:11:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 Message-ID: Jaap wrote: [big snip] >>Anyway I still think the AC is way out of >>line. It is close to overruling a TD on facts. >>The TD had ruled misbid and the AC had no info >>the TD didn't have, since NS were not there. [big snip] 1. I agree that the AC was way out of line. 2. The AC's actions were not unLawful, the AC is permitted by Law 93B3 to overrule the TD on facts. (Only on issues of Law is the TD's decision unoverrulable by the AC, unless the TD consents to change the ruling.) 3. Unfortunately the ACBL has not written the WBF CoP into its regulations; the CoP states: >The expectation is that each appeal committee will >presume initially that the Director's ruling is >correct. The ruling is overturned only on the >basis of evidence presented. For this reason the >Director must inform the committee if a ruling in >favour of the non-offending side reflects a margin >of doubt that continues to exist after the >appropriate consultation procedure. Best wishes Richard= From kaima13@hotmail.com Tue Mar 25 06:39:27 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:39:27 -0800 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) References: Message-ID: Richard wrote: Snip > A more typical highly irrational agreement is those > partnerships who play "optional double over preempts": > > a) 3H - fast double = penalty double/3NT overcall > b) 3H - slow double = singleton/void in hearts > K: If that sort of behaviour exists, it should be weeded out ASAP. Sounds like something a novice would do. Anyone else understands it as unethical and will not engage in such tactics. Surely you do not mean to say that what you described is common????? Best regards, Kaima From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Mar 25 07:03:33 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:03:33 +1200 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c2f29c$a9d2a710$9a9637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 25 March 2003 11:48 a.m. > To: Peter Newman; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] AAS in butler pairs > > > > Law 86A: > > >>>>When the Director chooses to award an artificial adjusted score > >>>>of average plus or average minus in IMP play, that score is > >>>>plus 3 IMPs or minus 3 IMPs respectively." > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >>>The law refers to and therefore applies to IMP play not team play. > >>> > >>>Butler is IMP play and therefore I expect a +/-3 IMP score to be > >>>assigned. > >>> > >>>You may argue the law is bad but it is the law. > > John (MadDog) Probst replied: > > >>Butler is *not* the same as head-to-head team play, by any stretch > >>of the imagination. See my discussion elsewhere in the thread. I'd > >>settle for 2 imps, 1.5 imps, or ideally 1.9 imps. cheers john > > MadDog is correct. In order to determine what the words "IMP play" in > Law 86A mean, one should refer to the Lawful definition of IMP in > Chapter One of the Laws. > > The Chapter One definition refers to Law 78B, which states in part: > > >In international matchpoint scoring, on each board the total point > >difference between the two scores compared > > Butler does *not* have "two scores compared"; it has one > score compared > with an artificial datum. Therefore, Butler is *not* IMP play. I disagree. I think that one could reasonably argue that the Butler is a score. In particular it is the score that is the average score of the field. Nevertheless I do think that 3 IMPs is too high and that it should be less than 3IMPs and more than 1/2 of 3IMPs on the assumption that 3IMPs is the right number for an IMP scored teams match. However I think that the correct way to correct this problem is to rewrite the law not to allow sponsoring organizations to argue a loophole. Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Mar 25 07:12:41 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:12:41 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyching Message-ID: <000101c2f29d$efe36680$9a9637d2@Desktop> In another thread Tim West-Meads wrote: "It is not dissimilar to psyching. Psyching is part of the game which happens to cause annoyance in some people. Psyching remains legal, frivolous psyching intended primarily to annoy opps is illegal." NZCBA (New Zealand Contract Bridge Association) have a regulation outlawing frivolous psyching. That regulation defines frivolous psyching as twice per session. I recently questioned that regulation and received this answer: ""Psychics": this argument has been around for as long as the laws. Law 74A2 refers to actions that cause annoyance and loss of enjoyment of the game to others. The NZCBA (and other jurisdictions) have used regulations around this law to give guidance to players and Directors alike about what is acceptable attitude and what is not. When psychic bidding is used frequently, partners subconsciously expect it , and allow for it in their bidding. This makes it an undisclosed and hence illegal system. Some years ago, the then sub committee took a long look at psychic bidding; and the present regulations are what it considered to be the best compromise of the varying positions. These are the rules; and players are expected to play by them." Comments please TIA Wayne From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Mar 25 08:28:38 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:28:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) Message-ID: > > A competent Aussie pair have a doubly irrational > agreement. > > Firstly, they have agreed to play Acol with a > Strong Club. > > Secondly, these are the descriptions of their > one-level openings: > > 1C = 16+ any shape > 1D = 11-15, 4+ diamonds > 1H = 11-15, 4+ hearts > 1S = 11-15, 4+ spades > 1NT = 12-14 balanced > > Should a TD rule that their system card is an > automatic MI infraction? > > Best wishes > > Richard What does the word 'automatic' means here? You shouldn't be too hasty. What if after your decision they tell you that with clubs they will pass because these stupid (they will only think so) opponents then for sure will enter the auction? You would be embarrassed, apologizing with blood in your cheeks, isn't it? Nothing automatic sir, establishing the facts first. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Mar 25 08:48:26 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:48:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? Message-ID: > Ton: > >And here we don''t agree. There shouldn't be any randomness > (that word > >doesn't exist in my not that small dictionary) in this > decision. It is > >stubbornness > >that makes such decisions unpredictable. > Jaap: > So we seem to agree that randomness should be avoided. But I > am sure that > under current rules AC's might well take different views on a > '11 tricks' > claim. What is stubborn about that? That AC tend to assume to have the wisdom in their pocket, while most wisdom is somewhere else. Nothing strange, a quite normal human (dis)quality but still annoying. > However easy this endplay > is, it is an > endplay. Not exactly the kind of technique we (tend to) allow > a claimer > without a clear statement. Unless that statement, as poor as it may be, makes clear that he is aware of this endplay. That 'small' issue makes the whole difference and I don't understand why you are so reluctant to accept that. What I am willing to consider is to penalize a claimer when his pride overtakes his asked for behaviour, as in this case. But don't take away a trick he was going to make for sure. And where do we draw the line. As > long as the > line is undefined It is not undefined, that is rhetoric technique. we keep random AC decisions. The only > stubbornness I can > think of in this context is the stubbornness of the lawmakers > to resist > making clear laws. I am right that your goal is fuzzy laws > with consistent > AC rulings? No it is not (rhetoric again) ton Such seems to me unachievable. > > By the way, given a certain level of play, and given a > certain table TD > ruling I can imagine ruling myself 11 tricks on the '11 > tricks' claim. But > given different circumstances I can imagine ruling myself 10 > tricks. Clear > laws should solve this problem. > > Jaap > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ton Kooijman" > To: > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 7:54 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? > > > > > > > > > Ton: > > > > Now the case where declarer without saying anything > about the play > puts > > > his > > > > remaining 3 cards in the South pocket and announces '11 > tricks'. Those > > 11 > > > > tricks should be awarded. > > > > David will not agree with me, but had he be East he > would have put his > > own > > > > cards in his pocket after seeing the fourth diamond > from declarer > being > > > > ruffed in dummy, mumbling 'well played' and silently continuing > 'though > > it > > > > was obvious'. > > > > > > I don't know if I agree, probably not, and David doesn't > for sure. Why > the > > > hell cannot declarer state 'small trump 11 tricks'. In > this sense David > is > > > right. Makes life much easier for everybody. > > > > If that is the statement to be dealt with we all agree, > life is is much > > easier then. And I go further: he should say so, but the > penalty is not to > > deprive him of a trick he would have made for sure. > > > > > > > > > The problem is that it is probably a random AC decision (close to > tossing > > a > > > coin) when this get's claimed for 11 tricks without line of play. > > > > And here we don''t agree. There shouldn't be any randomness > (that word > > doesn't exist in my not that small dictionary) in this > decision. It is > > stubbornness > > that makes such decisions unpredictable. > > > > ton > > > > Now maybe > > > David's solution to this problem is not the best one. I > tend to be more > > > liberal than David when it comes to the wording of > claims. Still we need > a > > > solution to avoid AC's taking random shots at this kind > of problems. I > > would > > > not mind a rule that any non trivial line of play (= > almost anything but > > > cashing winners) should be stated clearly. In which case > the claim '11 > > > tricks' results in 10 tricks. > > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 25 09:20:40 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:20:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030325101834.00aaa110@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:00 25/03/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >A competent Aussie pair have a doubly irrational >agreement. > >Firstly, they have agreed to play Acol with a >Strong Club. > >Secondly, these are the descriptions of their >one-level openings: > >1C = 16+ any shape >1D = 11-15, 4+ diamonds >1H = 11-15, 4+ hearts >1S = 11-15, 4+ spades >1NT = 12-14 balanced > >Should a TD rule that their system card is an >automatic MI infraction? AG : why should it ? Perhaps they do as this Dutch pair who plays 2NT as 15-16 HCP, (4333) pattern. Which is perfectly legal, and seems to fill the gap (I assume the use of a Precicion-like 2C opening). Nobody ever said that it is illegal to open flat 15-counts above the 1-level. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Mar 25 09:08:31 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:08:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs References: <000201c2f250$93adedb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E801C8F.6030805@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >> >>>......... >>>But why you divide the accumulated IMPs on >>>each board with one more than the count of >>>IMP results to obtain the average (or >>>normalized) IMP result is beyond me. >>>............. >>> >>Then read my treatise on the subject at: >> >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/calcula/calcul14.html >> > > I'm sorry Herman, but the contents of that (single) page just didn't make > any sense to me at all. > > Where is your demonstration of why it is better to divide by the number of > boards rather than by the number of comparisons? > I mailed the correct URL to Sven immediately after noticing this was a wrong one. change the 14 above to an a to have the main page of my treatise. > 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Mar 25 09:29:09 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:29:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? Message-ID: <1883149.1048584549669.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Ton wrote: >But don't take away a trick he was going to make for sure. As has recently been clearly demonstrated by Matthias's post, where declarer played on after a claim and immediately did something that would have been rejected as "irrational" by some people here, there is no such thing as "a trick he was going to make for sure". The *only* way you can be sure someone is going to make a trick is if he says: "I will make this trick with this card, at this point in a sequence of plays". You simply cannot be sure otherwise - and the laws should not require you to try, or indeed to address the question at all. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Mar 25 09:33:46 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:33:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 References: <001f01c2f033$6178cbe0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004001c2f18a$abe9c3c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E7EC0CE.5030201@skynet.be> <004701c2f224$87bc3c40$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E80227A.50105@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman: >=20 >>This is not a case we should be discussing. >> >=20 > You are not to decide what we want to discuss. But if you take yourself > serious you should just shut up discussing this case. >=20 True - you can discuss all you want. > Herman: >=20 >>They have every right to decide thus and we cannot form any judgment on >> > that >=20 > An AC can decide that spades are pumpkins. This doesn't mean I or anybo= dy > else cannot form a judgement on the AC's performance. >=20 Indeed. And of course Jaap knows best. > Herman: >=20 >>The AC ruled that the evidence that was presented to support the case f= or >> > misbid was insufficient. >=20 > Well of course you cannot challenge that in a legal sense. Still I thin= k it > is rather extreme to overrule the TD without the pair present. So the A= C > basically decided they knew the system of NS better then NS themselves > without checking on NS. Not so strange to complain about the AC, but th= e > pumpkins remain pumpkins. >=20 So NS don't show up and you take as a reason to rule in their favour;=20 Remind me to not come when you are dealing with my appeal. > Herman: >=20 >>I haven't even commented on whether or not there was >>damage, consequent or subsequent. I don't even care. >> >=20 > There was no damage IMHO because any east but a complete beginner knows > exactly what is going on. This is the my main argument why I agree with > Marvin that the AC probably was just looking for a (bogus) argument to > justify a prearranged verdict. That is worth discussing IMHO. >=20 Jaap, if you want to start discussing this case from the point of=20 misinformation onwards - that is a valid discussion. Valid in my=20 opinion anyway. >=20 > Second mail of Herman: >=20 > Jaap: >=20 >>>I assume that there is no real agreement that 1NT is a twosuiter. I >>> > assume >=20 >>>that either the system is natural or that there is no agreement. This >>> > seems >=20 >>>reasonable given the presentation of the facts. >>> >=20 > Herman: >=20 >>and the AC assumed otherwise. End of discussion. >> >=20 > I just tried to say how I read the case. Essential info was missing as > usual. The AC used the rather legalistic argument that there was > insufficient proof it was a misbid. The kind of argument you can use to > twist any fact any which way you want. Given the write-up they seemed t= o use > the same assumptions as I did. Anyway I still think the AC is way out o= f > line. It is close to overruling a TD on facts. The TD had ruled misbid = and > the AC had no info the TD didn't have, since NS were not there. >=20 Essential info was indeed missing. The AC had the following pieces of information: - the bidding - the CC - the statement of NS to the TD. The AC concluded there was MI. JVDN has the following pieces of information: - the bidding - a statement about what the CC contained - nothing JVDN concludes the AC must have been wrong. Really Jaap, do we need to continue? >=20 > Herman: >=20 >>Come on Jaap, read the comments again. Maybe my choice of word is a >>bit harsh, but the comments really don't make any sense. >> >=20 > Ok here you go. >=20 > Herman on Lazarus: >=20 >>Bullshit. North indeed does not have to inform the opponents if he >>believes there is a misbid. But the AC decided it was not a misbid, >>but MI. SO North should have said something. I don't blam=F9e North for >>not saying anything, but if the bid is considered systemic, then EW >>should be replaced in a position as if North had indeed said it. >> >=20 > Lazarus says among other things exactly what you say. Read again his > comment. But his dissenting opinion happens to be misbid. What is BS ab= out > that? Your remark makes no sense whatsoever. You probably didn't read > Lazarus carefully. >=20 OK, so Lazarus dissents. Good, he is entitled to state so. But then=20 his statement ought to say: "I don't believe there was MI". What he=20 says though, is that N cannot be blamed for giving MI. Sorry, but that=20 is BS. If the AC decide it is MI, then we must blame N for giving MI. > Herman on Silverstein: >=20 >>Bullshit. There is no limit on when to call the director. People often >>don't call the director because they know he can't do anything at the >>moment other than requiring them to finish the board. No reason to >>upset the opponents by calling when one thinks that 2Sx-1 will be a >>good result. And every reason to call when it turns out to make. >> >=20 > Here Herman is right. Although Herman's argument is kind of bullshit. I= f you > don't call a TD because you have to finish the board anyway (true) it i= s > irrelevant what you think about the final contract and the possible res= ults. > Still it is quite common and very practical to mention your opinion abo= ut > possible MI etc. before playing the hand (no TD is needed at this stage > whith experienced players) . The argument of Silverstein is not that cr= azy > and definitly not BS. >=20 Herman is right, but Herman is wrong nevertheless. Sorry Jaap, but you=20 seem intent on proving me wrong at all costs. > Herman on Marvin: >=20 >>Bullshit. The AC ruled. No jiggling of laws needed. >>Not putting something on your CC is no proof of not having an >>agreement, surely? Benefit of the doubt to non-offenders. >> >=20 > Some others have already reacted to this. This happens to be Herman's > opinion against Marv's opinion (and some others). There are some intere= sting > issues here worth discussing. But to call Marv's opinion bullshit can a= nd > should be considered as true Belgian Bullshit. >=20 Don't you agree that the AC's decision is possible according to the=20 laws? Then Marv's statement about jiggling the laws is indeed wrong. The AC were totally within their jurisdiction. Maybe their ruling was=20 wrong, but it was certainly not jiggling the laws. >=20 > Jaap >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Mar 25 09:38:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:38 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > This is a straw man argument; I did not say this. What I proposed > was this: If a question is otherwise legal (including the requirement > that the questioner does not already know the answer to be disclosed), > then an *additional* motive of hoping an opponent generates UI does > not render the question illegal under the current Laws. Just as if a question is "otherwise legal" an additional motive of wishing partner to be aware of the answer does not render the question illegal. I am quite happy that the legality of any question is down to motive. It is not illegal to ask a question which gives UI to partner (albeit he is constrained), it is illegal to ask a question *intended* to give UI to partner. It is not illegal to ask a question from which opponents draw false inferences - it is illegal to ask a question designed to make opps draw false inferences. It is not illegal to ask 6 follow-up questions, it is illegal to do so if one is trying to disconcert/intimidate opponents. In other words there is no such thing as an "otherwise legal" question since the legality of *any* question is determined by the motive. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Mar 25 09:38:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:38 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <000101c2f29d$efe36680$9a9637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > "It is not dissimilar to psyching. Psyching is part of the game which > happens to cause annoyance in some people. Psyching remains legal, > frivolous psyching intended primarily to annoy opps is illegal." > > NZCBA (New Zealand Contract Bridge Association) have a regulation > outlawing frivolous psyching. > > That regulation defines frivolous psyching as twice per session. Probably about right on average. Suitable hands for psyches are bit like buses. None for a while then 3 come along in quick succession. A player averaging 2 psyches a session is probably verging on the frivolous (although obviously each psyche must be assessed on its merits). I don't see how successful psyches could be ruled "frivolous" however many occurred. > I recently questioned that regulation and received this answer: > > ""Psychics": this argument has been around for as long as the laws. Law > 74A2 refers to actions that cause annoyance and loss of enjoyment of the > game to others. The NZCBA (and other jurisdictions) have used > regulations around this law to give guidance to players and Directors > alike about what is acceptable attitude and what is not. When psychic > bidding is used frequently, partners subconsciously expect it , and > allow for it in their bidding. This is not true. It is quite possible to expect psyches and not make bids to cater to them. Just as it is possible to select calls which better cope with partner having psyched even when the psyche is unexpected. > This makes it an undisclosed and hence illegal system. This is a complete non-sequitur. As long as NZ rules on disclosure (CC, alerts, answers to questions) are followed the system is not illegally undisclosed. > Some years ago, the then sub committee took a long look > at psychic bidding; and the present regulations are what it considered > to be the best compromise of the varying positions. Tim From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Mar 25 09:52:01 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:52:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? Message-ID: > Ton wrote: > > >But don't take away a trick he was going to make for sure. > > As has recently been clearly demonstrated by Matthias's post, > where declarer played on after a claim and immediately did > something that would have been rejected as "irrational" by > some people here, there is no such thing as "a trick he was > going to make for sure". The *only* way you can be sure > someone is going to make a trick is if he says: "I will make > this trick with this card, at this point in a sequence of > plays". You simply cannot be sure otherwise - and the laws > should not require you to try, or indeed to address the > question at all. > > David Burn > London, England We have said all this before, so let me rest the case. But stubbornness seems to give a reasonable description of the positions taken. OK, in one way or another. And to repeat myself again: I am talking about the present laws and the way to apply them, not about changes wished to be made. ton From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Mar 25 09:55:34 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:55:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? Message-ID: <2437031.1048586134749.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Ton wrote: >And to repeat myself again: I am talking about the present laws and the way to apply them, not about changes wished to be made. Oh, so am I. You see, to me a "doubtful point" that should be resolved against the claimer is any point on which he has not stated what he is going to do. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Mar 25 09:59:18 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:59:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Psyching Message-ID: <6526041.1048586358647.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> > That regulation defines frivolous psyching as twice per session. Does this mean that once a player has psyched, all of his subsequent opponents must be told that none of his calls is a psyche? After all, this information is available to his partner, and - it seems to me - must therefore be disclosed to his opponents. I have seen some barmy rules in my time, but this is the undisputed all-time bronze medal winner behind 25B and the claim rules. David Burn London, England From ken.johnston@btinternet.com Tue Mar 25 10:13:39 2003 From: ken.johnston@btinternet.com (Ken Johnston) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:13:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bid afer Hesitation References: <000101c2f29d$efe36680$9a9637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <02c101c2f2b7$34aa2ce0$ea2529d9@e8m4u6> The following opening hand occurred in a local knockout match. Imps S KQJ985 H 8654 D 7 C K8 2S - 2NT 3S - 4NT 5C - 5S 6S 2NT enquiry - 3S max (4-9), good trumps - 4NT RKCB - 5C 0 or 3 key cards - 5S after agreed hesitation. Is pass a LA after the hesitation, or can opener use the defense, that because he gave the wrong response to 4NT, he is justified in bidding slam? Ken From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 25 11:13:44 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:13:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Implausible Concession In-Reply-To: <200303241957.OAA21988@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030325120508.00aa99f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:57 24/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Sven Pran" > > However, if we had a law change to the effect that a player who knows the > > remaining cards well enough to make a claim should also be able to make a > > precise claim statement not leaving any doubt whatsoever with his claim, >.... > >Change? > >Let me draw your attention to L68C and especially to that word >"should," which according to the Preface, makes the failure to offer a >claim statement an infraction. AG : IBTD. L68C says that any claim should be precise. A fuzzy claim is an infraction. It doesn't say that you shouild claim when able and that the failure to cliam is an infraction. Only L74B4 says that, and it is quite difficult to enforce. TD : "why didn't you claim the remainder of the tricks ?" Declarer : "I didn't know how much I had. You see, the Club King is still out, and ..." Defender : "I played the King of Clubs to the first trick" or : TD : "why didn't you claim the remainder of the tricks ?" Declarer (who saw the last cards and realized) : "I had a blind spot and thought the CK was still out" What can the TD do ? After all, he knows how often this happens to every bridge player, at any level. I would even accept -at least from a non-expert- the following statement : "well, I could have claimed, but the line of play was a little difficult to explain, and I feared being judged against according to L68C." The player didn't lengthen the play for no purpose (L74), his purpose was to be sure to get his tricks - not a bad idea. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 25 09:24:02 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:24:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030325102254.00aa9120@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:28 25/03/2003 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > A competent Aussie pair have a doubly irrational > > agreement. > > > > Firstly, they have agreed to play Acol with a > > Strong Club. > > > > Secondly, these are the descriptions of their > > one-level openings: > > > > 1C = 16+ any shape > > 1D = 11-15, 4+ diamonds > > 1H = 11-15, 4+ hearts > > 1S = 11-15, 4+ spades > > 1NT = 12-14 balanced > > > > Should a TD rule that their system card is an > > automatic MI infraction? > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard > > > > >What does the word 'automatic' means here? >You shouldn't be too hasty. What if after your decision they tell you that >with clubs they will pass because these stupid (they will only think so) >opponents then for sure will enter the auction? You would be embarrassed, >apologizing with blood in your cheeks, isn't it? Nothing automatic sir, >establishing the facts first. AG : I would expect a system where one opens a 3325 12-count, but not a 3325 15-count, as yellow ('a pass shows more than an opening'). From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 25 11:26:22 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:26:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <000101c2f29d$efe36680$9a9637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030325122138.00aae2a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:12 25/03/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >In another thread > >Tim West-Meads wrote: >"It is not dissimilar to psyching. Psyching is part of the game which >happens to cause annoyance in some people. Psyching remains legal, >frivolous psyching intended primarily to annoy opps is illegal." > >NZCBA (New Zealand Contract Bridge Association) have a regulation >outlawing frivolous psyching. > >That regulation defines frivolous psyching as twice per session. > > >Comments please AG : the definition is wrong. It is quite possible that two or three situations happen, in a same session, that lend themselves quite well to psyching. My last two psyches were made in the same session, about 30 sessions ago. If one wants a definition of 'frivolous psyche' based on frequency (rather than on their logic, which will be subjective), one should take a longer time basis, eg no more than three psyches (or whatever) withinin a continuous streak of 5 sessions. Best regards, Alain. From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Mar 25 11:11:45 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:11:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? References: Message-ID: <003001c2f2bf$53fc1560$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Ton, This kind of reactions is not very useful. I fail to understand what you try to say and what you want to achieve. Ton: > That AC tend to assume to have the wisdom in their pocket, while most wisdom > is somewhere else. Nothing strange, a quite normal human (dis)quality but > still annoying. First you call AC's stubborn, now you accuse them of lacking wisdom or so. Currently bridge is ruled by AC's. AC's consist out of different people all the time. So they take different view's if there is no clear guidance from the laws. This can only be solved (well reduced) by clear laws. As long as you rely on judgement (by TD or AC) similar cases will result in different rulings. You can call AC's stubborn and lacking in wisdom (maybe true, maybe not, probably depends on the persons involved, same for TD's, same for lawmakers), but what is the meaning of these 'insults'. Whether or not the AC is smart, stupid, full of wisdom, stubborn, or plain crazy, it is still the AC that is supposed to make a ruling. What do you want ? Abolishing AC's ? Better selection of AC's members ? By the way, you say that most wisdom is somewhere else. Where is it ? Why are we still using AC's in that case ? What are you trying to say ? Jaap: > And where do we draw the line. As long as the line is undefined we keep random AC > decisions. Ton: > It is not undefined, that is rhetoric technique. This is not rhetorics. Not even if you take something out of context as you do. This line refered to allowing the claimer a non stated thrown-in. Since it was such a baby end-play I can imagine doing that. But what if the ending is a tiny tat more complicated. There is no line, their is no guidance from the laws. Just endless case by case discussions resulting in what I call random rulings. Random in the sense of unpredictable. Jaap: > I am right that your goal is fuzzy laws with consistent AC rulings? Ton: > No it is not (rhetoric again) Here you are right. This is rhetorics. But you might finally try to asnwer the question. If not (and I believe so) then what the heck do you want. Ton: > Unless that statement, as poor as it may be, makes clear that he is aware of > this endplay. > That 'small' issue makes the whole difference and I don't understand why you > are so reluctant to accept that. I am not reluctant to accept that. But what makes you think that '11 tricks' means he is aware of the endplay. He might have missed something and just thinks the dummy has two natural trumptricks or whatever. Or (probably not in this case) being aware is not sufficient to give the excecution. Remember the Hallberg claim in Maastricht. I don't think it is a good idea to allow that one. But if you don't allow that one, and you allow this one, then once again where do we draw the line. My idea is that an end-play or squeeze is never awarded without clear statement (and even than squeezes are more than dubious). Ton: > What I am willing to consider is to > penalize a claimer when his pride overtakes his asked for behaviour, as in > this case. But don't take away a trick he was going to make for sure. Why the heck you want to start using PP's. A claim is either correct or not. By this approach you introduce something in between. The claim is not good enough to give claimer his points (they get reduced by the PP), but not bad enough so that the opponents still have to suffer the optimal result for the claimer. I don't think that is the way to go. Last remark. Why is he making that trick for sure. I have to admit it is very likely he will make two tricks. But he makes only 10 if he plays a high trump. Sure and very likely is not the same. Besides you are not really taking away any trick. Declarer failed to make an 11th trick. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "Ton Kooijman" ; Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 9:48 AM Subject: RE: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? > > > > Ton: > > >And here we don''t agree. There shouldn't be any randomness > > (that word > > >doesn't exist in my not that small dictionary) in this > > decision. It is > > >stubbornness > > >that makes such decisions unpredictable. > > > > Jaap: > > > > So we seem to agree that randomness should be avoided. But I > > am sure that > > under current rules AC's might well take different views on a > > '11 tricks' > > claim. What is stubborn about that? > > > That AC tend to assume to have the wisdom in their pocket, while most wisdom > is somewhere else. Nothing strange, a quite normal human (dis)quality but > still annoying. > > > > > However easy this endplay > > is, it is an > > endplay. Not exactly the kind of technique we (tend to) allow > > a claimer > > without a clear statement. > > Unless that statement, as poor as it may be, makes clear that he is aware of > this endplay. > That 'small' issue makes the whole difference and I don't understand why you > are so reluctant to accept that. What I am willing to consider is to > penalize a claimer when his pride overtakes his asked for behaviour, as in > this case. But don't take away a trick he was going to make for sure. > > > > And where do we draw the line. As > > long as the > > line is undefined > > > It is not undefined, that is rhetoric technique. > > > we keep random AC decisions. The only > > stubbornness I can > > think of in this context is the stubbornness of the lawmakers > > to resist > > making clear laws. I am right that your goal is fuzzy laws > > with consistent > > AC rulings? > > No it is not (rhetoric again) > > > > ton > > > > Such seems to me unachievable. > > > > By the way, given a certain level of play, and given a > > certain table TD > > ruling I can imagine ruling myself 11 tricks on the '11 > > tricks' claim. But > > given different circumstances I can imagine ruling myself 10 > > tricks. Clear > > laws should solve this problem. > > > > Jaap > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ton Kooijman" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 7:54 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] "It doesn't work" but it does; claim ruling? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ton: > > > > > Now the case where declarer without saying anything > > about the play > > puts > > > > his > > > > > remaining 3 cards in the South pocket and announces '11 > > tricks'. Those > > > 11 > > > > > tricks should be awarded. > > > > > David will not agree with me, but had he be East he > > would have put his > > > own > > > > > cards in his pocket after seeing the fourth diamond > > from declarer > > being > > > > > ruffed in dummy, mumbling 'well played' and silently continuing > > 'though > > > it > > > > > was obvious'. > > > > > > > > I don't know if I agree, probably not, and David doesn't > > for sure. Why > > the > > > > hell cannot declarer state 'small trump 11 tricks'. In > > this sense David > > is > > > > right. Makes life much easier for everybody. > > > > > > If that is the statement to be dealt with we all agree, > > life is is much > > > easier then. And I go further: he should say so, but the > > penalty is not to > > > deprive him of a trick he would have made for sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that it is probably a random AC decision (close to > > tossing > > > a > > > > coin) when this get's claimed for 11 tricks without line of play. > > > > > > And here we don''t agree. There shouldn't be any randomness > > (that word > > > doesn't exist in my not that small dictionary) in this > > decision. It is > > > stubbornness > > > that makes such decisions unpredictable. > > > > > > ton > > > > > > Now maybe > > > > David's solution to this problem is not the best one. I > > tend to be more > > > > liberal than David when it comes to the wording of > > claims. Still we need > > a > > > > solution to avoid AC's taking random shots at this kind > > of problems. I > > > would > > > > not mind a rule that any non trivial line of play (= > > almost anything but > > > > cashing winners) should be stated clearly. In which case > > the claim '11 > > > > tricks' results in 10 tricks. > > > > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Mar 25 11:25:01 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:25:01 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <6526041.1048586358647.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000101c2f2c1$303e89d0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of dalburn@btopenworld.com > Sent: Tuesday, 25 March 2003 9:59 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyching > > > > That regulation defines frivolous psyching as twice per session. Whoops my first post was erroneous... I don't want to malign them more than they deserve :-> More than twice is considered frivolous ... Sorry I looked for a copy of the regs to quote verbatim but I did not have one at home. > > Does this mean that once a player has psyched, all of his > subsequent opponents must be told that none of his calls is a > psyche? After all, this information is available to his > partner, and - it seems to me - must therefore be disclosed > to his opponents. > Nevertheless I have often pondered this point but with regard to after ones second psyche. It is not a system agreement. Does it count as 'partnership experience'. I guess it does in some sense. > I have seen some barmy rules in my time, but this is the > undisputed all-time bronze medal winner behind 25B and the > claim rules. Does it still qualify? > > David Burn > London, England > Wayne From gillp@bigpond.com Tue Mar 25 13:01:14 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:01:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] Bid afer Hesitation Message-ID: <007001c2f2ce$a11fdd40$b78d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Ken Johnston wrote: >local knockout match. Imps > >S KQJ985 >H 8654 >D 7 >C K8 > >2S - 2NT >3S - 4NT >5C - 5S >6S > >2NT enquiry - 3S max (4-9), good trumps - >4NT RKCB - 5C 0 or 3 key cards - 5S after agreed hesitation. > >Is pass a LA after the hesitation, or can opener use the defense, >that because he gave the wrong response to 4NT, he is justified >in bidding slam? I'm not sure what the conventional wisdom is for this variation of the classic Hesitation Blackwood, but I would tend to treat each case on its individual merits. The opener can use that defense but I don't think it would do him any good. Responder could have: Axxx, x, AKQJxxx, x or Axxxx, KQJx, AKQ, x. After opener has shown good trumps, 4NT seems safe enough. Opposite 5C, an in-tempo 5S would obviously follow, and opener might pass with the actual hand. . However, with Axx, AKxx, AKQxxx, x, opposite 5C, responder would be puzzled about the good trumps shown by 3S, and would think about how partner must have QJ10 of trumps, before realising that two rounds of clubs makes the slam worse than a finesse, hence a slow 5S. Thus IMO the hesitation makes the choice between the LAs of Pass and 6S an easy one for opener. Thus I think opener is not justified in bidding 6S in this case. I will be interested to see the arguments of those who disagree. Peter Gill Australia. From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Mar 25 13:20:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:20 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030325102254.00aa9120@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > AG : I would expect a system where one opens a 3325 12-count, but not a > 3325 15-count, as yellow ('a pass shows more than an opening'). Not sure that is right. While a pass *may* contain values stronger than certain openings it doesn't *show* them. Playing SAYC I will happily open a 3352 (albeit 2D) 9 count and pass a 3325 10 count. I do think the pair should be clear about 2335 15 counts - but if they upgrade some and downgrade others it isn't really a problem. Tim From gester@lineone.net Tue Mar 25 14:19:23 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:19:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) References: Message-ID: <001701c2f2d9$ae2e7360$2b182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:20 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) > Alain wrote: > > > AG : I would expect a system where one > > opens a 3325 12-count, but not a 3325 > > 15-count, as yellow ('a pass shows more > > than an opening'). > > Not sure that is right. While a pass *may* > contain values stronger than certain openings > it doesn't *show* them. Playing SAYC I will > happily open a 3352 (albeit 2D) 9 count and > pass a 3325 10 count. I do think the pair > should be clear about 2335 15 counts - but if > they upgrade some and downgrade others it > isn't really a problem. > +=+ Do we have in mind: "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass". or: "As a matter of partnership agreement a pass in the opening position may have values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, and the player who passes may hold values a queen or more above the strength of an average hand (an average hand contains 10HCP". which seem to be the HUM definitions in the area of the questions raised? (I simply quote the Systems Policy and express here no view as to whether I think the method 'HUM'. However, the question whether there is a partnership agreement should be addressed.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 25 15:47:48 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:47:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: <001701c2f2d9$ae2e7360$2b182850@pacific> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030325164333.00ab4200@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:19 25/03/2003 +0000, gester@lineone.net wrote: > > > AG : I would expect a system where one > > > opens a 3325 12-count, but not a 3325 > > > 15-count, as yellow ('a pass shows more > > > than an opening'). > > > > Not sure that is right. While a pass *may* > > contain values stronger than certain openings > > it doesn't *show* them. Playing SAYC I will > > happily open a 3352 (albeit 2D) 9 count and > > pass a 3325 10 count. I do think the pair > > should be clear about 2335 15 counts - but if > > they upgrade some and downgrade others it > > isn't really a problem. > > >+=+ Do we have in mind: > "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the >one level may be weaker than pass". > or: > "As a matter of partnership agreement a pass in >the opening position may have values generally accepted >for an opening bid of one, and the player who passes >may hold values a queen or more above the strength of >an average hand (an average hand contains 10HCP". > which seem to be the HUM definitions in the area >of the questions raised? (I simply quote the Systems >Policy and express here no view as to whether I think the >method 'HUM'. However, the question whether there is a >partnership agreement should be addressed.) AG : the latter. If the pair is required to pass (332)5 15-counts, it seems to be covered by the definition you mention. Of course, with the information we got, we aren't able to conclude fur sure. Perhaps those hands are opened 2C. From kaima13@hotmail.com Tue Mar 25 16:36:36 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:36:36 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bid afer Hesitation References: <000101c2f29d$efe36680$9a9637d2@Desktop> <02c101c2f2b7$34aa2ce0$ea2529d9@e8m4u6> Message-ID: IMO, despite having given a wrong response to RKC, pass is a LA because partner hesitated before bidding 5S (and in this case that suggests extras, there is no other explanation to hesitation as far as I can see). Without hesitation, opener would have been at liberty to do as he pleases. A number of hands can be constructed where 5S is the last making contract. Best regards, Kaima aka D R Davis > The following opening hand occurred in a local knockout match. Imps > > S KQJ985 > H 8654 > D 7 > C K8 > > 2S - 2NT > 3S - 4NT > 5C - 5S > 6S > > 2NT enquiry - 3S max (4-9), good trumps - 4NT RKCB - 5C 0 or 3 key cards - > 5S after agreed hesitation. > > Is pass a LA after the hesitation, or can opener use the defense, that > because he gave the wrong response to 4NT, he is justified in bidding slam? > > Ken > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 25 17:34:35 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:34:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bid afer Hesitation In-Reply-To: <007001c2f2ce$a11fdd40$b78d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030325182543.00aa2d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:01 26/03/2003 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >Ken Johnston wrote: > >local knockout match. Imps > > > >S KQJ985 > >H 8654 > >D 7 > >C K8 > > > >2S - 2NT > >3S - 4NT > >5C - 5S > >6S > > > >2NT enquiry - 3S max (4-9), good trumps - > >4NT RKCB - 5C 0 or 3 key cards - 5S after agreed hesitation. > > > >Is pass a LA after the hesitation, or can opener use the defense, > >that because he gave the wrong response to 4NT, he is justified > >in bidding slam? > > >I'm not sure what the conventional wisdom is for this variation of >the classic Hesitation Blackwood, but I would tend to treat each >case on its individual merits. AG : the merits of this case are manifest. Why did partner tak that much time ? His very simple bidding sequence is not one where hesitation BWs are likely to occur. It it highly probable that he was baffled at hearing that our "good trumps" didn't include either the A or K. He checked again his memories of the system, or tried to invent possible hands, prompted by our (anti-systemic) sequence. Thus, partner's tempo had as a direct effect letting us realize that something was wrong. We aren't thus allowed to bid more. The case would have been less obvious if the bidding had gone 2S-3D-3S-4N-5C-...5S. Now we've not shown our good suit, and partner's slow 5S is probably not related to anything else that wondering whether to bid slam with one outside key card, facing a suit of unknown quality and hand of unknown strength. Of course, we would not ba allowed to bid 6 for the mere reason that we have a max (suggested LA), but the emerging KC could be a reason. Partner signed off because of a KC problem (at least that's what an in-tempo 5S would have meant) and we have more than advertised. All this assumes that partner didn't explain our 5C bid, else the former paragraph could apply. Best regards, Alain. From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Mar 25 18:33:48 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:33:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 References: <001f01c2f033$6178cbe0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004001c2f18a$abe9c3c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E7EC0CE.5030201@skynet.be> <004701c2f224$87bc3c40$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E80227A.50105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004d01c2f2fd$14efc220$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman, Please don't behave as a spoiled child, and use normal language if you want to discuss. What you write here is just (your usual) emotional gibberish. I and others think this AC decision is dubious or worse. You seem not to agree. So be it. An important detail. Herman: > So NS don't show up and you take as a reason to rule in their favour; > Remind me to not come when you are dealing with my appeal. Please Herman you insulting brainless fool, I did not take this as a reason to rule in their favor. First of all I didn't rule at all. I just said I was amazed by NS not being present. But it was not NS who appealed. Stranger is that nowhere is stated why they where not there. Might it be possible they didn't know, or maybe the timing of the appeal made it impossible for them, these things happen at pairs tournaments. Another detail: Herman: > Herman is right, but Herman is wrong nevertheless. Sorry Jaap, but you > seem intent on proving me wrong at all costs. Herman you were right about the timing of the TD call not being relevant. But you used a nonsense argument to support your view. So yes you were right and you were wrong. What irritates me (and maybe others as well) in you is that you tend to discuss in a 'this is wrong' and 'this is right' way. If you take this stance you make yourself very vulnerable for mistakes. And for ridicule if your 'it is like this' argument/fact turns out to be just another Herman opinion or worse. You will discover one day that an 'I think' style tends to work better. A last detail: Herman > Don't you agree that the AC's decision is possible according to the > laws? Then Marv's statement about jiggling the laws is indeed wrong. > The AC were totally within their jurisdiction. Maybe their ruling was > wrong, but it was certainly not jiggling the laws. Any AC decision is possible according to the laws. Even spades are pumpkins to a certain extend. Anyway I never used to word jiggling. Ask Marvin what it means, it is his language in the end. But I read it as 'first deciding on a ruling and then finding some arguments to support it'. Lots of verbs can be used for that and their are lots of gradations of doing so. But yes jiggling the laws is within the AC's jurisdiction. And their ruling cannot be wrong (or right) because it is final and non appealable. I just reserve the right not to agree with it given the limited information I have so far. But my main argument remains that even with MI there is no damage. It is strange an AC of this quality didn't say anything about that. It seems they didn't want to. So it seems very strongly somebody wanted to take a whack at NS. The whole thing stinks. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 10:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman: > >>This is not a case we should be discussing. >> > > You are not to decide what we want to discuss. But if you take yourself > serious you should just shut up discussing this case. > True - you can discuss all you want. > Herman: > >>They have every right to decide thus and we cannot form any judgment on >> > that > > An AC can decide that spades are pumpkins. This doesn't mean I or anybody > else cannot form a judgement on the AC's performance. > Indeed. And of course Jaap knows best. > Herman: > >>The AC ruled that the evidence that was presented to support the case for >> > misbid was insufficient. > > Well of course you cannot challenge that in a legal sense. Still I think it > is rather extreme to overrule the TD without the pair present. So the AC > basically decided they knew the system of NS better then NS themselves > without checking on NS. Not so strange to complain about the AC, but the > pumpkins remain pumpkins. > So NS don't show up and you take as a reason to rule in their favour; Remind me to not come when you are dealing with my appeal. > Herman: > >>I haven't even commented on whether or not there was >>damage, consequent or subsequent. I don't even care. >> > > There was no damage IMHO because any east but a complete beginner knows > exactly what is going on. This is the my main argument why I agree with > Marvin that the AC probably was just looking for a (bogus) argument to > justify a prearranged verdict. That is worth discussing IMHO. > Jaap, if you want to start discussing this case from the point of misinformation onwards - that is a valid discussion. Valid in my opinion anyway. > > Second mail of Herman: > > Jaap: > >>>I assume that there is no real agreement that 1NT is a twosuiter. I >>> > assume > >>>that either the system is natural or that there is no agreement. This >>> > seems > >>>reasonable given the presentation of the facts. >>> > > Herman: > >>and the AC assumed otherwise. End of discussion. >> > > I just tried to say how I read the case. Essential info was missing as > usual. The AC used the rather legalistic argument that there was > insufficient proof it was a misbid. The kind of argument you can use to > twist any fact any which way you want. Given the write-up they seemed to use > the same assumptions as I did. Anyway I still think the AC is way out of > line. It is close to overruling a TD on facts. The TD had ruled misbid and > the AC had no info the TD didn't have, since NS were not there. > Essential info was indeed missing. The AC had the following pieces of information: - the bidding - the CC - the statement of NS to the TD. The AC concluded there was MI. JVDN has the following pieces of information: - the bidding - a statement about what the CC contained - nothing JVDN concludes the AC must have been wrong. Really Jaap, do we need to continue? > > Herman: > >>Come on Jaap, read the comments again. Maybe my choice of word is a >>bit harsh, but the comments really don't make any sense. >> > > Ok here you go. > > Herman on Lazarus: > >>Bullshit. North indeed does not have to inform the opponents if he >>believes there is a misbid. But the AC decided it was not a misbid, >>but MI. SO North should have said something. I don't blamùe North for >>not saying anything, but if the bid is considered systemic, then EW >>should be replaced in a position as if North had indeed said it. >> > > Lazarus says among other things exactly what you say. Read again his > comment. But his dissenting opinion happens to be misbid. What is BS about > that? Your remark makes no sense whatsoever. You probably didn't read > Lazarus carefully. > OK, so Lazarus dissents. Good, he is entitled to state so. But then his statement ought to say: "I don't believe there was MI". What he says though, is that N cannot be blamed for giving MI. Sorry, but that is BS. If the AC decide it is MI, then we must blame N for giving MI. > Herman on Silverstein: > >>Bullshit. There is no limit on when to call the director. People often >>don't call the director because they know he can't do anything at the >>moment other than requiring them to finish the board. No reason to >>upset the opponents by calling when one thinks that 2Sx-1 will be a >>good result. And every reason to call when it turns out to make. >> > > Here Herman is right. Although Herman's argument is kind of bullshit. If you > don't call a TD because you have to finish the board anyway (true) it is > irrelevant what you think about the final contract and the possible results. > Still it is quite common and very practical to mention your opinion about > possible MI etc. before playing the hand (no TD is needed at this stage > whith experienced players) . The argument of Silverstein is not that crazy > and definitly not BS. > Herman is right, but Herman is wrong nevertheless. Sorry Jaap, but you seem intent on proving me wrong at all costs. > Herman on Marvin: > >>Bullshit. The AC ruled. No jiggling of laws needed. >>Not putting something on your CC is no proof of not having an >>agreement, surely? Benefit of the doubt to non-offenders. >> > > Some others have already reacted to this. This happens to be Herman's > opinion against Marv's opinion (and some others). There are some interesting > issues here worth discussing. But to call Marv's opinion bullshit can and > should be considered as true Belgian Bullshit. > Don't you agree that the AC's decision is possible according to the laws? Then Marv's statement about jiggling the laws is indeed wrong. The AC were totally within their jurisdiction. Maybe their ruling was wrong, but it was certainly not jiggling the laws. > > 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 25 22:30:23 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:30:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) Message-ID: I should have written: >>Secondly, these are the descriptions of their >>*11+ hcp* openings: >> >> 1C = 16+ any shape >> 1D = 11-15, 4+ diamonds >> 1H = 11-15, 4+ hearts >> 1S = 11-15, 4+ spades >> 1NT = 12-14 balanced >>*2C = 11-15, 5+ clubs* >> >>Should a TD rule that their system card is an >>automatic MI infraction? Ton replied: >What does the word 'automatic' means here? > >You shouldn't be too hasty. What if after your >decision they tell you that with clubs they will >pass because these stupid (they will only think >so) opponents then for sure will enter the >auction? You would be embarrassed, apologizing >with blood in your cheeks, isn't it? Nothing >automatic sir, establishing the facts first. True, if their partnership agreement is that they Pass whenever they hold 15 hcp and a 3334 shape, then their system card does not give MI. (However, under ABF rules their system card is still incomplete, as they did not note the trap Pass option in the system card's pre-alert section.) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 25 22:42:03 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:42:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bid afer Hesitation Message-ID: Ken Johnston wrote: >>local knockout match. Imps >> >>S KQJ985 >>H 8654 >>D 7 >>C K8 >> >>2S - 2NT >>3S - 4NT >>5C - 5S >>6S >> >>2NT enquiry - 3S max (4-9), good trumps - >>4NT RKCB - 5C 0 or 3 key cards - 5S after agreed hesitation. >> >>Is pass a LA after the hesitation, or can opener use the defense, >>that because he gave the wrong response to 4NT, he is justified >>in bidding slam? Peter Gill replied: >I'm not sure what the conventional wisdom is for this variation of >the classic Hesitation Blackwood, but I would tend to treat each >case on its individual merits. [lengthy analysis of responder's possible holdings snipped] >Thus I think opener is not justified in bidding 6S in this case. >I will be interested to see the arguments of those who disagree. I agree with Peter's conclusion, but take a shortcut in my reasoning. In my opinion, the UI from responder's hesitation is likely to have assisted opener in realising that their 5C call was a misbid. Therefore, in my opinion, there is zero justification in bidding slam. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Mar 25 23:05:23 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:05:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF documents Message-ID: Tim wrote: [big snip] >>It is not illegal to ask a question which gives UI >>to partner (albeit he is constrained), it is illegal >>to ask a question *intended* to give UI to partner. [big snip] I believe that both questions are illegal, as I do not see any statement about intent in Law 73A1: >Communication between partners during the auction and >play shall be effected only by means of the calls and >plays themselves. Furthermore, in an earlier thread, I proposed that the 2005 Laws clarify Law 73A1 by adding the adjective "advertent" before the word "communication", only to be informed by Grattan that such a change would alter the current meaning of Law 73A1 as intended by the WBF LC. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Mar 25 22:12:34 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:12:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) References: Message-ID: <008701c2f332$12c15650$0109e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 10:30 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) > > True, if their partnership agreement is that > they Pass whenever they hold 15 hcp and a 3334 > shape, then their system card does not give MI. > (However, under ABF rules their system card is > still incomplete, as they did not note the > trap Pass option in the system card's pre-alert > section.) > +=+ And, where runs the writ of the WBF (or EBL) Systems Policy, it is a HUM system. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Mar 26 00:50:57 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:50:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 References: <001f01c2f033$6178cbe0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004001c2f18a$abe9c3c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E7EC0CE.5030201@skynet.be> <004701c2f224$87bc3c40$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E80227A.50105@skynet.be> <004d01c2f2fd$14efc220$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <008801c2f332$13a3c710$0109e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 > Herman, > > Please don't behave as a spoiled child, and use normal > language if you want to discuss. What you write here is > just (your usual) emotional gibberish. > > I and others think this AC decision is dubious or worse. > You seem not to agree. So be it. > > An important detail. > > Herman: > > So NS don't show up and you take as a reason to rule > > in their favour; Remind me to not come when you are > > dealing with my appeal. > > Please Herman you insulting brainless fool, I did not > take this as a reason to rule in their favor. First of all I > didn't rule at all. I just said I was amazed by NS not > being present. But it was not NS who appealed. Stranger > is that nowhere is stated why they where not there. Might > it be possible they didn't know, or maybe the timing > of the appeal made it impossible for them, these things > happen at pairs tournaments. > +=+ This thread appears to have wandered slightly off-track in a storm. As for the absence of NS, if they were the appellants I think it would commonly be held a reason not to hear the appeal if they do not attend. But, depending on the regulations, if they were not the appellants they may have discretion not to attend if they do not wish to do so. (In which case matters only they can speak to may be decided in favour of their opponents if the AC thinks fit). Turning to the facts of the case: the AC deemed a pass of 1NTx not a logical alternative for South. The question is what hand could North have that would make the pass a feasible action? Unless such a hand is demonstrable the AC is right. North did not possess UI. So his bid of 2S is to be judged as an action based upon general knowledge and experience. Can he recognize on this basis that when partner pulls 1NTx he is likely to have a sandwich NT, or would his hand likely be based upon a single suit? Does he need special information based on partnership experience or partnership agreement to reach the conclusion as to the probable situation on which he bases his 2S bid? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 26 04:06:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:06:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyching Message-ID: >>That regulation defines frivolous psyching as twice per session. >Does this mean that once a player has psyched, all of his >subsequent opponents must be told that none of his calls is a >psyche? After all, this information is available to his partner, >and - it seems to me - must therefore be disclosed to his >opponents. > >I have seen some barmy rules in my time, but this is the >undisputed all-time bronze medal winner behind 25B and the claim >rules. > >David Burn >London, England I agree that the rule is barmy. Worse, in my opinion, the rule is unLawful. Frivolous bidding for no demonstrable bridge reason, whether it be a stupid psyche or an arbitrary opening of 7NT, is probably an infraction of Law 74A2 and/or Law 74B1. The SO regulation would not be barmy if it requested the TD to investigate any psyche, not merely the third psyche, to determine frivolity. Psyching is legal under Law 40A; but repetition of a psyche may metamorphose the psyche to a concealed partnership understanding, illegal under Law 40B. The SO regulation would not be barmy if it required the TD to assess whether a third psyche was a CPU. Instead, the SO arbitrarily declares as a fact that the Earth is flat; if the TD had been permitted to make a Law 85A assessment of the third psyche, the TD may have uncovered countervailing evidence that the Earth is round. Forbidding a player to make a third psyche, is, of course, the totally unLawful part of the barmy regulation, as that directly contravenes the specific right given to a player by Law 40A. It is not logical for the barmy regulation to imply that, after two psyches, *any* theoretically non-system psychic call is "actually" a systemic CPU call. This, in my opinion, unLawfully cancels the TD's Law 84 and Law 85 responsibility to determine facts. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 26 04:26:12 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:26:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >I think that one could reasonably argue that the >Butler [datum] is a score. In particular it is >the score that is the average score of the field. Okay, let us dig deeper by finding out what the Laws define as a score. Law 77 defines a score as either being "scored by declarer's side", or being "scored by declarer's opponents". "The field" is not mentioned in Law 77, therefore a Butler datum is not Lawfully a score. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 26 04:56:44 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:56:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) Message-ID: Richard wrote: [snip] >>A more typical highly irrational agreement is those >>partnerships who play "optional double over preempts": >> >>a) 3H - fast double = penalty double/3NT overcall >>b) 3H - slow double = singleton/void in hearts >K: If that sort of behaviour exists, it should be weeded >out ASAP. Sounds like something a novice would do. >Anyone else understands it as unethical and will not >engage in such tactics. Surely you do not mean to say >that what you described is common????? >Best regards, >Kaima I have just been rereading Harrison-Gray's account of the 1956 European Championship, and such tactics used to be common at the highest level. This was because the perpetrators were rewarded for their tactics when the AC refused to act. The AC wimpiness in 1956 was partly due to the Laws being differently worded back then; the 1956 standard interpretation was that a UI adjustment was equivalent to a public ruling of the OS being intentional cheats. 21st century rulings under Law 16 do not require the AC to determine intention. Whether the OS are cheats, or instead merely self-deceptive, is irrelevant to a Law 16 ruling in 2003. Therefore, 2003 ACs can make a Law 16 ruling without being inhibited by the thought of creation of a cheating scandal. Best wishes Richard From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Wed Mar 26 08:39:46 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:39:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: in order to select his opening lead, a defender may wish to get an explanation of opponents' calls, but is he allowed to ask for it a the instant he is about to lead? conjunction of L17E and L20F2 is a bit confusing about this point. jp rocafort __________________________________________________ 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 hermandw@skynet.be Wed Mar 26 08:55:42 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:55:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 References: <001f01c2f033$6178cbe0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004001c2f18a$abe9c3c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E7EC0CE.5030201@skynet.be> <004701c2f224$87bc3c40$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E80227A.50105@skynet.be> <004d01c2f2fd$14efc220$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3E816B0E.4090200@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman, > > Please don't behave as a spoiled child, and use normal language if you want > to discuss. What you write here is just (your usual) emotional gibberish. > I am being quite calm and collected. > I and others think this AC decision is dubious or worse. You seem not to > agree. So be it. > I haven't formed an opinion on this decision. There seems to me no reason to do so. We don't know the facts. > An important detail. > > Herman: > >>So NS don't show up and you take as a reason to rule in their favour; >>Remind me to not come when you are dealing with my appeal. >> > > Please Herman you insulting brainless fool, I did not take this as a reason Now who is using emotional gibberish ? > to rule in their favor. First of all I didn't rule at all. I just said I was > amazed by NS not being present. No, you said you found it strange that they ruled against NS without NS being there. Why would that be strange? Seems perfectly normal to me. > But it was not NS who appealed. Stranger is that nowhere is stated why they > where not there. Might it be possible they didn't know, or maybe the timing > of the appeal made it impossible for them, these things happen at pairs > tournaments. > Now who is inventing facts ? Why would this matter at all ? Why are we even discussing a caase that we know nothing about ? > Another detail: > > Herman: > >>Herman is right, but Herman is wrong nevertheless. Sorry Jaap, but you >>seem intent on proving me wrong at all costs. >> > > Herman you were right about the timing of the TD call not being relevant. > But you used a nonsense argument to support your view. So yes you were right > and you were wrong. What irritates me (and maybe others as well) in you is > that you tend to discuss in a 'this is wrong' and 'this is right' way. If > you take this stance you make yourself very vulnerable for mistakes. And for > ridicule if your 'it is like this' argument/fact turns out to be just > another Herman opinion or worse. You will discover one day that an 'I think' > style tends to work better. > Who was saying that Herman was right and wrong? I wasn't! You were. In the post I was referring to you were trying to argue against me. Not against the AC, but against my post. I feel fully authorised to be mad at that attack. > A last detail: > Herman > >>Don't you agree that the AC's decision is possible according to the >>laws? Then Marv's statement about jiggling the laws is indeed wrong. >>The AC were totally within their jurisdiction. Maybe their ruling was >>wrong, but it was certainly not jiggling the laws. >> > > Any AC decision is possible according to the laws. Even spades are pumpkins > to a certain extend. Anyway I never used to word jiggling. Ask Marvin what > it means, it is his language in the end. But I read it as 'first deciding on > a ruling and then finding some arguments to support it'. Lots of verbs can > be used for that and their are lots of gradations of doing so. But yes > jiggling the laws is within the AC's jurisdiction. And their ruling cannot > be wrong (or right) because it is final and non appealable. I just reserve > the right not to agree with it given the limited information I have so far. > But my main argument remains that even with MI there is no damage. It is > strange an AC of this quality didn't say anything about that. It seems they > didn't want to. So it seems very strongly somebody wanted to take a whack at > NS. The whole thing stinks. > Sorry, no. I agree that there are cases where an AC first forms an opinion and then searches for an obscure law reference to support this. But this is certainly not such a case. It's a straightforward MI or Misbid issue. No jiggling of laws required. The AC were asked to rule on the issue. They ruled. They ruled MI. Now stop argueing about that and go on to something more interesting. You said there was no damage. Please expand. That might well turn out to be interesting. And it's something we basically have all the facts for. > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Mar 26 08:58:15 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:58:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: I don't understand the question because I don't see the confusion. The answer should be 'yes', it is one of the fundamental rights. Please tell me why people might draw the conclusion it to be 'no'. ton > > in order to select his opening lead, a defender may wish to get an > explanation of opponents' calls, but is he allowed to ask for > it a the > instant he is about to lead? conjunction of L17E and L20F2 is a bit > confusing about this point. > > > jp rocafort From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 26 09:04:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:04:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c2f376$a5b50670$6900a8c0@WINXP> I don't see any reason for confusion here, but see also Law 41: The correct procedure (where face up opening leads has not been = prescribed) is: 1: After three consecutive passes the player on the presumed declarer's = left asks whatever clarifying questions he feels he needs answered. 2: This player then selects the card he wants to lead and places it face down on the table in front of him. 3: His partner asks the clarifying questions he feels he needs answered. 4: when this partner is satisfied he tells the opening leader that he = may turn his opening lead face up. 5: The auction period ends and the play period begin when the opening = lead is faced. The importance of this procedure becomes clear whenever misinformation during the auction is revealed after the three passes and before the = opening lead is turned face up. Because we technically still are within the = auction period Law 21B may apply, the last presumed defender to pass may = withdraw his pass and replace it with some other call after which the auction continues.=20 It is even possible in such cases that the auction eventually ends with = the other side being declarer and dummy; which is why Law 41 uses the word "presumed" with declarer. (Even if nobody wants to continue the auction = the face down opening lead may be retracted and replaced on certain = conditions when misinformation has been revealed). Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > Sent: 26. mars 2003 09:40 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] L20F2 >=20 > in order to select his opening lead, a defender may wish to get an > explanation of opponents' calls, but is he allowed to ask for it a the > instant he is about to lead? conjunction of L17E and L20F2 is a bit > confusing about this point. >=20 >=20 > jp rocafort From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 26 09:09:12 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:09:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c2f377$5e35d800$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Kooijman, A. > I don't understand the question because I don't see the confusion. I believe his confusion is caused by him being unaware that the auction period has not yet ended. Thus the applicable law is 41, not 20F2 Regards Sven From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Mar 26 10:01:20 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:01:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 References: <001f01c2f033$6178cbe0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <004001c2f18a$abe9c3c0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E7EC0CE.5030201@skynet.be> <004701c2f224$87bc3c40$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E80227A.50105@skynet.be> <004d01c2f2fd$14efc220$25b54351@noos.fr> <3E816B0E.4090200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c2f37e$a8f73f80$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman, For someone who said this case is not worth discussing about five mails ago you do an awful lot of discussing this case. Although you keep on using arguments we should not discuss this. Herman: > I am being quite calm and collected. You are not. That is inconsistent with the silly, ironic and insulting things you say and with you using bullshit (unprovoked) on almost everybody's comment on this case. Herman: > I haven't formed an opinion on this decision. There seems to me no > reason to do so. We don't know the facts. If you haven't an opinion then keep your big mouth shut and don't shout bullshit at the people that do. If there seems no reason to you to discuss the case then just shut up, pick up another thread, and don't bother others that want to discuss the case. At blml certain members tend to discuss rulings rather than rules (and in this case we have more facts than the average ruling we discuss) and we don't need your permission to do so. And we all know that AC's can decide what they want and we don't need you to mention that fact ten times a day in ten different ways. But one more request. If you ever quote me again quote what I said (giving some leeway for typo's and such) and don't twist my words or fool around with the context. Others might like that as well. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Herman, > > > > Please don't behave as a spoiled child, and use normal language if you want > > to discuss. What you write here is just (your usual) emotional gibberish. > > > > > I am being quite calm and collected. > > > > I and others think this AC decision is dubious or worse. You seem not to > > agree. So be it. > > > > > I haven't formed an opinion on this decision. There seems to me no > reason to do so. We don't know the facts. > > > > An important detail. > > > > Herman: > > > >>So NS don't show up and you take as a reason to rule in their favour; > >>Remind me to not come when you are dealing with my appeal. > >> > > > > Please Herman you insulting brainless fool, I did not take this as a reason > > > Now who is using emotional gibberish ? > > > to rule in their favor. First of all I didn't rule at all. I just said I was > > amazed by NS not being present. > > > No, you said you found it strange that they ruled against NS without > NS being there. Why would that be strange? Seems perfectly normal to me. > > > > But it was not NS who appealed. Stranger is that nowhere is stated why they > > where not there. Might it be possible they didn't know, or maybe the timing > > of the appeal made it impossible for them, these things happen at pairs > > tournaments. > > > > > Now who is inventing facts ? Why would this matter at all ? > Why are we even discussing a caase that we know nothing about ? > > > > Another detail: > > > > Herman: > > > >>Herman is right, but Herman is wrong nevertheless. Sorry Jaap, but you > >>seem intent on proving me wrong at all costs. > >> > > > > Herman you were right about the timing of the TD call not being relevant. > > But you used a nonsense argument to support your view. So yes you were right > > and you were wrong. What irritates me (and maybe others as well) in you is > > that you tend to discuss in a 'this is wrong' and 'this is right' way. If > > you take this stance you make yourself very vulnerable for mistakes. And for > > ridicule if your 'it is like this' argument/fact turns out to be just > > another Herman opinion or worse. You will discover one day that an 'I think' > > style tends to work better. > > > > > Who was saying that Herman was right and wrong? I wasn't! You were. > In the post I was referring to you were trying to argue against me. > Not against the AC, but against my post. I feel fully authorised to be > mad at that attack. > > > > A last detail: > > Herman > > > >>Don't you agree that the AC's decision is possible according to the > >>laws? Then Marv's statement about jiggling the laws is indeed wrong. > >>The AC were totally within their jurisdiction. Maybe their ruling was > >>wrong, but it was certainly not jiggling the laws. > >> > > > > Any AC decision is possible according to the laws. Even spades are pumpkins > > to a certain extend. Anyway I never used to word jiggling. Ask Marvin what > > it means, it is his language in the end. But I read it as 'first deciding on > > a ruling and then finding some arguments to support it'. Lots of verbs can > > be used for that and their are lots of gradations of doing so. But yes > > jiggling the laws is within the AC's jurisdiction. And their ruling cannot > > be wrong (or right) because it is final and non appealable. I just reserve > > the right not to agree with it given the limited information I have so far. > > But my main argument remains that even with MI there is no damage. It is > > strange an AC of this quality didn't say anything about that. It seems they > > didn't want to. So it seems very strongly somebody wanted to take a whack at > > NS. The whole thing stinks. > > > > > Sorry, no. > I agree that there are cases where an AC first forms an opinion and > then searches for an obscure law reference to support this. > But this is certainly not such a case. It's a straightforward MI or > Misbid issue. No jiggling of laws required. The AC were asked to rule > on the issue. They ruled. They ruled MI. Now stop argueing about that > and go on to something more interesting. > You said there was no damage. Please expand. That might well turn out > to be interesting. And it's something we basically have all the facts for. > > > > 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 jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Wed Mar 26 10:56:15 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:56:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: "Kooijman, A." 26/03/03 09:58 Pour : "'jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr'" , blml@rtflb.org cc : Objet : RE: [blml] L20F2 I don't understand the question because I don't see the confusion. The answer should be 'yes', it is one of the fundamental rights. Please tell me why people might draw the conclusion it to be 'no'. *** it's still auction period and he may not ask because it's not his turn to call; as it's not play period, he may not invoke it being his turn to play. L41 allows him to retract his face-down opening lead in case of MI but he may only learn this from questions asked by his partner. there is probably something wrong with my understanding and you are going to tell me. jpr *** ton > > in order to select his opening lead, a defender may wish to get an > explanation of opponents' calls, but is he allowed to ask for > it a the > instant he is about to lead? conjunction of L17E and L20F2 is a bit > confusing about this point. > > > jp rocafort __________________________________________________ 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 a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Mar 26 11:18:32 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:18:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: > > I don't understand the question because I don't see the confusion. > > The answer should be 'yes', it is one of the fundamental > rights. Please > tell > me why people might draw the conclusion it to be 'no'. > *** > it's still auction period and he may not ask because it's not > his turn to > call; as it's not play period, he may not invoke it being his turn to > play. This is a matter of definitions. It is indeed not play period yet, but I don't see why we can't say that it is LHO turn to play. Isn't it? As it is dealer's turn to call even when the cards are still in the pocket and the auction period hasn't started yet. ton L41 allows him to retract his face-down opening lead in > case of MI > but he may only learn this from questions asked by his > partner. Normally you will ask questions yourself before leading faced down. But as TD, if LHO suddenly realises that the information he received doesn't make sense, after having led to the first trick and before dummy has exposed cards, I would allow him to change his lead. ton From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 26 11:29:19 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:29:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c2f38a$f16ec4c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Kooijman, A. ........ > This is a matter of definitions. It is indeed not play period yet, but I > don't see why we can't say that it is LHO turn to play. Isn't it? It doesn't matter at all - read Laws 41A & 41B carefully! We are within the "question period" as referred to in Law 41C. Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 26 12:10:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:10 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: <008701c2f332$12c15650$0109e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > True, if their partnership agreement is that > > they Pass whenever they hold 15 hcp and a 3334 > > shape, then their system card does not give MI. > > (However, under ABF rules their system card is > > still incomplete, as they did not note the > > trap Pass option in the system card's pre-alert > > section.) > > > +=+ And, where runs the writ of the WBF (or EBL) > Systems Policy, it is a HUM system. I'm a little lost. If my partner and I agree that hands with clubs as the only 4+ suit and fewer than 16 points aren't worth opening then we are playing a HUM? Sounds a bit strange. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 26 13:12:52 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:12:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: References: <008701c2f332$12c15650$0109e150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030326140643.00aadec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:10 26/03/2003 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Grattan wrote: > > > > True, if their partnership agreement is that > > > they Pass whenever they hold 15 hcp and a 3334 > > > shape, then their system card does not give MI. > > > (However, under ABF rules their system card is > > > still incomplete, as they did not note the > > > trap Pass option in the system card's pre-alert > > > section.) > > > > > +=+ And, where runs the writ of the WBF (or EBL) > > Systems Policy, it is a HUM system. > >I'm a little lost. If my partner and I agree that hands with clubs as the >only 4+ suit and fewer than 16 points aren't worth opening then we are >playing a HUM? Sounds a bit strange. AG : within the current regulations, you are. I don't pretend this is rational, but the regulations are unambiguous : if, by agreement, you pass hands that are worth substantially more than an average hand, you're playing an HUM. If a pass may promise more than a one-bid, with the same pattern, location of honors etc., you're playing an HUM. The description above hints that those two conditions are fulfilled. However, it is possible that hands with 'only clubs' are opened at the 2-level. I know of at least one pait who opens 2C with 3334, (332)5 and xyz6 (x, y, z < 4) and 13-15 HCP. Perhaps the contributor who launched this thread would be so kind as to tell us about their 2C and 2NT openings ? And, yes, Roth-Stone style verges on HUManity. Best regards, Alain. From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Wed Mar 26 13:54:09 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:54:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_RE=3A_[blml]_L20F2?= Message-ID: "Sven Pran" Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 26/03/03 12:29 =20 Pour : "blml" cc :=20 Objet : RE: [blml] L20F2 > Kooijman, A. ........=20 > This is a matter of definitions. It is indeed not play period yet, but I > don't see why we can't say that it is LHO turn to play. Isn't it? It doesn't matter at all - read Laws 41A & 41B carefully! We are within=20 the "question period" as referred to in Law 41C. *** ok, during this "question period" which is included within the "auction=20 period" and precedes the "play period", declarer and rho are allowed to=20 inquire, but what of lho? there remains the paradox that according to the=20 Laws, an opening lead is not a play and this paradox results in confusion. = on another side, there is also a contradiction with the definitions of=20 "opening lead" and "play" except to say that an opening lead is not a=20 lead! as to the symmetry with the auction period, i don't experience the same=20 confusion: we are told when the auction period starts and before it starts = it's nobody's turn to call and this is convenient to everybody.=20 jpr ***=20 Sven =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=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 Wed Mar 26 14:14:10 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:14:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f._:_RE:_=5Bblml=5D_L20F2?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c2f3a1$f8e7cbe0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr ......... > ok, during this "question period" which is included within the = "auction > period" and precedes the "play period", declarer and rho are allowed = to > inquire, but what of lho? there remains the paradox that according to = the > Laws, an opening lead is not a play and this paradox results in = confusion. > on another side, there is also a contradiction with the definitions of > "opening lead" and "play" except to say that an opening lead is not a > lead! Please avoid making problems where none exist! You may read Law 20C2 which should be clear enough in addition to the = other laws. And you may read my other post where I summed up the correct procedure = to be followed after three consecutive passes. Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Mar 26 14:27:27 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:27:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_=5Bblml=5D_RE=3A_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f=2E_=3A_?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_=5Bblml=5D_L20F2?= Message-ID: > > > jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > ......... > > ok, during this "question period" which is included within > the "auction > > period" and precedes the "play period", declarer and rho > are allowed to > > inquire, but what of lho? there remains the paradox that > according to the > > Laws, an opening lead is not a play and this paradox > results in confusion. > > on another side, there is also a contradiction with the > definitions of > > "opening lead" and "play" except to say that an opening > lead is not a > > lead! > > Please avoid making problems where none exist! problem 1 is that Jean Pierre does see a problem problem 2 is that we don't see what Jean Pierre sees any discussion is meaningless in that case. ton > > Sven From gester@lineone.net Wed Mar 26 14:27:32 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:27:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) References: Message-ID: <003901c2f3a5$fa40cf60$11242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) > > I'm a little lost. If my partner and I agree that hands > with clubs as the only 4+ suit and fewer than 16 points > aren't worth opening then we are playing a HUM? > Sounds a bit strange. > +=+ I quote again one of the defining clauses any one of which makes it a HUM system: "As a matter of partnership agreement a pass in the opening position may have values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, and the player who passes may hold values a queen or more above the strength of an average hand (an average hand contains 10HCP)". I am in the passive position of quoting the System Policy without expressing approval or disapproval. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Wed Mar 26 14:40:48 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:40:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f._:_RE:_=5Bblml=5D_L20F2?= References: Message-ID: <003a01c2f3a5$fb011220$11242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Sven Pran" Cc: "blml" ; Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:54 PM Subject: [blml] Réf. : RE: [blml] L20F2 *** ok, during this "question period" which is included within the "auction period" and precedes the "play period", declarer and rho are allowed to inquire, but what of lho? there remains the paradox that according to the Laws, an opening lead is not a play and this paradox results in confusion. < +=+ I am not sure what I am reading here. The opening lead is a lead and a lead is defined (see 'play'), as the first card played to a trick. An opening lead is both a lead and thus a play. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 26 15:11:42 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:11:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[blml]_Re:_[blml]_R=E9f._:_RE:_[blml]_?= L20F2 In-Reply-To: <003a01c2f3a5$fb011220$11242850@pacific> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030326160954.00ab7a80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:40 26/03/2003 +0000, gester@lineone.net wrote: >*** >ok, during this "question period" which is included >within the "auction period" and precedes the "play >period", declarer and rho are allowed to inquire, >but what of lho? there remains the paradox that >according to the Laws, an opening lead is not a >play and this paradox results in confusion. >< >+=+ I am not sure what I am reading here. The >opening lead is a lead and a lead is defined (see >'play'), as the first card played to a trick. An >opening lead is both a lead and thus a play. > ~ G ~ +=+ > AG : isn't this contradictory with L41C, which states that the play period begins after the lead and associated questions ? Or do we assume that some plays are made outside the play period ? >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Mar 26 15:07:23 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:07:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_=5Bblml=5D_Re=3A_=5Bblml=5D_Re=3A_=5Bblml?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=5D_R=E9f=2E_=3A_RE=3A_=5Bblml=5D__L20F2?= Message-ID: > > AG : isn't this contradictory with L41C, which states that > the play period > begins after the lead and associated questions ? Or do we > assume that some > plays are made outside the play period ? We apparently do. not 'assume' but consider. and not 'some' but just the faced down opening lead. I agree there to be some tension using these definitions, but I still don't see the confusion resulting from it. ton From kaima13@hotmail.com Wed Mar 26 15:16:17 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 07:16:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] L20F2 References: <000601c2f376$a5b50670$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: I don't see any reason for confusion here, but see also Law 41: The correct procedure (where face up opening leads has not been prescribed) is: 1: After three consecutive passes the player on the presumed declarer's left asks whatever clarifying questions he feels he needs answered. 2: This player then selects the card he wants to lead and places it face down on the table in front of him. 3: His partner asks the clarifying questions he feels he needs answered. snip K: My understanding is that after the auction ends - or rather, when there are three consecutive passes - the opening leader's partner may only ask questions about the bidding at his turn to play to trick 1, not at the same time (or right after) that opening leader asks or has asked. Are the rules different in Europe? Or did I misunderstand something? Kaima From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 26 15:40:25 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:40:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c2f3ae$053bcf20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: kaima [mailto:kaima13@hotmail.com] > 1: After three consecutive passes the player on the presumed = declarer's > left > asks whatever clarifying questions he feels he needs answered. >=20 > 2: This player then selects the card he wants to lead and places it = face > down on the table in front of him. >=20 > 3: His partner asks the clarifying questions he feels he needs = answered. > snip >=20 >=20 > K: My understanding is that after the auction ends - or rather, when > there > are three consecutive passes - the opening leader's partner may only = ask > questions about the bidding at his turn to play to trick 1, not at the > same > time (or right after) that opening leader asks or has asked. > Are the rules different in Europe? Or did I misunderstand something? You misunderstand something, and the rules are the same world-wide = (except that sponsoring organizations may specify that opening leads be made = face up). The auction does NOT end after three consecutive passes but when the = opening lead is faced. The presumed declarer's LHO may after the three consecutive passes = request the auction to be restated and request an explanation of opponents' = auction before he makes his selection for the opening lead. After he has made his selection his partner may similarly have the = auction restated and ask his questions; after which he indicates that the = opening lead may be faced. The selected opening lead may only be changed if some misinformation by declaring side is revealed during these questions and answers before the opening lead is faced. After the opening lead is faced the play period begins and now it is too late to have the auction restated. But any player (except dummy) may = still at his turn to play ask for an explanation of opponents' auction.=20 Sven From john@asimere.com Wed Mar 26 16:23:06 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:23:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: <000201c2f250$93adedb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <3E7F2EA5.8090706@skynet.be> <000201c2f250$93adedb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000201c2f250$93adedb0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> Herman De Wael >> > ......... >> > But why you divide the accumulated IMPs on >> > each board with one more than the count of >> > IMP results to obtain the average (or >> > normalized) IMP result is beyond me. >> > ............. >> Then read my treatise on the subject at: >> >> http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/calcula/calcul14.html > >I'm sorry Herman, but the contents of that (single) page just didn't make >any sense to me at all. > >Where is your demonstration of why it is better to divide by the number of >boards rather than by the number of comparisons? nope, not boards. results. i.e. if the board is played 10 times then we divide by 10, not by 9 as you would. > >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Mar 26 16:29:21 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:29:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: <000301c2f252$ee059ae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c2f252$ee059ae0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000301c2f252$ee059ae0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >John (MadDog) Probst >> >But why you divide the accumulated IMPs on each board with one more than >> the >> >count of IMP results to obtain the average (or normalized) IMP result is >> >beyond me. >> >............. >> >> 4 results, say 2 games made and 2 defeated. Scores +10, and zero being >> the two outcomes at x-imps. If you won the swing you get 20/3 in your >> scenario and I get 20/4 >> >> 8 results four of each. You score 40/7 and I score 40/8. my scenario >> gives a score normalised for field size, yours doesn't. It's the same as >> Ascherman for pairs vs Neuberg, btw. John > >At least a reasoning that could seem to make some sense. > >However: > >If you are the only pair to make the game then with 4 results my normalized >scores will be 30/3 and 70/7 while "yours" will be 30/4 and 70/8. Whose >method is now the best one to normalize for field size? mine is still better, it reflects the difference between one table in 4 making the game and one table in eight making it (a more difficult endeavour which is more highly rewarded.) Of course if two tables make the game out of eight, my scores come out the same, and yours don't regardless of the fact that the same proportion of teams made the game in both sections. :) > >(And don't mix the alleged difference between Ascherman and Neuberg into >this. If you always calculate scores as plus and minus relative to average >then you should discover that the Ascherman and Neuberg formulae are >identical!) Of course I know this. The difference in Ascherman is simply that you add one match point for each board played to every player's score, and consequently to the session average. This has the effect of lowering your percentage slightly, and *definitely* adjusts for differences in section sizes, if one is merging percentages, not frequencies, in order to determine a winner. > >regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Mar 26 16:31:32 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:31:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: <023d01c2f24f$972110e0$e010ac89@au.fjanz.com> References: <022701c2f1a6$dc0d9ce0$e010ac89@au.fjanz.com> <000d01c2f1f9$b0a85dd0$dece36d2@Desktop> <023d01c2f24f$972110e0$e010ac89@au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: In article <023d01c2f24f$972110e0$e010ac89@au.fjanz.com>, Peter Newman writes >Hi All, > >There were 2 problems that I posed: >(1) What should an AAS be for butler pairs. >I seem to have received a variety of helpful answers (basically from1.5-2 >seems OK) > >(2) What is the legal basis for assigning a particular AAS in butler pairs >if you haven't defined before the tournament starts some value. > >I still am not sure what the answer to (2) is. Despite Wayne pointing out >that L86 heading says for IMP play L12C1 only takes you to L86 for team play >and this is pairs. >Am I correct in saying that the others are you using L12C1/L88 and even >though this refers to matchpoints using an empirical guesstimate of 60% to >justify the legality of +2 imps (eg. JohnP) > >[In general if you aren't using matchpoints for a pairs event and haven't >defined in advance an AAS value how should they be *legally* determined?] The SO by regulation may use *any* form of scoring. So it's down to the SO to produce a regulation. In the EBU we have such regulations. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Mar 26 16:46:22 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:46:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7A7Ps6Aeldg+Ew2U@asimere.com> In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >A competent Aussie pair have a doubly irrational >agreement. > >Firstly, they have agreed to play Acol with a >Strong Club. > >Secondly, these are the descriptions of their >one-level openings: > >1C = 16+ any shape >1D = 11-15, 4+ diamonds >1H = 11-15, 4+ hearts >1S = 11-15, 4+ spades >1NT = 12-14 balanced > >Should a TD rule that their system card is an >automatic MI infraction? insofar as there is no information relating to what they do when they hold a club suit or a flat 15 it is incomplete. Incompleteness is not necessarily mis-information, and I'd tell a pair who complained they were damaged by a 2C opener to jump off the Harbour Bridge, as I'd not believe they couldn't have protected themselves, either before play began, or during the auction. Have I missed something? > >Best wishes > >Richard > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Mar 26 16:49:39 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:49:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , kaima writes > >Richard wrote: >Snip >> A more typical highly irrational agreement is those >> partnerships who play "optional double over preempts": >> >> a) 3H - fast double = penalty double/3NT overcall >> b) 3H - slow double = singleton/void in hearts >> >K: If that sort of behaviour exists, it should be weeded out ASAP. Sounds >like something a novice would do. Anyone else understands it as unethical >and will not engage in such tactics. Surely you do not mean to say that >what you described is common????? >Best regards, It actually also depends whether you put the bidding cards down with your left or right hand. Everyone knows that. cheers john >Kaima > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Mar 26 16:59:16 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:59:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: References: <000101c2f29d$efe36680$9a9637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <1gVMERBkxdg+Ew06@asimere.com> In article , Tim West-Meads writes >Wayne wrote: > >> "It is not dissimilar to psyching. Psyching is part of the game which >> happens to cause annoyance in some people. Psyching remains legal, >> frivolous psyching intended primarily to annoy opps is illegal." >> >> NZCBA (New Zealand Contract Bridge Association) have a regulation >> outlawing frivolous psyching. >> >> That regulation defines frivolous psyching as twice per session. > >Probably about right on average. Suitable hands for psyches are bit like >buses. None for a while then 3 come along in quick succession. A player >averaging 2 psyches a session is probably verging on the frivolous >(although obviously each psyche must be assessed on its merits). >I don't see how successful psyches could be ruled "frivolous" however many >occurred. > >> I recently questioned that regulation and received this answer: >> >> ""Psychics": this argument has been around for as long as the laws. Law >> 74A2 refers to actions that cause annoyance and loss of enjoyment of the >> game to others. The NZCBA (and other jurisdictions) have used >> regulations around this law to give guidance to players and Directors >> alike about what is acceptable attitude and what is not. When psychic >> bidding is used frequently, partners subconsciously expect it , and >> allow for it in their bidding. > >This is not true. It is quite possible to expect psyches and not make >bids to cater to them. Just as it is possible to select calls which >better cope with partner having psyched even when the psyche is >unexpected. > >> This makes it an undisclosed and hence illegal system. Please comment on bidding 3H (transfer) on Axx KQJxx AQx Kx, when partner opens 2NT at favourable. fwiw, I consider it entirely routine. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 26 17:19:31 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:19:31 +0100 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_[blml]_Re:_[blml]_Re:_[blml_]_R=E9f._:_RE?= : [blml] L20F2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030326181448.00aa8400@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:07 26/03/2003 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > AG : isn't this contradictory with L41C, which states that > > the play period > > begins after the lead and associated questions ? Or do we > > assume that some > > plays are made outside the play period ? > >We apparently do. not 'assume' but consider. and not 'some' but just the >faced down opening lead. I agree there to be some tension using these >definitions, but I still don't see the confusion resulting from it. AG : no confusion, just an illogism : I would have liked the play period to be the period where one does make all plays. It would have satisfied my mathematical mind. Don't worry. (well, the confusion may be that people less specialized than you in the Art of TDing might *imagine* that the play period consist of all plays, and draw false conclusions from this, perhaps to their damage) I would like to have different names for (play excepted lead) and (play including lead), as there are different names for (declarations except p,X,XX) and (all declarations). Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 26 17:28:11 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:28:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <1gVMERBkxdg+Ew06@asimere.com> References: <000101c2f29d$efe36680$9a9637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030326182633.00aa9470@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:59 26/03/2003 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , Tim >West-Meads writes > >Wayne wrote: > > > >> "It is not dissimilar to psyching. Psyching is part of the game which > >> happens to cause annoyance in some people. Psyching remains legal, > >> frivolous psyching intended primarily to annoy opps is illegal." > >> > >> NZCBA (New Zealand Contract Bridge Association) have a regulation > >> outlawing frivolous psyching. > >> > >> That regulation defines frivolous psyching as twice per session. > > > >Probably about right on average. Suitable hands for psyches are bit like > >buses. None for a while then 3 come along in quick succession. A player > >averaging 2 psyches a session is probably verging on the frivolous > >(although obviously each psyche must be assessed on its merits). > >I don't see how successful psyches could be ruled "frivolous" however many > >occurred. > > > >> I recently questioned that regulation and received this answer: > >> > >> ""Psychics": this argument has been around for as long as the laws. Law > >> 74A2 refers to actions that cause annoyance and loss of enjoyment of the > >> game to others. The NZCBA (and other jurisdictions) have used > >> regulations around this law to give guidance to players and Directors > >> alike about what is acceptable attitude and what is not. When psychic > >> bidding is used frequently, partners subconsciously expect it , and > >> allow for it in their bidding. > > > >This is not true. It is quite possible to expect psyches and not make > >bids to cater to them. Just as it is possible to select calls which > >better cope with partner having psyched even when the psyche is > >unexpected. > > > >> This makes it an undisclosed and hence illegal system. > >Please comment on bidding 3H (transfer) on Axx KQJxx AQx Kx, when >partner opens 2NT at favourable. fwiw, I consider it entirely routine. AG : perhaps it's routine, but only if partner has already performed this psyche. And if you use such a bid to check that there was no psyche, you're playing a system where it is specified that a psyche is possible (2NT = either natural or ...). You thus have to explain it. If you do, no quarrels from me. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Mar 26 18:20:30 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:20:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] L20F2 References: <000601c2f376$a5b50670$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002401c2f3c4$65dcbd60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" >The correct procedure (where face up opening leads has not been prescribed) is: 1: After three consecutive passes the player on the presumed declarer's left asks whatever clarifying questions he feels he needs answered. > After asking for an "explanation of the auction." If the explanation isn't sufficient, then parts of it may be further questioned. The questioner must do his best to avoid revealing an interest in a particular suit. I constantly encounter opponents who, as the presumed declarer's RHO, ask for an explanation of the auction before making the final pass. This despite having no intention, obviously, of doing anything other than pass. Since such a request could be delayed until the opening lead is face down on the table, it can logically be only for partner's benefit, perhaps assisting him in choosing the opening lead. Do I have any recourse against such players, given that there is no highlighting of a particular suit? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Mar 26 18:35:01 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:35:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, Small club, one section, no hand records. Mitchell movement. At round 2, players count their cards on board 1 before looking at: 12 cards in East hand, 14 in West. The TD is called, check with pair 1 E-W and is told by both players: "Our hands were like that when we played this board. There was 7 clubs in West's hand and 3 in East". He then ask to pair 1 N-S and both players told: "There was only 6 clubs in West's hand when we played the board". The contract was 4SX making 4 by N-S (a bad result... 5C down 2 should be much better...). Law 13C instruct the TD to cancel a board when it was played with 12 cards in one hand and 14 in another hand. But here, players did not agree on that fact. The TD was not able to restore the board and asked players to reshuffle. What is the best ruling: 1) Cancel result of round 1 and ask players to replay board 1 (as reshuffled) as a late play. 2) Cancel result of round 1 and award Avg- to E-W (directly at fault) and Avg+ to N-S (no way at fault). 3) Cancel result and award Avg- to all (directly at fault). 4) Cancel result and enter this board as Non-played (both pairs play 24 boards instead of 26). 5) Restore the board (moving a club from West to East) and let score stand. 6) Other suggestions, including procedural penalties. E-W are experienced players. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 26 18:31:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: <003901c2f3a5$fa40cf60$11242850@pacific> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ I quote again one of the defining clauses any one of > which makes it a HUM system: > "As a matter of partnership agreement a pass in > the opening position may have values generally accepted > for an opening bid of one, and the player who passes > may hold values a queen or more above the strength of > an average hand (an average hand contains 10HCP)". Oh gawd. Just a few days ago I recommended to the EBU online community that they start playing an HUM system. Why oh why did I suggest that the best thing to do with a 4441 hand and 12/bad 13 points was to pass. I hope none of them agree that with their partners! Presumably Roth-Stoners are playing HUM too. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Mar 26 18:31:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] WBF documents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > >>It is not illegal to ask a question which gives UI > >>to partner (albeit he is constrained), it is illegal > >>to ask a question *intended* to give UI to partner. > > I believe that both questions are illegal, as I do not > see any statement about intent in Law 73A1: You are captain in the auction. You are trying to choose between 6S and 6N, you know damn well partner isn't going to participate in the hand anymore. You question opponents carefully about several of their calls and it becomes clear to partner what your issue is. You make your choice and the auction continues PPP. Do you really think your questions were illegal? There is no way a TD is going to adjust in your favour if you fail to ask and make the wrong choice (opps haven't misinformed you, but you need greater detail than is shown on their cc) so if we do say that the questions are illegal we give the player no winning option. That doesn't seem right to me. The balance between disclosure and UI is a tricky one but I am of the view that if a player does his best to minimise the UI created when asking the questions to which he needs answers and his partner carefully avoids taking advantage of any UI so created then nothing illegal has happened. Tim From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 26 18:51:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:51:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 In-Reply-To: <002401c2f3c4$65dcbd60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c2f3c8$b7c4ec20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French=20 ....... > I constantly encounter opponents who, as the presumed declarer's RHO, = ask > for an explanation of the auction before making the final pass. This > despite > having no intention, obviously, of doing anything other than pass. = Since > such a request could be delayed until the opening lead is face down on = the > table, it can logically be only for partner's benefit, perhaps = assisting > him in choosing the opening lead. Do I have any recourse against such > players, given that there is no highlighting of a particular suit? Absolutely. All questions by presumed declarer's RHO are UI to the presumed = declarer's LHO. Particularly in the case you mention (premature questions by RHO) we are = at least in Norway extremely observant on the possibility that this UI = could be lead-directing. And we easily rule violation of Law 16A2 if we find that = a successful opening lead could at all have been indicated by this UI. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Mar 26 19:04:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:04:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c2f3ca$90e33d30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laval Dubreuil > Small club, one section, no hand records. > Mitchell movement. >=20 > At round 2, players count their cards on board 1 > before looking at: 12 cards in East hand, 14 in West. >=20 > The TD is called, check with pair 1 E-W and is told > by both players: "Our hands were like that when we > played this board. There was 7 clubs in West's hand > and 3 in East". He then ask to pair 1 N-S and both > players told: "There was only 6 clubs in West's hand > when we played the board". >=20 > The contract was 4SX making 4 by N-S (a bad result... > 5C down 2 should be much better...). >=20 > Law 13C instruct the TD to cancel a board when it was > played with 12 cards in one hand and 14 in another hand. > But here, players did not agree on that fact. The TD > was not able to restore the board and asked players > to reshuffle. >=20 > What is the best ruling: >=20 > 1) Cancel result of round 1 and ask players to replay > board 1 (as reshuffled) as a late play. >=20 > 2) Cancel result of round 1 and award Avg- to E-W > (directly at fault) and Avg+ to N-S (no way at fault). >=20 > 3) Cancel result and award Avg- to all (directly at fault). >=20 > 4) Cancel result and enter this board as Non-played > (both pairs play 24 boards instead of 26). >=20 > 5) Restore the board (moving a club from West to East) > and let score stand. >=20 > 6) Other suggestions, including procedural penalties. > E-W are experienced players. There is no result with which to compare the result originally obtained = at table 1 so whatever you do this result has no meaning. According to your description you cannot establish as a fact that there = was anything wrong with the board at table 1, you have no way of determining = how the error developed, you have no way of knowing which of the cards later found in West really belongs in East; and most important you have no way = of telling who is at fault. Thus the board must be cancelled as it was originally played at table 1. The best solution is to have the board shuffled and played at all tables = in it's new version, but if there is no time for a replay at table 1 you = will have to assign an artificially adjusted score at that table. Anybody at fault? How can you tell? You cannot; and thus you have to assign A+ both ways. My preferred alternatives is 1 followed by 2 with the modification that = both sides get A+. Regards Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 26 21:25:26 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:25:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] RE: [blml] RE: [blml] Réf. : RE: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: <200303262125.QAA06346@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > problem 1 is that Jean Pierre does see a problem > problem 2 is that we don't see what Jean Pierre sees I think perhaps I do see the problem. Everyone agrees that the procedure Sven gave is correct, but J-P's question is where specifically is the authority for opening leader to ask questions after the final pass and before the opening lead. The answer is L20F2, which begins "After the final pass and throughout the play period...." This means the complete time interval starting with the final pass and continuing until the end of the play period. If you pay too much attention to the headers, you might interpret the phrase as including only the portion of the above time interval within the play period, but that would be a mistake. The word 'throughout' also tends to give the wrong impression. Grattan: possibly a slight improvement would be "After the final pass until the end of the play period..." or something similar. (No doubt you can craft a phrase better than I can once you see the possible drawback in 'throughout' or at least in its placement. You could keep the word in, for example, "Throughout the time interval from the final pass until the end of the play period....") From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 26 22:35:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:35:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: Marv asked: >I constantly encounter opponents who, as the >presumed declarer's RHO, ask for an explanation >of the auction before making the final pass. This >despite having no intention, obviously, of doing >anything other than pass. Since such a request >could be delayed until the opening lead is face >down on the table, it can logically be only for >partner's benefit, perhaps assisting him in >choosing the opening lead. Do I have any recourse >against such players, given that there is no >highlighting of a particular suit? Yes, your recourse is to migrate to England. The EBU has a regulation modifying Law 20F1, with an additional requirement for the questioner to have a "need" to know. Without such a regulation, the question is not necessarily an infraction of Law 73A1 prohibiting communication with partner. This is because exercising a lawful right, due to an expectation that partner is too naive to exercise their lawful right, is not necessarily an infraction of Law 73A1. If Law 73A1 is not infracted, then there is no redress for you under ACBL regulations. Best wishes Richard From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Mar 26 21:41:41 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:41:41 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030326182633.00aa9470@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001101c2f3e0$80746210$edce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Thursday, 27 March 2003 5:28 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyching > > > At 16:59 26/03/2003 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >In article > , Tim > >West-Meads writes > > >Wayne wrote: > > > > > >> "It is not dissimilar to psyching. Psyching is part of > the game which > > >> happens to cause annoyance in some people. Psyching > remains legal, > > >> frivolous psyching intended primarily to annoy opps is illegal." > > >> > > >> NZCBA (New Zealand Contract Bridge Association) have a regulation > > >> outlawing frivolous psyching. > > >> > > >> That regulation defines frivolous psyching as twice per session. > > > > > >Probably about right on average. Suitable hands for > psyches are bit like > > >buses. None for a while then 3 come along in quick > succession. A player > > >averaging 2 psyches a session is probably verging on the frivolous > > >(although obviously each psyche must be assessed on its merits). > > >I don't see how successful psyches could be ruled > "frivolous" however many > > >occurred. > > > > > >> I recently questioned that regulation and received this answer: > > >> > > >> ""Psychics": this argument has been around for as long > as the laws. Law > > >> 74A2 refers to actions that cause annoyance and loss of > enjoyment of the > > >> game to others. The NZCBA (and other jurisdictions) have used > > >> regulations around this law to give guidance to players > and Directors > > >> alike about what is acceptable attitude and what is not. > When psychic > > >> bidding is used frequently, partners subconsciously > expect it , and > > >> allow for it in their bidding. > > > > > >This is not true. It is quite possible to expect psyches > and not make > > >bids to cater to them. Just as it is possible to select > calls which > > >better cope with partner having psyched even when the psyche is > > >unexpected. > > > > > >> This makes it an undisclosed and hence illegal system. > > > >Please comment on bidding 3H (transfer) on Axx KQJxx AQx Kx, when > >partner opens 2NT at favourable. fwiw, I consider it > entirely routine. > > AG : perhaps it's routine, but only if partner has already > performed this > psyche. And if you use such a bid to check that there was no > psyche, you're > playing a system where it is specified that a psyche is > possible (2NT = > either natural or ...). You thus have to explain it. If you > do, no quarrels > from me. A psyche is not and can not be part of a system. A psyche is defined as a gross departure from 'system'. It can be part of partnership experience. I think that it is legitimate to know that a psyche is possible based on general bridge knowledge rather than specific partnership understanding and to cater to that. Last night playing with a regular partner who has seldom psyched (maybe once or twice in over two years) I opened the bidding in third seat, the opponent doubled and partner bid a new suit at the one-level and I had nice four-card support. Subsequently she gave a preference for my suit. I suspected that she had psyched and catered to that possibility by not returning preference to her 'suit'. Nevertheless I am confident that we have no partnership understanding to psyche there no any previous experience of a psyche in that situation. Fundamentally I am allowed to know that partner might have psyched because I know that psyching is part of the game and not because of any particular action that partner has taken in the past. I disagree with your system conclusion: And if you use such a bid to check that there was no psyche, you're playing a system where it is specified that 2NT = either natural but it is legally possible that partner has psyched. Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Mar 26 21:48:40 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:48:40 +1200 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c2f3e1$79f70c20$edce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Wednesday, 26 March 2003 4:26 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] AAS in butler pairs > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > >I think that one could reasonably argue that the > >Butler [datum] is a score. In particular it is > >the score that is the average score of the field. > > Okay, let us dig deeper by finding out what the > Laws define as a score. > > Law 77 defines a score as either being "scored by > declarer's side", or being "scored by declarer's > opponents". > > "The field" is not mentioned in Law 77, therefore > a Butler datum is not Lawfully a score. > > Best wishes > > Richard I think this is very artificial. If the Butlered IMPs that I win or lose are not scores How on earth do we find out who won? Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Mar 26 21:59:57 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:59:57 -0800 Subject: [blml] L20F2 References: Message-ID: <003801c2f3e3$109940c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > Marv asked: > > >I constantly encounter opponents who, as the > >presumed declarer's RHO, ask for an explanation > >of the auction before making the final pass. This > >despite having no intention, obviously, of doing > >anything other than pass. Since such a request > >could be delayed until the opening lead is face > >down on the table, it can logically be only for > >partner's benefit, perhaps assisting him in > >choosing the opening lead. Do I have any recourse > >against such players, given that there is no > >highlighting of a particular suit? > > Yes, your recourse is to migrate to England. The > EBU has a regulation modifying Law 20F1, with an > additional requirement for the questioner to have a > "need" to know. > > Without such a regulation, the question is not > necessarily an infraction of Law 73A1 prohibiting > communication with partner. This is because > exercising a lawful right, due to an expectation > that partner is too naive to exercise their lawful > right, is not necessarily an infraction of Law 73A1. I believe the WBFLC ruled that it is, at its Lille meeting, 1998 -- It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply. This settled the matter of whether the "pro question" is legal or not. I strongly suspect that this interpretation has not been passed on properly in ACBL-land. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Wed Mar 26 22:05:02 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:05:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030326170019.02884a50@mail.fscv.net> > >Richard wrote: > >Snip > >> A more typical highly irrational agreement is those > >> partnerships who play "optional double over preempts": > >> > >> a) 3H - fast double = penalty double/3NT overcall > >> b) 3H - slow double = singleton/void in hearts At 11:49 AM 26/03/2003, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >It actually also depends whether you put the bidding cards down with >your left or right hand. Everyone knows that. And don't forget to include the difference between doubling with a card that says "X" and one that says "D". There can be many nuances here. You may have to sit N/S and get to the table early to insure that you have both types of double cards, though - unless you bring your own. Walt From Peter Newman" <003801c2f3e3$109940c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <0a9601c2f3e4$8967a7c0$e010ac89@au.fjanz.com> Hi Marv, I agree that if it is a 'pro' question it is illegal. However, I suspect if a 'pro' answered (and perfectly reasonably) - "I wanted to understand the auction so that I would be able to defend in tempo" then that would OK. Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F2 > > Richard Hills wrote: > > > > > Marv asked: > > > > >I constantly encounter opponents who, as the > > >presumed declarer's RHO, ask for an explanation > > >of the auction before making the final pass. This > > >despite having no intention, obviously, of doing > > >anything other than pass. Since such a request > > >could be delayed until the opening lead is face > > >down on the table, it can logically be only for > > >partner's benefit, perhaps assisting him in > > >choosing the opening lead. Do I have any recourse > > >against such players, given that there is no > > >highlighting of a particular suit? > > > > Yes, your recourse is to migrate to England. The > > EBU has a regulation modifying Law 20F1, with an > > additional requirement for the questioner to have a > > "need" to know. > > > > Without such a regulation, the question is not > > necessarily an infraction of Law 73A1 prohibiting > > communication with partner. This is because > > exercising a lawful right, due to an expectation > > that partner is too naive to exercise their lawful > > right, is not necessarily an infraction of Law 73A1. > > I believe the WBFLC ruled that it is, at its Lille meeting, 1998 > > -- It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware > of the information in the reply. > > This settled the matter of whether the "pro question" is legal or not. I > strongly suspect that this interpretation has not been passed on properly in > ACBL-land. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Mar 26 23:17:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:17:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 73A1 (was WBF documents) Message-ID: Tim wrote: [big snip] >The balance between disclosure and UI is a >tricky one but I am of the view that if a >player does his best to minimise the UI created >when asking the questions to which he needs >answers and his partner carefully avoids >taking advantage of any UI so created then >nothing illegal has happened. So, if a player does his best to minimise his revokes, and his partner carefully avoids taking any advantage of revokes so created, then nothing illegal has happened. :-) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 00:11:54 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:11:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: [big snip] >5) Restore the board (moving a club from West to East) > and let score stand. Illegal, contrary to Law 87A. The club pips must be identically located when all tables play the deal. >6) Other suggestions, including procedural penalties. > E-W are experienced players. > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City This is my ruling on the evidence given. My ruling might change radically if I had previous experience of the veracity of the players involved. I am highly suspicious that the 14-12 EW cards coincide with a probable NS top. This bears heavy weight when I decide a Law 85B ruling on indeterminate facts. As TD, I would let NS select between the two options of replaying the deal, or receiving an Ave+. If the deal was not replayed, I would award EW an Ave-. In either case, I would apply a PP to EW. I would also report this incident to the local Recorder. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 01:32:12 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:32:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: >I believe the WBFLC ruled that it is, at >its Lille meeting, 1998 > >-- It is held illegal to ask a question in >order that partner may be aware of the >information in the reply. > >This settled the matter of whether the "pro >question" is legal or not. I strongly suspect >that this interpretation has not been passed >on properly in ACBL-land. > >Marv True, the "pro question" - where a pro asks a question to which the pro previously knew the answer - is clearly contrary to the Lille interpretation. But what about the "semi-pro question", where the pro did *not* previously know the answer, *but* the pro has an *additional* motive that pard may also be aware of the reply? Outlawing the "semi-pro" question leads to a ruling that a pro may never ask a question at any time. Hey, maybe that's a good idea. :-) Best wishes Richard From toddz@att.net Thu Mar 27 00:49:35 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:49:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20F2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Subject: Re: [blml] L20F2 > > True, the "pro question" - where a pro asks a > question to which the pro previously knew the > answer - is clearly contrary to the Lille > interpretation. > > But what about the "semi-pro question", where > the pro did *not* previously know the answer, > *but* the pro has an *additional* motive > that pard may also be aware of the reply? > > Outlawing the "semi-pro" question leads to a > ruling that a pro may never ask a question at > any time. Hey, maybe that's a good idea. :-) We can ignore what the pro does or does not know and draw the line somewhere between "I am asking because I will use the information" and "I am asking because my partner will need the information." -Todd From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Mar 27 00:58:15 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:58:15 -0800 Subject: [blml] L20F2 References: <003801c2f3e3$109940c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <0a9601c2f3e4$8967a7c0$e010ac89@au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: <000401c2f3fb$f3d5a140$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Peter Newman" > Hi Marv, > > I agree that if it is a 'pro' question it is illegal. > > However, I suspect if a 'pro' answered (and perfectly reasonably) - > "I wanted to understand the auction so that I would be able to defend in > tempo" then that would OK. > Provided s/he is believed, I suppose. Why can't the pro wait until the auction is over, if that is the reason? If on lead, ask before leading. If not, ask when partner's face-down lead is on the table. Do not ask before making the last pass, with partner on lead. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 02:20:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:20:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: >We can ignore what the pro does or does not know and draw the >line somewhere between "I am asking because I will use the >information" and "I am asking because my partner will need the >information." > >-Todd In my opinion, the logic of the situation is not an Aristotelian either "A" or "not-A", with an excluded middle. In my opinion, one cannot draw the line. Rather, in my opinion, the logic is that of the Venn diagram. In my opinion, the pro can have both motives. Best wishes Richard From toddz@att.net Thu Mar 27 01:47:35 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:47:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20F2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Subject: RE: [blml] L20F2 > > >We can ignore what the pro does or does not know and draw the > >line somewhere between "I am asking because I will use the > >information" and "I am asking because my partner will need the > >information." > > > >-Todd > > In my opinion, the logic of the situation is not an > Aristotelian either "A" or "not-A", with an excluded > middle. In my opinion, one cannot draw the line. I thought I implied a spectrum. > Rather, in my opinion, the logic is that of the Venn > diagram. In my opinion, the pro can have both motives. I think it's acceptable that you ask for your own use and it be coincidental that your partner will also need to know. It's the sort of motive it wouldn't hurt to void one's self of. I play under an assumption (sometimes proved false) that my parter is adult enough to ask for needed information. -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 04:52:27 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:52:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Void (was L20F2) Message-ID: Todd Zimnoch wrote: >I think it's acceptable that you ask for your own >use and it be coincidental that your partner will >also need to know. It's the sort of motive it >wouldn't hurt to void one's self of. [snip] Good Queen Bess is supposed to have said, "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls." Successive editions of the Laws have followed that path, progressively removing references to motive, and replacing them with "demonstrably suggested" or "could have known". In my opinion, evil thoughts need not be avoided at bridge, nor should evil thoughts be an infraction of bridge Law. In my opinion, the only time a bridge player walks a ruinous path down into the Void is when evil thoughts are consequently followed by evil actions. Best wishes Richard From gillp@bigpond.com Thu Mar 27 05:19:24 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:19:24 +1100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: <031101c2f420$6ed6d8e0$30c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Jean-Pierre Rocavert asked: >in order to select his opening lead, a defender may wish to get an >explanation of opponents' calls, but is he allowed to ask for it a the >instant he is about to lead? conjunction of L17E and L20F2 is a bit >confusing about this point. True, and Sven added to the confusion by confusing the terms "Auction Period" and 'auction' in his posts, and by confusing "an explanation of the opponents' calls" with 'a review of the auction'. Thus I will ignore everything Sven wrote and start again. First, a reassurance that the Laws are fine as they stand, and that although there is some confusion it can be clarified. If the two headings in 20F were Before the Final Pass and After the Final Pass, there would be no confusion, would there, Jean-Pierre? Below I explain that the actual headings mean the same as that, anyway. You may need a copy of the Laws in front of you in order to understand the following. Law 17E states that the Auction Period ends when the opening lead is faced. Law 20F has headings "1. During the Auction" and '2. During the Play Period'. Due to Law 17E, one might wrongly think that the opening lead is "1. During the Auction" in Law 20F. It is not! The first words of 20F(1) are "During the auction and before the final pass". As the word "and" in that sentence means that BOTH provisos apply to the rest of 20F(1), 20F1 does not refer to "During the Auction Period". It is 20F2 which includes the time when the opening lead is about to be made. The first words of 20F(2) are "After the final pass and throughout the play", which could equally well say "After the final pass or throughout the play", for that means exactly the same thing. The opening lead is after the final pass and is thus covered by Law 20F2. Not by Law 20F1 Jean-Pierre, does this remove the confusion? I wonder whether the delicate meanings of the headings in Law 20F have survived translation into other languages such as French? My remaining posts on this topic will merely be to point out where Sven has muddled things up and added to the confusion by not understanding what the original problem was. You can safely disregard those posts and just read this one. Peter Gill Australia. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 06:29:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:29:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyching Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote: >A psyche is not and can not be part of a system. >A psyche is defined as a gross departure from 'system'. Correct. >It can be part of partnership experience. > >I think that it is legitimate to know that a psyche is >possible based on general bridge knowledge rather than >specific partnership understanding and to cater to that. > >Last night playing with a regular partner who has seldom >psyched (maybe once or twice in over two years) Therefore, you have an implicit partnership agreement that pard psyches with a frequency of once per year. If, instead, your partner had been Jeff Rubens, you would have had an implicit partnership agreement that your partner never psyches. >I opened the bidding in third seat, the opponent doubled >and partner bid a new suit at the one-level and I had >nice four-card support. Subsequently she gave a >preference for my suit. I suspected that she had psyched >and catered to that possibility by not returning >preference to her 'suit'. English regulations classify this as a Red Psyche, and an English TD would have ruled against you. The EBU reg is based on the idea that selecting a non-logical alternative based upon the assumption that pard - rather than an opponent - has psyched is demonstrable evidence of a CPU. (The EBU permits you to field pard's psyche where AI from your cards and the auction make a psyche from pard the only logical alternative.) >Nevertheless I am confident that we have no partnership >understanding to psyche there no any previous experience >of a psyche in that situation. > >Fundamentally I am allowed to know that partner might >have psyched because I know that psyching is part of the >game and not because of any particular action that >partner has taken in the past. Fundamentally wrong. The WBF CoP rules fielding of psyches illegal if one of four conditions is met, including: "(c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such psychic calls to occur;" Best wishes Richard From gillp@bigpond.com Thu Mar 27 05:30:23 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:30:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: <031a01c2f421$f76fe9c0$30c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Sven Pran wrote: >I don't see any reason for confusion here, but see also Law 41: > ---------- >The correct procedure (where face up opening leads has not been >prescribed) is: > >1: After three consecutive passes the player on the presumed >declarer's left asks whatever clarifying questions he feels he >needs answered.... Whilst you have accurately described the correct procedure, my copy of Law 41 does not seem to mention the "clarifying questions" by opening leader, which IMO is a bit odd and not very helpful. Aside: Admittedly I am using the copy of the Laws in the 2002 Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, because I lent my copy of the Laws to a 12 year old three weeks ago. The 12 year had devoured many bridge books at the rate of one per two days or so but the Laws have been such heavy going for him that his speed of reading has been reduced by a factor of at least ten. I find this to be an interesting commentary on the nature of the bridge Laws book, relative to other sports. Peter Gill Australia. From gillp@bigpond.com Thu Mar 27 05:34:54 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:34:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: <034901c2f423$384565a0$30c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Sven Pran wrote: >> Ton Kooijman wrote: >> This is a matter of definitions. It is indeed not play period yet, >> but I don't see why we can't say that it is LHO turn to play. Isn't it? > >It doesn't matter at all - read Laws 41A & 41B carefully! We are >within the "question period" as referred to in Law 41C. No, this question period is not helpful to the problem as L41B does not permit quesions by the opnering leader during that question period. As explained in another post, the solution to Jean-Pierre's problem lies elsewhere. Peter Gill. From gillp@bigpond.com Thu Mar 27 05:39:21 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:39:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] RE: [blml] Réf. : RE: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: <034a01c2f423$38e416a0$30c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Sven Pran wrote: >Please avoid making problems where none exist! No, there was a problem but you did not understand what it was. >You may read Law 20C2 which should be clear enough in >addition to the other laws. No, L2C2 refers only to a review of the auction, not to asking clarifying questions. As stated before, the solution lies elsewhere. >And you may read my other post where I summed up the correct >procedure to be followed after three consecutive passes which did not help as, although it was the correct procedure, it was not taken directly from the Laws. Peter Gill. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 06:47:38 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:47:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 4 Message-ID: Grattan wrote: [snip] >North did not possess UI. So his bid of 2S is to be >judged as an action based upon general knowledge and >experience. Can he recognize on this basis that when >partner pulls 1NTx he is likely to have a sandwich NT, or >would his hand likely be based upon a single suit? Does >he need special information based on partnership >experience or partnership agreement to reach the >conclusion as to the probable situation on which he >bases his 2S bid? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The TD ruled misbid. The AC, with no further info from the partnership, ruled MI. Therefore, the only way that the AC could legally overrule the TD on fact was by reinterpreting the evidence provided by the actual cards and the actual calls. Perhaps the TD and/or the AC should have used a consultation process by giving various peers the actual North hand, and asking those peers what call they would make. If the overwhelming majority of those peers also chose 2S, then bidding 2S is not sufficient evidence of MI. Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Mar 27 05:59:04 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:59:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] L20F2 References: Message-ID: <004401c2f428$1a83a720$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Todd Zimnoch" > I play > under an assumption (sometimes proved false) that my parter is > adult enough to ask for needed information. > I play under an assumption (often true) that my partner is too inexperienced to ask for needed information. Too bad, partner must fend for theirself. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Mar 27 06:12:39 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:12:39 -0800 Subject: [blml] L20F2 References: <031101c2f420$6ed6d8e0$30c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <004501c2f428$1ac6caa0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Peter Gill" > > I wonder whether the delicate meanings of the headings in Law 20F > have survived translation into other languages such as French? > That is irrelevant, as the headings of the Laws are not an integral part of the Laws. That's good, since there are so many poor ones. For example: Law 20 itself is misnamed. It should be REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF AUCTION. Also, L20F's title should be Explanation of Auction. The current titles are fossils left over from the time when one could request an explanation of a particular call. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Mar 27 06:29:55 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:29:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyching References: <000101c2f29d$efe36680$9a9637d2@Desktop> <5.1.0.14.0.20030326182633.00aa9470@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002d01c2f42a$4917de60$25b54351@noos.fr> Alain: > AG : perhaps it's routine, but only if partner has already performed this > psyche. And if you use such a bid to check that there was no psyche, you're > playing a system where it is specified that a psyche is possible (2NT = > either natural or ...). You thus have to explain it. If you do, no quarrels > from me. 1. This is silly. What do you want? The explanation 'might be a psyche' is true by definition for any bid by any player. You might (and must) explain 'this partner psyches often in this situation' if this is the case. 2. A bid to cater for a psyche is legal as long as your suspicion comes from the cards you are holding and not from partnership experience. In that case the cater-bid is still legal as such (in the end you can bid what you want) but you probably have MI problems. 3. In my career my different partners have done their bit of psyching. In serious contexts on average maybe once a year, probably less (not counting 'standard' tactical bids). Only once I didn't realize what was going on. 4. I agree completely with John that bidding 3H (and then 7NT) is sound bridge. I might easily miss it at the table of course, only once in my lifetime I have seen a 2NT psych with a unpassed partner, but that I would consider as a mistake. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyching > At 16:59 26/03/2003 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >In article , Tim > >West-Meads writes > > >Wayne wrote: > > > > > >> "It is not dissimilar to psyching. Psyching is part of the game which > > >> happens to cause annoyance in some people. Psyching remains legal, > > >> frivolous psyching intended primarily to annoy opps is illegal." > > >> > > >> NZCBA (New Zealand Contract Bridge Association) have a regulation > > >> outlawing frivolous psyching. > > >> > > >> That regulation defines frivolous psyching as twice per session. > > > > > >Probably about right on average. Suitable hands for psyches are bit like > > >buses. None for a while then 3 come along in quick succession. A player > > >averaging 2 psyches a session is probably verging on the frivolous > > >(although obviously each psyche must be assessed on its merits). > > >I don't see how successful psyches could be ruled "frivolous" however many > > >occurred. > > > > > >> I recently questioned that regulation and received this answer: > > >> > > >> ""Psychics": this argument has been around for as long as the laws. Law > > >> 74A2 refers to actions that cause annoyance and loss of enjoyment of the > > >> game to others. The NZCBA (and other jurisdictions) have used > > >> regulations around this law to give guidance to players and Directors > > >> alike about what is acceptable attitude and what is not. When psychic > > >> bidding is used frequently, partners subconsciously expect it , and > > >> allow for it in their bidding. > > > > > >This is not true. It is quite possible to expect psyches and not make > > >bids to cater to them. Just as it is possible to select calls which > > >better cope with partner having psyched even when the psyche is > > >unexpected. > > > > > >> This makes it an undisclosed and hence illegal system. > > > >Please comment on bidding 3H (transfer) on Axx KQJxx AQx Kx, when > >partner opens 2NT at favourable. fwiw, I consider it entirely routine. > > AG : perhaps it's routine, but only if partner has already performed this > psyche. And if you use such a bid to check that there was no psyche, you're > playing a system where it is specified that a psyche is possible (2NT = > either natural or ...). You thus have to explain it. If you do, no quarrels > from me. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Mar 27 06:34:06 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:34:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030326170019.02884a50@mail.fscv.net> Message-ID: <003801c2f42a$dedfae00$25b54351@noos.fr> And don't forget the pass/passe variation. Fortunately French bidding box cards might die out since the English replacements are much cheaper. And yes even the French can stand English bidding box material. By the way I sell the stuff in case you are interested. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "John (MadDog) Probst" ; Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) > > > >Richard wrote: > > >Snip > > >> A more typical highly irrational agreement is those > > >> partnerships who play "optional double over preempts": > > >> > > >> a) 3H - fast double = penalty double/3NT overcall > > >> b) 3H - slow double = singleton/void in hearts > > At 11:49 AM 26/03/2003, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >It actually also depends whether you put the bidding cards down with > >your left or right hand. Everyone knows that. > > > And don't forget to include the difference between doubling with a card > that says "X" and one that says "D". There can be many nuances here. > > You may have to sit N/S and get to the table early to insure that you have > both types of double cards, though - unless you bring your own. > > Walt > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Mar 27 06:40:47 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:40:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF documents References: Message-ID: <004001c2f42b$cdfd5d20$25b54351@noos.fr> I agree to most if not all remarks. But the only conclusion is that all serious bridge should be played with screens. Screens are not very good against intentional cheating but they are good UI killers. Maybe on-line is better still (you can get explanations from both sides witch solves the infamous misinformation/misbid problem) but on-line creates other serious security problems. These can be solved to play championship physically in one building (or two) but all with our individual terminal. Solves almost all problems. But is it still bridge? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] WBF documents > Richard wrote: > > > >>It is not illegal to ask a question which gives UI > > >>to partner (albeit he is constrained), it is illegal > > >>to ask a question *intended* to give UI to partner. > > > > I believe that both questions are illegal, as I do not > > see any statement about intent in Law 73A1: > > You are captain in the auction. You are trying to choose between 6S and > 6N, you know damn well partner isn't going to participate in the hand > anymore. You question opponents carefully about several of their calls > and it becomes clear to partner what your issue is. You make your choice > and the auction continues PPP. Do you really think your questions were > illegal? There is no way a TD is going to adjust in your favour if you > fail to ask and make the wrong choice (opps haven't misinformed you, but > you need greater detail than is shown on their cc) so if we do say that > the questions are illegal we give the player no winning option. That > doesn't seem right to me. > > The balance between disclosure and UI is a tricky one but I am of the view > that if a player does his best to minimise the UI created when asking the > questions to which he needs answers and his partner carefully avoids > taking advantage of any UI so created then nothing illegal has happened. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Mar 27 07:12:20 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:12:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyching References: Message-ID: <008b01c2f430$4ade85e0$25b54351@noos.fr> Richard, Are you and Wayne on the same wavelength ? > >Last night playing with a regular partner who has seldom > >psyched (maybe once or twice in over two years) > > Therefore, you have an implicit partnership agreement that > pard psyches with a frequency of once per year. If, > instead, your partner had been Jeff Rubens, you would have > had an implicit partnership agreement that your partner > never psyches. Come on, this is silly. If you 'know' a partner psyches less than once a year or so there is no such thing as an implicit agreement (yeah, anything can be called such). You just play with a normal player who doesn't psych but who like all of us can be tempted when the perfect hand comes along when the moon is full or whatever incentive you need (what about 20 imp down with 4 boards to go, even Jeff Rubens might do that). In the end a psyche is supposed to be unexpected. For me psyches become a 'problem' if you start fiddling with them being unexpected. > >I opened the bidding in third seat, the opponent doubled > >and partner bid a new suit at the one-level and I had > >nice four-card support. Subsequently she gave a > >preference for my suit. I suspected that she had psyched > >and catered to that possibility by not returning > >preference to her 'suit'. > > English regulations classify this as a Red Psyche, and an > English TD would have ruled against you. The EBU reg is > based on the idea that selecting a non-logical alternative > based upon the assumption that pard - rather than an > opponent - has psyched is demonstrable evidence of a CPU. > > (The EBU permits you to field pard's psyche where AI from > your cards and the auction make a psyche from pard the > only logical alternative.) This is about what is known in the literature as the baby-psych. You don't see it often at serious level anymore because there it tends to be ineffective. But it remains low-risk and quite effective against non expert opponents. If I open in third and the bidding goes 1D-x-1S I always take into account any partner has D rather than spades, as do the opponents. This is why they call it a baby-psych. This is why double is penalties in this situation. I consider myself this EBU regulation as unlawful. Psyching is part of the game, and I can anticipate a psych as long as it is not based an any form of partnership understanding and such. By the way, I would always support with four (not too high) because partner is supposed to be able to handle that (normally he has three small with a fit) and we should be fine in 3D. Anyway I don't consider the baby-psych to be a psych at all but a well documented standard tactical gimmick. > >Nevertheless I am confident that we have no partnership > >understanding to psyche there no any previous experience > >of a psyche in that situation. > > > >Fundamentally I am allowed to know that partner might > >have psyched because I know that psyching is part of the > >game and not because of any particular action that > >partner has taken in the past. > > Fundamentally wrong. The WBF CoP rules fielding of > psyches illegal if one of four conditions is met, > including: > > "(c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the > partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, > that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such > psychic calls to occur;" Here you are both right (imo). Richard refers to frequent past actions by partner.Wayne (for me) is still refering to this once a year or whatever experience. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:29 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Psyching > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >A psyche is not and can not be part of a system. > >A psyche is defined as a gross departure from 'system'. > > Correct. > > >It can be part of partnership experience. > > > >I think that it is legitimate to know that a psyche is > >possible based on general bridge knowledge rather than > >specific partnership understanding and to cater to that. > > > >Last night playing with a regular partner who has seldom > >psyched (maybe once or twice in over two years) > > Therefore, you have an implicit partnership agreement that > pard psyches with a frequency of once per year. If, > instead, your partner had been Jeff Rubens, you would have > had an implicit partnership agreement that your partner > never psyches. > > >I opened the bidding in third seat, the opponent doubled > >and partner bid a new suit at the one-level and I had > >nice four-card support. Subsequently she gave a > >preference for my suit. I suspected that she had psyched > >and catered to that possibility by not returning > >preference to her 'suit'. > > English regulations classify this as a Red Psyche, and an > English TD would have ruled against you. The EBU reg is > based on the idea that selecting a non-logical alternative > based upon the assumption that pard - rather than an > opponent - has psyched is demonstrable evidence of a CPU. > > (The EBU permits you to field pard's psyche where AI from > your cards and the auction make a psyche from pard the > only logical alternative.) > > >Nevertheless I am confident that we have no partnership > >understanding to psyche there no any previous experience > >of a psyche in that situation. > > > >Fundamentally I am allowed to know that partner might > >have psyched because I know that psyching is part of the > >game and not because of any particular action that > >partner has taken in the past. > > Fundamentally wrong. The WBF CoP rules fielding of > psyches illegal if one of four conditions is met, > including: > > "(c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the > partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, > that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such > psychic calls to occur;" > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 27 07:34:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:34:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_=5Bblml=5D_RE:_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f._:_RE:_=5Bblml=5D_L20F2?= In-Reply-To: <034a01c2f423$38e416a0$30c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <000101c2f433$4d408a60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Peter Gill ......... > Sven Pran wrote: > >Please avoid making problems where none exist! >=20 >=20 > No, there was a problem but you did not understand what it was. >=20 > >You may read Law 20C2 which should be clear enough in > >addition to the other laws. >=20 > No, L2C2 refers only to a review of the auction, not to asking > clarifying questions. As stated before, the solution lies elsewhere. When I was first trained to become a TD our teacher stressed the = importance that we not only read the laws we had found applicable but also included = the other laws and footnotes referred to from such laws. Law 20C2 refers to Laws 41B and 41C which therefore are an integral part = of the rules laid out in Law 20C2! (Internal) references in the laws are there for a reason. Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Mar 27 08:08:49 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:08:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyching References: <000101c2f29d$efe36680$9a9637d2@Desktop> <1gVMERBkxdg+Ew06@asimere.com> Message-ID: <3E82B191.9040903@skynet.be> Hello John, From the number of posts I deduce you are back from your travels? John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > Please comment on bidding 3H (transfer) on Axx KQJxx AQx Kx, when > partner opens 2NT at favourable. fwiw, I consider it entirely routine. > I would not comment on this bid, but rather on the bidding, especially if partner actually passes the transfer. That would seem like a psychic control to me. When I make a psyche, I carefully avoid making any further calls that might uncover it. Passing the transfer is equal to saying "I don't really have 20 points, please double us". If I'd ever be as bold as opening a strong 2NT in first hand, I'd quietly complete the transfer and end up playing 7NT. So I would not question the 3He, but I would question the Pass. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Mar 27 08:22:31 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:22:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: , it can logically be only for > > >partner's benefit, perhaps assisting him in > > >choosing the opening lead. Do I have any recourse > > >against such players, given that there is no > > >highlighting of a particular suit? > > > > Yes, your recourse is to migrate to England. The > > EBU has a regulation modifying Law 20F1, with an > > additional requirement for the questioner to have a > > "need" to know. You are not proud of that are you? ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Mar 27 08:26:32 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:26:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: > > Law 20 itself is misnamed. It should be REVIEW AND > EXPLANATION OF AUCTION. > Also, L20F's title should be Explanation of Auction. The > current titles are > fossils left over from the time when one could request an > explanation of a > particular call. It was said before: we still don't mind if players do so. Grattan can show the minutes saying this more precisely. ton > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Mar 27 09:00:58 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:00:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: > From: "Sven Pran" > > >The correct procedure (where face up opening leads has not > been prescribed) > is: > > 1: After three consecutive passes the player on the presumed > declarer's left > asks whatever clarifying questions he feels he needs answered. > > > After asking for an "explanation of the auction." If the > explanation > isn't sufficient, then parts of it may be further questioned. > The questioner > must do his best to avoid revealing an interest in a particular suit. > Marvin: > I constantly encounter opponents who, as the presumed > declarer's RHO, ask > for an explanation of the auction before making the final > pass. This despite > having no intention, obviously, of doing anything other than > pass. Since > such a request could be delayed until the opening lead is > face down on the > table, it can logically be only for partner's benefit, Logically spoken this is a wrong conclusion, since it also can be for the player's own benefit. And relating the possibility for questioning to the call to be made, as the EBU does, really is no good solution in my opinion. > perhaps assisting > him in choosing the opening lead. Do I have any recourse against such > players, given that there is no highlighting of a particular suit? > The answer is 'no', if I understand what you say. 'no highlighting of a particular suit' seems to say no UI nor a suggestion. What recourse to be given? ton > Marv From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Mar 27 09:30:12 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:30:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: > > Laval Dubreuil > > Small club, one section, no hand records. > > Mitchell movement. > > > > At round 2, players count their cards on board 1 > > before looking at: 12 cards in East hand, 14 in West. > > > > The TD is called, check with pair 1 E-W and is told > > by both players: "Our hands were like that when we > > played this board. There was 7 clubs in West's hand > > and 3 in East". He then ask to pair 1 N-S and both > > players told: "There was only 6 clubs in West's hand > > when we played the board". > > > > The contract was 4SX making 4 by N-S (a bad result... > > 5C down 2 should be much better...). > > > > Law 13C instruct the TD to cancel a board when it was > > played with 12 cards in one hand and 14 in another hand. > > But here, players did not agree on that fact. The TD > > was not able to restore the board and asked players > > to reshuffle. Sven: > There is no result with which to compare the result > originally obtained at > table 1 so whatever you do this result has no meaning. > > According to your description you cannot establish as a fact > that there was > anything wrong with the board at table 1, you have no way of > determining how > the error developed, you have no way of knowing which of the > cards later > found in West really belongs in East; and most important you > have no way of > telling who is at fault. > > Thus the board must be cancelled as it was originally played > at table 1. > My preferred alternatives is 1 followed by 2 with the > modification that both > sides get A+. > > Regards Sven > This is an astonishing soft approach for strictness oriented TD's as the Norwegians seem to be. You tell us that EW can play with 14 - 12, not counting cards, and then receive average plus? This opens the can of more than ugly worms the English have available. Let me give you my solution: if NS have a convincing argument telling which of the 14 cards belonged to East (or if it doesn't matter which card goes to East) that will be the change and the result stands. I will tell the AC that a player who didn't notice to have 14 cards didn't notice to have 7 clubs either and the proof is from the 'ongerijmde' (I don't know the English word for it: contradiction-like). West also will be sure to have let us say 3 diamonds, 2 hearts an 2 spades. But then he was sure to have 14 and shouldn't have played the hand. Etc. The AC, if it knows its job, will love my decision. And if there remains considerable doubt, EW receive the table result if that is less than average minus and NS gets average plus. ton From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 27 10:14:37 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:14:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c2f449$ac45f110$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Kooijman, A. > Sven: > > My preferred alternatives is 1 followed by 2 with the > > modification that both > > sides get A+. > > > > Regards Sven > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > This is an astonishing soft approach for strictness=20 > oriented TD's as the Norwegians seem to be. >=20 > You tell us that EW can play with 14 - 12, not counting=20 > cards, and then receive average plus? This opens the can > of more than ugly worms the English have available. How do you know (from the description we received) that EW must have = played the board with 12-14? There was no claim so the board was played through = all 13 tricks. Isn't it far more probable that they played the board with = 13-13 and that the hands were mixed up afterwards?=20 Yes, we may be strict when we smell a rat, but first you have to show = the rat and in this case it hasn't been shown. We cannot even tell how, when = or by whom the hands were mixed up. How do you know that one of East's cards wasn't mixed in between West's cards before they were returned to the pocket? How do you know that N-S = did not look at the board again before passing the cards to the next table? = How do you know that E-W at the next table did not somehow mix up the cards = in the process of taking them from the pockets?=20 Your following text appears to be based upon the assumption that E-W are "guilty", but you have no evidence of this, not even circumstantial evidence. Unless you determine beyond any reasonable doubt that E-W have infracted some law may you rule any penalty against them. >=20 > Let me give you my solution: if NS have a convincing argument telling > which > of the 14 cards belonged to East (or if it doesn't matter which card = goes > to East) that will be the change and the result stands. I will tell = the AC > that a player who didn't notice to have 14 cards didn't notice to have = 7 > clubs either and the proof is from the 'ongerijmde' (I don't know the > English word for it: contradiction-like). West also will be sure to = have > let > us say 3 diamonds, 2 hearts an 2 spades. But then he was sure to have = 14 > and > shouldn't have played the hand. Etc. The AC, if it knows its job, will > love > my decision. If I remember correct West swore that he had 7 clubs while North swore = that West only had 6 during the play? What is your reason to believe one and = not the other? If West is correct he has played with 14 cards, why was that not = discovered during the play? If North is correct then the hand must have been mixed up after the = play. >=20 >=20 >=20 > And if there remains considerable doubt, EW receive the table result = if > that > is less than average minus and NS gets average plus. Why on earth such an unfounded ruling? Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Thu Mar 27 10:27:20 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:27:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: "Peter Gill" Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 27/03/03 06:19 =20 Pour : "BLML" cc :=20 Objet : Re: [blml] L20F2 Jean-Pierre Rocavert asked: >in order to select his opening lead, a defender may wish to get an >explanation of opponents' calls, but is he allowed to ask for it a the >instant he is about to lead? conjunction of L17E and L20F2 is a bit >confusing about this point. True, and Sven added to the confusion by confusing the terms "Auction Period" and 'auction' in his posts, and by confusing "an explanation of the opponents' calls" with 'a review of the auction'. Thus I will ignore everything Sven wrote and start again. First, a reassurance that the Laws are fine as they stand, and that although there is some confusion it can be clarified. If the two headings in 20F were Before the Final Pass and After the Final Pass, there would be no confusion, would there, Jean-Pierre? Below I explain that the actual headings mean the same as that, anyway. *** there would be less but it's not very important a we know the headers=20 should not be taken too seriously and are only there to help readers to=20 find the right page in the book to solve a problem. *** You may need a copy of the Laws in front of you in order to understand the following. Law 17E states that the Auction Period ends when the opening lead is faced. Law 20F has headings "1. During the Auction" and '2. During the Play Period'. Due to Law 17E, one might wrongly think that the opening lead is "1. During the Auction" in Law 20F. It is not! The first words of 20F(1) are "During the auction and before the final pass". As the word "and" in that sentence means that BOTH provisos apply to the rest of 20F(1), 20F1 does not refer to "During the Auction Period". It is 20F2 which includes the time when the opening lead is about to be made. The first words of 20F(2) are "After the final pass and throughout the play", which could equally well say "After the final pass or throughout the play", for that means exactly the same thing. The opening lead is after the final pass and is thus covered by Law 20F2. Not by Law 20F1 Jean-Pierre, does this remove the confusion? *** partly. the first words in 20F2 "After the final pass and throughout the=20 play" are followed by "at his own turn to play" and it should be made=20 clear how to conciliate "after the final pass (and until the end of the=20 auction period)" with "his turn to play" as the laws seem to want the=20 opening lead not to be considered as a "play": it is not included in the=20 "play period", it doesn't conform to 45a (the card is not faced), and=20 contradicts 44b (following an opening lead, it's not next player's turn to = play but a few procedures must be previously taken). To prevent any=20 confusion, i should prefer L20F to have 3 parts: 1. during the auction period and before the final pass 2. during the auction period and after the final pass 3. during the play period=20 the second part should probably be described otherwise as most of readers=20 would wonder what this time period means. *** I wonder whether the delicate meanings of the headings in Law 20F have survived translation into other languages such as French? *** yes, in the french version, the headings are a litteral translation. jpr ***=20 Peter Gill Australia. =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=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 Thu Mar 27 10:47:11 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:47:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: > > > > This is an astonishing soft approach for strictness > > oriented TD's as the Norwegians seem to be. > If West is correct he has played with 14 cards, why was that > not discovered > during the play? This is another case in which a contributor doesn't want to admit he is wrong. I have never met a situation in which two players take out 13 cards after which they start playing with 12 - 14. It is not impossible, I agree, but a TD needs some guts. Either west played with 13 and then the rsult stands or he played with 14 and then the penalty should take care for the advantage he receives by getting a favourable average minus. And yes I have a strong feeling that something has happened after the play resulting in a bad score. But I won't say so, I only would 'do' so. ton From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 27 10:49:29 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:49:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c2f44e$8b5b2d30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr ........ > Jean-Pierre, does this remove the confusion? > *** > partly. the first words in 20F2 "After the final pass and throughout = the > play" are followed by "at his own turn to play" and it should be made > clear how to conciliate "after the final pass (and until the end of = the > auction period)" with "his turn to play" as the laws seem to want the > opening lead not to be considered as a "play": it is not included in = the > "play period", it doesn't conform to 45a (the card is not faced It is still his "turn to play". But there are a few more things to happen before he actually completes = his opening lead which he initiates by selecting a card and placing it face = down on the table in front of him. Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 27 11:02:51 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:02:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c2f450$694f4940$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Kooijman, A.=20 .......... > > If West is correct he has played with 14 cards, why was that > > not discovered > > during the play? >=20 >=20 >=20 > This is another case in which a contributor doesn't want to admit he = is > wrong. How was trick 12 played? If N-S fouled the board afterwards would you trust them to admit that? >=20 > I have never met a situation in which two players take out 13 cards = after > which they start playing with 12 - 14. It is not impossible, I agree, = but > a > TD needs some guts. The TD must not start off on a track looking for corroborating evidence against a player he intuitively believes has made some infraction of the laws. He must do his best to find out what actually happened. As far as the events at table 1 is concerned there are indications that = the play was completed with 13 cards in each hand and that somehow one card = from East found it's way in among West's cards after the play. There are of course also indications that West held 14 cards all the time, but = neither alternative is significantly more probable than the other. >=20 > Either west played with 13 and then the rsult stands or he played with = 14 > and then the penalty should take care for the advantage he receives by > getting a favourable average minus. And yes I have a strong feeling = that > something has happened after the play resulting in a bad score. But I > won't > say so, I only would 'do' so. You must never penalize because you believe or feel, you may penalize because you know. It certainly feels strange for me to remind any competent person of this simple fact which is equally important in bridge as it is in the penal court. Sven From gillp@bigpond.com Thu Mar 27 11:10:18 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:10:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: <003801c2f451$768bd8c0$ea8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Jean-Pierre Rocavert asked: >>>in order to select his opening lead, a defender may wish to get >>>an explanation of opponents' calls, but is he allowed to ask for >>>it at the instant he is about to lead? conjunction of L17E and >>>L20F2 is a bit confusing about this point. Peter Gill replied: >>Law 17E states that the Auction Period ends when the opening >>lead is faced. >> >>Law 20F has headings >>"1. During the Auction" and '2. During the Play Period'. >> >>Due to Law 17E, one might wrongly think that the opening lead >>is "1. During the Auction" in Law 20F. It is not! >> >>The first words of 20F(1) are "During the auction and before >>the final pass". As the word "and" in that sentence means that >>BOTH provisos apply to the rest of 20F(1), 20F1 does not refer >>to "During the Auction Period". It is 20F2 which includes the time >>when the opening lead is about to be made. The first words of >>20F(2) are "After the final pass and throughout the play", >>which could equally well say "After the final pass or throughout >>the play", for that means exactly the same thing. The opening >>lead is after the final pass and is thus covered by Law 20F2. >>Not by Law 20F1 >> >>Jean-Pierre, does this remove the confusion? Jean-Pierre continued: >partly. the first words in 20F2 "After the final pass and throughout >the play" are followed by "at his own turn to play" and it should be >made clear how to conciliate "after the final pass (and until the >end of the auction period)" with "his turn to play" as the laws some laws, rather than "the laws", IMO. >seem to want the opening lead not to be considered as a "play": >it is not included in the "play period", it doesn't conform to 45a >(the card is not faced), and contradicts 44b (following an opening >lead, it's not next player's turn to play but a few procedures must >be previously taken). However the Definition of "play" at the start of the Laws states "including the first card, which is the lead". I tend to trust definitions. Jean-Pierre: >To prevent any confusion, i should prefer L20F to have 3 parts: >1. during the auction period and before the final pass >2. during the auction period and after the final pass >3. during the play period >the second part should probably be described otherwise as >most of readers would wonder what this time period means. A good point IMO. I agree that it could and perhaps should be expressed better. Not that my opinion means much, except perhaps that it is nice for you to know that you are not alone in thinking that a small improvement to the Laws is possible here. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 27 12:20:10 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:20:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: References: <003901c2f3a5$fa40cf60$11242850@pacific> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030327131445.026fb730@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:31 26/03/2003 +0000, you wrote: >Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ I quote again one of the defining clauses any one of > > which makes it a HUM system: > > "As a matter of partnership agreement a pass in > > the opening position may have values generally accepted > > for an opening bid of one, and the player who passes > > may hold values a queen or more above the strength of > > an average hand (an average hand contains 10HCP)". > >Oh gawd. Just a few days ago I recommended to the EBU online community >that they start playing an HUM system. Why oh why did I suggest that the >best thing to do with a 4441 hand and 12/bad 13 points was to pass. I >hope none of them agree that with their partners! >Presumably Roth-Stoners are playing HUM too. AG : did you suggest that one should open at the 1-level with 4441 10-counts and pass with 4441 12-counts ? If you did, then HUM. Apart from that, you're right, the limit of 12 HCP is a bit low, as many will routinely pass so-so flat 12-counts. But passing a 3325 15-count is a bidding card of another color. I think that the Lawmakers intended to mean "systems where partner will account for the fact that you may have a hand of 12+" ,and open accordingly light in 4th hand, like in MarMic. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 27 12:26:32 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:26:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <001101c2f3e0$80746210$edce36d2@Desktop> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030326182633.00aa9470@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030327132104.026e3820@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:41 27/03/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >A psyche is not and can not be part of a system. >A psyche is defined as a gross departure from 'system'. > >It can be part of partnership experience. > >I think that it is legitimate to know that a psyche is possible >based on general bridge knowledge rather than specific partnership >understanding and to cater to that. AG : but if partner pade twice the same psyche, you will be specifically alerted to the fact that *this* bid might be a psyche. That, ia, is what 75B covers IMOBO. >And if you use such a bid to check that there was no > psyche, you're > playing a system where it is specified that 2NT = > either natural but it is legally possible that partner >has psyched. AG : please note that "psyche controls" like in original KS or RS are disallowed in many countries, because of that mere fact : they take into account the possibility of a psyche, and as such make a psyche part of the system. BTW, none of the experts I polled (only 7 this time) found your 'routine' 3H bid, which means that it is less routine for them, which in turn means that you're alerted to the possibility of a psyche more than they are. *That* is from partnership experience, or I'm badly wrong. Best regards, Alain. From john@asimere.com Thu Mar 27 12:14:57 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:14:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: <003801c2f42a$dedfae00$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030326170019.02884a50@mail.fscv.net> <003801c2f42a$dedfae00$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <1Dc8cjABtug+EwG3@asimere.com> In article <003801c2f42a$dedfae00$25b54351@noos.fr>, Jaap van der Neut writes >And don't forget the pass/passe variation. Fortunately French bidding box >cards might die out since the English replacements are much cheaper. And yes >even the French can stand English bidding box material. By the way I sell >the stuff in case you are interested. > Je dis, 1e Calais, et maintenant des encheres :) John >Jaap -- 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 agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 27 12:35:53 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:35:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <002d01c2f42a$4917de60$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <000101c2f29d$efe36680$9a9637d2@Desktop> <5.1.0.14.0.20030326182633.00aa9470@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030327132812.026fbaf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:29 27/03/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Alain: > > AG : perhaps it's routine, but only if partner has already performed this > > psyche. And if you use such a bid to check that there was no psyche, >you're > > playing a system where it is specified that a psyche is possible (2NT = > > either natural or ...). You thus have to explain it. If you do, no >quarrels > > from me. > >1. This is silly. What do you want? The explanation 'might be a psyche' is >true by definition for any bid by any player. You might (and must) explain >'this partner psyches often in this situation' if this is the case. AG : I don't know why you call me silly. I do agree with your point up to here. Am I right in classifying as such ? a) the bid was never psyched by your pair, or it was psyched only very rarely : all rights to you, including your item #2 hereunder b) the pair was psyched by your pair with some frequency, enough to make you make provisions for the case where it would be a psyche (like the 3H bid in the original case). You have to alert it because you know. That's what I meant, and that's also what you say. WTP ? >2. A bid to cater for a psyche is legal as long as your suspicion comes from >the cards you are holding and not from partnership experience. In that case >the cater-bid is still legal as such (in the end you can bid what you want) >but you probably have MI problems. > >3. In my career my different partners have done their bit of psyching. In >serious contexts on average maybe once a year, probably less (not counting >'standard' tactical bids). Only once I didn't realize what was going on. > >4. I agree completely with John that bidding 3H (and then 7NT) is sound >bridge. I might easily miss it at the table of course, only once in my >lifetime I have seen a 2NT psych with a unpassed partner, but that I would >consider as a mistake. AG : the experts I polled don't. One thought the 2NT bid might be a psyche, but immediately declared 'I'm not allowed to take it into account'. In Belgium, as in England as Richard tells us, the 3H bid would be classified as 'fielding the psyche' and thus disallowed. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 27 12:37:23 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:37:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: <003801c2f42a$dedfae00$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030326170019.02884a50@mail.fscv.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030327133629.026ecb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:34 27/03/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >And don't forget the pass/passe variation. Fortunately French bidding box >cards might die out since the English replacements are much cheaper. And yes >even the French can stand English bidding box material. By the way I sell >the stuff in case you are interested. AG : let me add another item : passes (or doubles) with top-left- and top-right handles. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 27 12:40:55 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:40:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <008b01c2f430$4ade85e0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030327133808.026c79d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:12 27/03/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > >I opened the bidding in third seat, the opponent doubled > > >and partner bid a new suit at the one-level and I had > > >nice four-card support. Subsequently she gave a > > >preference for my suit. I suspected that she had psyched > > >and catered to that possibility by not returning > > >preference to her 'suit'. > > > > English regulations classify this as a Red Psyche, and an > > English TD would have ruled against you. The EBU reg is > > based on the idea that selecting a non-logical alternative > > based upon the assumption that pard - rather than an > > opponent - has psyched is demonstrable evidence of a CPU. > > > > (The EBU permits you to field pard's psyche where AI from > > your cards and the auction make a psyche from pard the > > only logical alternative.) > >This is about what is known in the literature as the baby-psych. You don't >see it often at serious level anymore because there it tends to be >ineffective. But it remains low-risk and quite effective against non expert >opponents. AG : did you ever try the baby-psyche-psyche ? 1H X 1S X 2C p 3H ... with the automatic effect on LHO that he bids 3S. Alas for him, you *do* hold spades. From john@asimere.com Thu Mar 27 12:28:44 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:28:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030327132104.026e3820@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030326182633.00aa9470@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001101c2f3e0$80746210$edce36d2@Desktop> <5.1.0.14.0.20030327132104.026e3820@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: In article <5.1.0.14.0.20030327132104.026e3820@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 09:41 27/03/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>A psyche is not and can not be part of a system. >>A psyche is defined as a gross departure from 'system'. >> >>It can be part of partnership experience. >> snip > >AG : please note that "psyche controls" like in original KS or RS are >disallowed in many countries, because of that mere fact : they take into >account the possibility of a psyche, and as such make a psyche part of the >system. > >BTW, none of the experts I polled (only 7 this time) found your 'routine' >3H bid, which means that it is less routine for them, which in turn means >that you're alerted to the possibility of a psyche more than they are. >*That* is from partnership experience, or I'm badly wrong. > It has nothing to do with partnership experience. It is general bridge knowledge that every now and then a player will open 2N at favourable, first in, on a flattish four count. Well, they do where I play ... just as they might overcall 1NT now and then with a bust and a six card suit, or respond 1S to 1H with a small doubleton, or psyche a 2-level response on a singleton and a seven count after a take-out double. If where you play the possibility doesn't enter your head, then your peer group has stopped playing bridge according to the Laws :) cheers john. >Best regards, > > Alain. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Mar 27 13:26:01 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:26:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyching References: <000101c2f29d$efe36680$9a9637d2@Desktop> <5.1.0.14.0.20030326182633.00aa9470@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030327132812.026fbaf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001c01c2f464$6a27dee0$25b54351@noos.fr> Alain: > AG : I don't know why you call me silly. I do agree with your point up to here. Sorry, I did not call you silly. I just refered to 'a psych being possible'. This is silly in the sense that in a way it is the definition of a psyche. You cannot start explaining every bid as being either honest or a psych if partner's psyching frequency is normal. But I do agree completely that all changes if you have partnership experience info (meaning partner has known non-normal psyching habits). But here I assume you don't. By the way, I bloody well know this area is sensitve to dishonest players. But here I assume honest players. Alain: > In Belgium, as in England as Richard tells us, the 3H bid would be > classified as 'fielding the psyche' and thus disallowed. This is against the bridge laws. Both the intention and the letter. Fielding a psych is completely legal as long as you don't use illegal info. You are allowed to use your bridge skills and judgement. Playing with (or against !) Zia I would be more on guard than playing with Hamman. Do you want to argue that the common knowledge that Zia has more fantasy than Hamman restricts his partner? Now Zia would never open 2NT as psych (that is plain stupid) but that is beside the point. By the way, I agree that we tend not to give the benefit of the doubt in certain cases (I wouldn't). Alain: > AG : the experts I polled don't. One thought the 2NT bid might be a psyche, > but immediately declared 'I'm not allowed to take it into account'. This expert doesn't understand the rules. Give me one reason why you cannot take a psych into account (assuming honest players and no relevant partnership info). By the way, another reason to start a sequence is to fake a misunderstanding provoking a double. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyching > At 07:29 27/03/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >Alain: > > > AG : perhaps it's routine, but only if partner has already performed this > > > psyche. And if you use such a bid to check that there was no psyche, > >you're > > > playing a system where it is specified that a psyche is possible (2NT = > > > either natural or ...). You thus have to explain it. If you do, no > >quarrels > > > from me. > > > >1. This is silly. What do you want? The explanation 'might be a psyche' is > >true by definition for any bid by any player. You might (and must) explain > >'this partner psyches often in this situation' if this is the case. > > AG : I don't know why you call me silly. I do agree with your point up to here. > > Am I right in classifying as such ? > > a) the bid was never psyched by your pair, or it was psyched only very > rarely : all rights to you, including your item #2 hereunder > b) the pair was psyched by your pair with some frequency, enough to make > you make provisions for the case where it would be a psyche (like the 3H > bid in the original case). You have to alert it because you know. > That's what I meant, and that's also what you say. WTP ? > > > >2. A bid to cater for a psyche is legal as long as your suspicion comes from > >the cards you are holding and not from partnership experience. In that case > >the cater-bid is still legal as such (in the end you can bid what you want) > >but you probably have MI problems. > > > >3. In my career my different partners have done their bit of psyching. In > >serious contexts on average maybe once a year, probably less (not counting > >'standard' tactical bids). Only once I didn't realize what was going on. > > > >4. I agree completely with John that bidding 3H (and then 7NT) is sound > >bridge. I might easily miss it at the table of course, only once in my > >lifetime I have seen a 2NT psych with a unpassed partner, but that I would > >consider as a mistake. > > > AG : the experts I polled don't. One thought the 2NT bid might be a psyche, > but immediately declared 'I'm not allowed to take it into account'. > > In Belgium, as in England as Richard tells us, the 3H bid would be > classified as 'fielding the psyche' and thus disallowed. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Mar 27 13:31:44 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:31:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyching References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030327133808.026c79d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002701c2f465$36a2ac20$25b54351@noos.fr> Alain: > AG : did you ever try the baby-psyche-psyche ? > > 1H X 1S X > 2C p 3H > > ... with the automatic effect on LHO that he bids 3S. Alas for him, you > *do* hold spades. Well leave out the automatic. Of course I know this variation as well. But your reaction actually proves my statement that the baby-psych is not really a psych anymore. Everybody but a beginner knows this is a tricky situation, one of the very few one-level situations where the double is defined as penalty in standard theory, so the essence of a psych (being unexpected) doesn't hold true. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyching > At 08:12 27/03/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > >I opened the bidding in third seat, the opponent doubled > > > >and partner bid a new suit at the one-level and I had > > > >nice four-card support. Subsequently she gave a > > > >preference for my suit. I suspected that she had psyched > > > >and catered to that possibility by not returning > > > >preference to her 'suit'. > > > > > > English regulations classify this as a Red Psyche, and an > > > English TD would have ruled against you. The EBU reg is > > > based on the idea that selecting a non-logical alternative > > > based upon the assumption that pard - rather than an > > > opponent - has psyched is demonstrable evidence of a CPU. > > > > > > (The EBU permits you to field pard's psyche where AI from > > > your cards and the auction make a psyche from pard the > > > only logical alternative.) > > > >This is about what is known in the literature as the baby-psych. You don't > >see it often at serious level anymore because there it tends to be > >ineffective. But it remains low-risk and quite effective against non expert > >opponents. > > AG : did you ever try the baby-psyche-psyche ? > > 1H X 1S X > 2C p 3H > > ... with the automatic effect on LHO that he bids 3S. Alas for him, you > *do* hold spades. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Mar 27 13:46:34 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:46:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030326170019.02884a50@mail.fscv.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030327133629.026ecb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <006901c2f467$489924c0$25b54351@noos.fr> And so we can go on. Did this silly EBL/WBF after incurring the cost of symmetric playing cards think of the problem of symmetric bidding box cards? In my experience they are quite sloppy even at major championships. So a small hint to the organizers. Make sure that every table has only one model of bidding box cards. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) > At 07:34 27/03/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >And don't forget the pass/passe variation. Fortunately French bidding box > >cards might die out since the English replacements are much cheaper. And yes > >even the French can stand English bidding box material. By the way I sell > >the stuff in case you are interested. > > AG : let me add another item : passes (or doubles) with top-left- and > top-right handles. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From toddz@att.net Thu Mar 27 14:43:21 2003 From: toddz@att.net (toddz@att.net) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:43:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: From: Marvin L. French > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > I play > > under an assumption (sometimes proved false) that my parter is > > adult enough to ask for needed information. > > > I play under an assumption (often true) that my partner is too inexperienced > to ask for needed information. Too bad, partner must fend for theirself. Even if the Laws allowed you to ask on your partner's behalf, would you do so? Why or why not? Personally, I wouldn't and I'd consider it an insult if my partner did so for me. -Todd From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Mar 27 15:27:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:27 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030327131445.026fb730@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > > > +=+ I quote again one of the defining clauses any one of > > > which makes it a HUM system: > > > "As a matter of partnership agreement a pass in > > > the opening position may have values generally accepted > > > for an opening bid of one, and the player who passes > > > may hold values a queen or more above the strength of > > > an average hand (an average hand contains 10HCP)". > > > >Oh gawd. Just a few days ago I recommended to the EBU online community > >that they start playing an HUM system. Why oh why did I suggest that > the > >best thing to do with a 4441 hand and 12/bad 13 points was to pass. I > >hope none of them agree that with their partners! > >Presumably Roth-Stoners are playing HUM too. > > AG : did you suggest that one should open at the 1-level with 4441 > 10-counts and pass with 4441 12-counts ? If you did, then HUM. No. I compared the agreement "We pass some 13 count 4441s first in hand" to the text supplied by Grattan and realised that it was HUM. It didn't seem much different from classifying "We pass single-suited club hands with 14 counts in all seats" as HUM. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Mar 27 15:27:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:27 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Law 73A1 (was WBF documents) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Tim wrote: > > [big snip] > > >The balance between disclosure and UI is a > >tricky one but I am of the view that if a > >player does his best to minimise the UI created > >when asking the questions to which he needs > >answers and his partner carefully avoids > >taking advantage of any UI so created then > >nothing illegal has happened. > > So, if a player does his best to minimise his > revokes, and his partner carefully avoids taking > any advantage of revokes so created, then nothing > illegal has happened. :-) I don't see the relevance of the analogy - but yes. If a player does his best to avoid revoking he doesn't revoke - end of story. With questions it is different. I have been in situations where, with the best will in the world, it is *impossible* to get the information I need from opps without making UI available to partner. Even behind screens he would be aware that I was asking (UI in itself) so that is no help. Of course it doesn't matter that I make UI available (pard isn't going to get a chance to use it and wouldn't even if he did). If the WBF says that even *asking* such questions is illegal then what the hell am I supposed to do? Tim From toddz@att.net Thu Mar 27 15:36:10 2003 From: toddz@att.net (toddz@att.net) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:36:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyching Message-ID: > Herman DE WAEL > When I make a psyche, I carefully avoid making any further calls that > might uncover it. > .... > So I would not question the 3He, but I would question the Pass. About a month ago I opened 1H 3rd seat holding Txxxx Qx Jxx xxx. The auction continued double, redouble, pass back to me. Would you play 1H** rather than bidding 1S? What is the problem with exposing your own psych? -Todd From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Mar 27 15:50:39 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:50:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Psyching Message-ID: <200303271550.KAA12230@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > 2. A bid to cater for a psyche is legal as long as your suspicion comes from > the cards you are holding and not from partnership experience. In that case > the cater-bid is still legal as such (in the end you can bid what you want) OK with me so far... > but you probably have MI problems. Why is this? Surely you aren't required to tell opponents what is in your hand, so why would you have MI problems? > This is about what is known in the literature as the baby-psych. You don't > see it often at serious level anymore because there it tends to be > ineffective. But it remains low-risk and quite effective against non expert > opponents. If I open in third and the bidding goes 1D-x-1S I always take > into account any partner has D rather than spades, People may be amused to know that 1S showing spades or diamonds would be a legal convention in the ACBL (GCC or higher). Of course it would have to be alerted and properly explained if used by partnership agreement, but if that's done, there would be nothing illegal about followup methods for opener to discover which hand type is held or otherwise cater to both types. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Mar 27 16:02:01 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:02:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: <200303271602.LAA12248@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > If I remember correct West swore that he had 7 clubs while North swore that > West only had 6 during the play? What is your reason to believe one and not > the other? > > If West is correct he has played with 14 cards, why was that not discovered > during the play? Once you combine these two questions, don't you know for sure West has done something wrong? Hasn't West in effect admitted that he played with 14 cards if he had seven clubs? Of course I agree with the general principle that the TD has to investigate all the facts and try to determine what happened. But having done so, he has to make the best ruling he can. > Unless you determine beyond any reasonable doubt that E-W have > infracted some law may you rule any penalty against them. You can certainly rule on a score adjustment based on "preponderance of the evidence." No need for "beyond reasonable doubt" for that! That is sufficient for this case. After all, you have to make _some_ ruling about what the score will be, and preponderance of the evidence is the only way to do it. In some different case, where a penalty might be an issue, I don't think the correct standard is entirely obvious. However, I think it might be closer to "clear and convincing evidence," which is higher than "preponderance of the evidence" but not as high as "beyond reasonable doubt." From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Mar 27 15:59:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] L20F2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Todd asked. > Even if the Laws allowed you to ask on your partner's behalf, > would you do so? Why or why not? Before I became aware that the WBF had changed the law in Lille I used to ask when all of: a) I had less experienced partner b) She had asked opps for an explanation and received an incomplete one c) I didn't think she could realise she had had only a partial explanation d) I could ask for clarification without giving partner/opps info about my hand. i.e. a straightforward Kaplan question. I asked because it had never occurred to me that doing so was illegal and I would rather have received clarification than have to go to a TD for an MI adjustment. I would do so again if the laws were changed back. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 27 16:32:58 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:32:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <200303271550.KAA12230@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030327172932.026c1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:50 27/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > 2. A bid to cater for a psyche is legal as long as your suspicion comes > from > > the cards you are holding and not from partnership experience. In that case > > the cater-bid is still legal as such (in the end you can bid what you want) > >OK with me so far... > > > but you probably have MI problems. > >Why is this? Surely you aren't required to tell opponents what is >in your hand, so why would you have MI problems? > > > This is about what is known in the literature as the baby-psych. You don't > > see it often at serious level anymore because there it tends to be > > ineffective. But it remains low-risk and quite effective against non expert > > opponents. If I open in third and the bidding goes 1D-x-1S I always take > > into account any partner has D rather than spades, > >People may be amused to know that 1S showing spades or diamonds would >be a legal convention in the ACBL (GCC or higher). Of course it would >have to be alerted and properly explained if used by partnership >agreement, but if that's done, there would be nothing illegal about >followup methods for opener to discover which hand type is held or >otherwise cater to both types. AG : but it would no more be a psyche. To summarize my position (and apparently EBU's) : a) a psyche is an unexpected bid b) if you expect it, it is no more a psyche c) if you expect it and don't alert it, it is MI d) There remains to define what you mean by "expect". But any steps you take to check whether it is a psyche means that you expect it. eg the 3H bid over 2NT. That last point is the critical one in this thread. From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 27 17:45:19 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:45:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: <200303271602.LAA12248@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c2f488$a2c2f310$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner=20 > > From: "Sven Pran" > > If I remember correct West swore that he had 7 clubs=20 > > while North swore that West only had 6 during the play? > > What is your reason to believe one and not the other? > > > > If West is correct he has played with 14 cards, why was > > that not discovered during the play? >=20 > Once you combine these two questions, don't you know for > sure West has done something wrong? Hasn't West in effect > admitted that he played with 14 cards if he had seven clubs? If it should turn out that West remembers correct and North incorrect = yes, but have you never remembered your own cards wrong when you have = progressed way into the next round? West obviously remembered he had a long club = suit but was it 6 or 7? If he really had 7 clubs why did he not notice = towards the end of the play that he had one card too many in his hand? And why = in that case did not East discover that he was one card short? These are the critical questions you must seek an answer to, and if you = do not find any satisfactory answer to them you must discard West's = statement that he had 7 clubs as improbable.=20 > Of course I agree with the general principle that the TD has=20 > to investigate all the facts and try to determine what happened. > But having done so, he has to make the best ruling he can. >=20 > > Unless you determine beyond any reasonable doubt that E-W have > > infracted some law may you rule any penalty against them. >=20 > You can certainly rule on a score adjustment based on "preponderance = of > the evidence." No need for "beyond reasonable doubt" for that! That > is sufficient for this case. After all, you have to make _some_ = ruling > about what the score will be, and preponderance of the evidence is the > only way to do it. For awarding an adjusted score - yes. For awarding an artificial score implying a penalty - NO! If you cannot hold either or both sides responsible for the error then = those not held responsible are entitled to A+. And holding someone responsible means that you have to show some infraction of a law causing the error, = it is not sufficient that you as the TD just "feel" they must be = responsible. Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 27 17:54:07 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:54:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2f489$dce99e30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads ......... > Before I became aware that the WBF had changed the law in Lille I used = to > ask when all of: > a) I had less experienced partner > b) She had asked opps for an explanation and received an incomplete = one > c) I didn't think she could realise she had had only a partial = explanation > d) I could ask for clarification without giving partner/opps info = about my > hand. >=20 > i.e. a straightforward Kaplan question. I asked because it had never > occurred to me that doing so was illegal and I would rather have = received > clarification than have to go to a TD for an MI adjustment. >=20 > I would do so again if the laws were changed back. I do not think you have to even with the current laws. With your four conditions above (and in particular condition b) satisfied you can = summon the director and claim an infraction of Law75C by opponents, thereby securing your partner the information she is entitled to without risking yourself into a Law73 infraction. As the Director I would far more appreciate that approach than I would a "Kaplan question". Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Mar 27 18:55:37 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:55:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: <200303271855.NAA12337@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > If it should turn out that West remembers correct and North incorrect yes, > but have you never remembered your own cards wrong when you have progressed > way into the next round? The point is that if West's statement of holding 7 clubs is true, then along with the rest of his hand that adds up to 14 cards. So _either_ West's statement is wrong _or_ the hand he held was wrong. One way or another, we know West has made some error. At the table, the TD would want to find out more facts. How did the play go, for example? However, by now there is a different pair at the table, and they may already have started a new board, so there's a practical question of how much exploring the TD should do. I guess it wouldn't hurt to ask whether the hands were put back in the board properly and whether they were removed, but it's unlikely the answers will change anything. All in all, the combined evidence of the EW bad result and West's statement being inconsistent with 13 cards is quite suggestive. > > You can certainly rule on a score adjustment based on "preponderance of > > the evidence." No need for "beyond reasonable doubt" for that! That > > is sufficient for this case. After all, you have to make _some_ ruling > > about what the score will be, and preponderance of the evidence is the > > only way to do it. > > For awarding an adjusted score - yes. For awarding an artificial score > implying a penalty - NO! I would like to see others' comments on this. To me it seems bizarre. The TD has to give some score; why shouldn't it be the best one the TD can determine? From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Mar 27 18:59:23 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:59:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyching References: Message-ID: <3E834A0B.5010001@skynet.be> toddz@att.net wrote: >>Herman DE WAEL >>When I make a psyche, I carefully avoid making any further calls that >>might uncover it. >>.... >>So I would not question the 3He, but I would question the Pass. >> > > About a month ago I opened 1H 3rd seat holding Txxxx Qx Jxx xxx. aha - my favourite psyche! > The auction continued double, redouble, pass back to me. Would you play > 1H** rather than bidding 1S? What is the problem with exposing your own psych? > I pass! Let fourth had decide what his partner has. Bidding 3He over a suspected psyche can be considered a psyche as well, and can only be justified if you know that partner will pass when having psyched. That is a form of partnership understanding that needs to be divulged. > -Todd > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Mar 27 14:22:44 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:22:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <934D770F-605F-11D7-9717-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 12:28 PM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > It is general bridge > knowledge that every now and then a player will open 2N at favourable, > first in, on a flattish four count. Well, they do where I play ... just > as they might overcall 1NT now and then with a bust and a six card > suit, > or respond 1S to 1H with a small doubleton, or psyche a 2-level > response > on a singleton and a seven count after a take-out double. If where you > play the possibility doesn't enter your head, then your peer group has > stopped playing bridge according to the Laws :) The Laws don't *require* psyching - merely permit it. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Mar 27 19:29:24 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:29:24 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c2f497$2ff88390$aa2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Thursday, 27 March 2003 6:30 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyching > > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >A psyche is not and can not be part of a system. > >A psyche is defined as a gross departure from 'system'. > > Correct. > > >It can be part of partnership experience. > > > >I think that it is legitimate to know that a psyche is > >possible based on general bridge knowledge rather than > >specific partnership understanding and to cater to that. > > > >Last night playing with a regular partner who has seldom > >psyched (maybe once or twice in over two years) > > Therefore, you have an implicit partnership agreement that > pard psyches with a frequency of once per year. If, > instead, your partner had been Jeff Rubens, you would have > had an implicit partnership agreement that your partner > never psyches. I disagree. We have some partnership experience that she has psyched rarely in the past. We have no agreement concerning maintaining or otherwise that frequency in the future. > > >I opened the bidding in third seat, the opponent doubled > >and partner bid a new suit at the one-level and I had > >nice four-card support. Subsequently she gave a > >preference for my suit. I suspected that she had psyched > >and catered to that possibility by not returning > >preference to her 'suit'. > > English regulations classify this as a Red Psyche, and an > English TD would have ruled against you. The EBU reg is > based on the idea that selecting a non-logical alternative > based upon the assumption that pard - rather than an > opponent - has psyched is demonstrable evidence of a CPU. Could the English TD rule thus even when there was no psyche. I did not say that partner psyched only that I suspected her of such. On this occasion partner had her hearts and we missed our heart fit. > > (The EBU permits you to field pard's psyche where AI from > your cards and the auction make a psyche from pard the > only logical alternative.) > > >Nevertheless I am confident that we have no partnership > >understanding to psyche there no any previous experience > >of a psyche in that situation. > > > >Fundamentally I am allowed to know that partner might > >have psyched because I know that psyching is part of the > >game and not because of any particular action that > >partner has taken in the past. > > Fundamentally wrong. The WBF CoP rules fielding of > psyches illegal if one of four conditions is met, > including: > > "(c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the > partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, > that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such > psychic calls to occur;" I would claim I could be unaware of any tendancy and yet still cater to the possibility. > > Best wishes > > Richard > Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Mar 27 19:40:21 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:40:21 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030327132812.026fbaf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000901c2f498$b4f274b0$aa2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Friday, 28 March 2003 12:36 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyching > > > At 07:29 27/03/2003 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >Alain: > >4. I agree completely with John that bidding 3H (and then > 7NT) is sound > >bridge. I might easily miss it at the table of course, only > once in my > >lifetime I have seen a 2NT psych with a unpassed partner, > but that I would > >consider as a mistake. > > > AG : the experts I polled don't. One thought the 2NT bid > might be a psyche, > but immediately declared 'I'm not allowed to take it into account'. > > In Belgium, as in England as Richard tells us, the 3H bid would be > classified as 'fielding the psyche' and thus disallowed. What if there was no "psyche" and 2NT was simply a mis-bid are you allowed to field that ... Many years ago playing with a now national champion and international player, he was learning symmetric relay. I held a certain two suiter (spades and diamonds from memory) and I opened a strong 1C and he complete a set of artificial responses and showed 6151 in my same two suits. I decided that it was more likely that he had made a mistake than that he held those cards so I 'fielded' his misbid and bid 3NT - successfully. Similarly what if the 2NT bid was not a psyche but a misbid by a player who normally plays that opening as showing a weak hand with 5-5 in the minors? In this case am I allowed to field this? Wayne > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Mar 27 19:44:23 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:44:23 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c2f499$47da7cf0$aa2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Friday, 28 March 2003 12:29 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyching > > > In article <5.1.0.14.0.20030327132104.026e3820@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain > Gottcheiner writes > >At 09:41 27/03/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > >>A psyche is not and can not be part of a system. > >>A psyche is defined as a gross departure from 'system'. > >> > >>It can be part of partnership experience. > >> > snip > > > >AG : please note that "psyche controls" like in original KS > or RS are > >disallowed in many countries, because of that mere fact : > they take into > >account the possibility of a psyche, and as such make a > psyche part of the > >system. > > > >BTW, none of the experts I polled (only 7 this time) found > your 'routine' > >3H bid, which means that it is less routine for them, which > in turn means > >that you're alerted to the possibility of a psyche more than > they are. > >*That* is from partnership experience, or I'm badly wrong. > > > It has nothing to do with partnership experience. It is general bridge > knowledge that every now and then a player will open 2N at favourable, > first in, on a flattish four count. Well, they do where I > play ... just > as they might overcall 1NT now and then with a bust and a six > card suit, > or respond 1S to 1H with a small doubleton, or psyche a > 2-level response > on a singleton and a seven count after a take-out double. If > where you > play the possibility doesn't enter your head, then your peer group has > stopped playing bridge according to the Laws :) Yes!!! And I think I am entitled to an alert - these players have misinformed me by failing to tell me that they would never psyche. I demand redress!!! Now!!! Tongue in cheek - well at least partially :-) Wayne From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Mar 27 19:44:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:44 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] L20F2 In-Reply-To: <000101c2f489$dce99e30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > I would do so again if the laws were changed back. > > I do not think you have to even with the current laws. With your four > conditions above (and in particular condition b) satisfied you can > summon the director and claim an infraction of Law75C by opponents, > thereby securing your partner the information she is entitled to without > risking yourself into a Law73 infraction. Perhaps Sven. But if the WBF say it is communication with partner for me to ask such a question of opps wouldn't they also say it was communication with partner to ask the same question via the TD? If not why bother making my question illegal in the first place? That's not a risk I want to take so I will settle for having damage redressed after the hand. Tim From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Mar 27 19:56:01 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:56:01 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030327172932.026c1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000b01c2f49a$e92915c0$aa2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Friday, 28 March 2003 4:33 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyching > > > At 10:50 27/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > > 2. A bid to cater for a psyche is legal as long as your > suspicion comes > > from > > > the cards you are holding and not from partnership > experience. In that case > > > the cater-bid is still legal as such (in the end you can > bid what you want) > > > >OK with me so far... > > > > > but you probably have MI problems. > > > >Why is this? Surely you aren't required to tell opponents what is > >in your hand, so why would you have MI problems? > > > > > This is about what is known in the literature as the > baby-psych. You don't > > > see it often at serious level anymore because there it tends to be > > > ineffective. But it remains low-risk and quite effective > against non expert > > > opponents. If I open in third and the bidding goes > 1D-x-1S I always take > > > into account any partner has D rather than spades, > > > >People may be amused to know that 1S showing spades or diamonds would > >be a legal convention in the ACBL (GCC or higher). Of > course it would > >have to be alerted and properly explained if used by partnership > >agreement, but if that's done, there would be nothing illegal about > >followup methods for opener to discover which hand type is held or > >otherwise cater to both types. > > AG : but it would no more be a psyche. > > To summarize my position (and apparently EBU's) : > a) a psyche is an unexpected bid > b) if you expect it, it is no more a psyche > c) if you expect it and don't alert it, it is MI > d) There remains to define what you mean by "expect". But any > steps you > take to check whether it is a psyche means that you expect > it. eg the 3H > bid over 2NT. > > That last point is the critical one in this thread. Driving down a desserted country road that has an average traffic flow of one car per day or week or something and I come to a blind corner ... I don't expect another car to be coming the other way... But this road has two lanes ... So I have the luxury of catering to traffic by keeping to the left (or right as appropriate). Likewise in bridge in many situations a good player will cater to a remote possibility this does not mean you expected traffic only that you were cautious enough to cater to that possibility. Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Mar 27 20:08:03 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:08:03 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030327172932.026c1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000c01c2f49c$96a18b00$aa2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Friday, 28 March 2003 4:33 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyching > > > AG : but it would no more be a psyche. > > To summarize my position (and apparently EBU's) : > a) a psyche is an unexpected bid > b) if you expect it, it is no more a psyche > c) if you expect it and don't alert it, it is MI Presumably you have the same attitude to a pair that have a special understanding never to psyche: They must alert their special understanding that they will not psyche. > d) There remains to define what you mean by "expect". But any > steps you > take to check whether it is a psyche means that you expect > it. eg the 3H > bid over 2NT. > > That last point is the critical one in this thread. > > > Wayne From svenpran@online.no Thu Mar 27 20:20:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:20:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c2f49e$53285f00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > West-Meads=20 > Sven wrote: > > > I would do so again if the laws were changed back. > > > > I do not think you have to even with the current laws. With your = four > > conditions above (and in particular condition b) satisfied you can > > summon the director and claim an infraction of Law75C by opponents, > > thereby securing your partner the information she is entitled to = without > > risking yourself into a Law73 infraction. >=20 > Perhaps Sven. But if the WBF say it is communication with partner for = me > to ask such a question of opps wouldn't they also say it was = communication > with partner to ask the same question via the TD? If not why bother > making my question illegal in the first place? That's not a risk I = want > to take so I will settle for having damage redressed after the hand. The difference is that you do not ask any question via the Director, you report a (suspected) infraction of Law75C by opponents because of which = you may (and indeed are supposed to) summon the Director (Laws 9A1 and 9B). If you want to be extra cautious you will address the Director when he arrives at your table initially in a way that does not disclose to = anybody at the table why you summoned him, for instance by moving together with = him away from the table. But this should really not be necessary, see my = next. >From the moment you have informed the Director about your claim that = there (probably) has been an irregularity you have done your duty, your side cannot lose any rights because of this action (Law 9B1c) and it is the Director's duty to see that your partner receives all the information = she is entitled to and that she does not become restrained in her actions = because of UI. Regards Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Mar 27 20:44:34 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:44:34 -0800 Subject: [blml] L20F2 References: Message-ID: <001d01c2f4a2$90a1d740$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Kooijman, A." > Marvin French wrote: > > Law 20 itself is misnamed. It should be REVIEW AND > > EXPLANATION OF AUCTION. > > Also, L20F's title should be Explanation of Auction. The > > current titles are > > fossils left over from the time when one could request an > > explanation of a > > particular call. > > It was said before: we still don't mind if players do so. Who is "we?" I certainly mind. And that does not make the titles correct. >Grattan can show > the minutes saying this more precisely. > Less precisely, I would say. The Lille minutes say that requesting an explanation of a particular call is a "marginal infringement of the laws" that "should normally not attract a penalty but players must be aware....of the relevance of Law 16." Besides noting that "a marginal infringement" is like saying a woman is a little pregnant, I thought it was presumptuous of the WBFLC to tell others how harshly an infraction, and it is an infraction, is to be treated. At the same LC meeting, it was held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply, an all-too-common motive for questioning an individual call. Recall, please, that the WBFLC changed the Laws in 1987 from permitting questioning of a call to allowing only an explanation of the auction. Did they not have good reasons for doing that, and are those reasons to be ignored now even though the change is still in place? It's easy to see what happened. As is usual in bridge-land, that 1987 change went unnoticed by most of the world, and players continued to question individual calls in ignorance of the fact that it had become illegal. This disregard of the new L20F1 was so widespread that many felt it was nonsense for anyone to enforce it. In ACBL-land, at least, the "marginal infringement" has become a UI plague that *should* normally attract a penalty. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Mar 27 21:06:05 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:06:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] L20F2 References: Message-ID: <002401c2f4a5$5d1a96c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Kooijman, A." > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > > >The correct procedure (where face up opening leads has not > > been prescribed) > > is: > > > > 1: After three consecutive passes the player on the presumed > > declarer's left > > asks whatever clarifying questions he feels he needs answered. > > > > > After asking for an "explanation of the auction." If the > > explanation > > isn't sufficient, then parts of it may be further questioned. > > The questioner > > must do his best to avoid revealing an interest in a particular suit. > > > > > Marvin: > > I constantly encounter opponents who, as the presumed > > declarer's RHO, ask > > for an explanation of the auction before making the final > > pass. This despite > > having no intention, obviously, of doing anything other than > > pass. Since > > such a request could be delayed until the opening lead is > > face down on the > > table, it can logically be only for partner's benefit, > > Logically spoken this is a wrong conclusion, since it also can be for the > player's own benefit. > And relating the possibility for questioning to the call to be made, as the > EBU does, really is no good solution in my opinion. > > > perhaps assisting > > him in choosing the opening lead. Do I have any recourse against such > > players, given that there is no highlighting of a particular suit? > > > > The answer is 'no', if I understand what you say. 'no highlighting of a > particular suit' seems to say no UI nor a suggestion. What recourse to be > given? > The English solution is too extreme, and besides creates more UI than it was intended to prevent. My solution is to say that questioning in the passout seat, with partner to lead, is not allowed if the sense of the situation (auction, vulnerability, etc) is such that it is obvious to one and all that the questioner is going to pass. Then someone will say that a lead-directing double is always a possibility, and the opponent may need to know about opposing methods for the purpose of deciding on a double. That's rather far-fetched, and leads to the absurd conclusion that the passout player must *always* question the auction to avoid the UI that is created by doing so selectively. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 22:33:59 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:33:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: I wrote: >>Yes, your recourse is to migrate to England. The >>EBU has a regulation modifying Law 20F1, with an >>additional requirement for the questioner to have a >>"need" to know. Ton replied: >You are not proud of that are you? Like Ton, I am unhappy when an SO makes a general regulation (rather than a specific Law 78D or Law 80E regulation) which changes the meaning of a Law. Ideally, in the 2005 Laws, this EBU modification should either be specifically incorporated or specifically prohibited in the new Law 20F1. Best wishes Richard From john@asimere.com Thu Mar 27 21:40:59 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:40:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030327172932.026c1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <200303271550.KAA12230@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20030327172932.026c1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47G$ydBr$2g+EwEo@asimere.com> In article <5.1.0.14.0.20030327172932.026c1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 10:50 27/03/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: snip >AG : but it would no more be a psyche. > >To summarize my position (and apparently EBU's) : >a) a psyche is an unexpected bid >b) if you expect it, it is no more a psyche of course I don't expect it to be a psyche. I've only seen the 2NT opener about 5 times in my whole life. The odds are slightly increased by my holding and I am allowed to cater for it. >c) if you expect it and don't alert it, it is MI >d) There remains to define what you mean by "expect". But any steps you >take to check whether it is a psyche means that you expect it. eg the 3H >bid over 2NT. > >That last point is the critical one in this thread. > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 22:50:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:50:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Procrustean symmetry Message-ID: In the Irrational agreement thread, Jaap wrote: >And so we can go on. Did this silly EBL/WBF after >incurring the cost of symmetric playing cards think >of the problem of symmetric bidding box cards? > >In my experience they are quite sloppy even at >major championships. So a small hint to the >organizers. Make sure that every table has only one >model of bidding box cards. Then the organizers would make 10% of the bridge playing population unhappy, those who use left-handed bidding boxes. As a left-hander, I speak from experience. Before the Canberra Bridge Club acquired left-handed boxes, I had to painfully twist my wrist placing the right-handed bidding cards on the table. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 23:03:35 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:03:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyching Message-ID: >The Laws don't *require* psyching - merely permit it. > >Gordon Rainsford >London UK On the other hand, if a particular pair has *never* psyched, and this fact has not been disclosed to the opponents, then the partnership has a CPU infracting Law 40B. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 23:09:27 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:09:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyching Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >I disagree. > >We have some partnership experience that she has psyched >rarely in the past. We have no agreement concerning maintaining >or otherwise that frequency in the future. I have some experience that the sun rose yesterday. I have no agreement with the sun maintaining or otherwise the frequency of sunrise in the future. :-) Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Mar 28 00:20:24 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:20:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_=5Bblml=5D_RE:_=5Bblml=5D_RE:_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f._:_RE?= =?Windows-1252?Q?:_=5Bblml=5D_L20F2?= References: <200303262125.QAA06346@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002d01c2f4bf$e95ca910$e400e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] RE: [blml] RE: [blml] Réf. : RE: [blml] L20F2 > Grattan: possibly a slight improvement would be "After the > final pass until the end of the play period..." or something > similar. (No doubt you can craft a phrase better than I can > once you see the possible drawback in 'throughout' or at > least in its placement. You could keep the word in, for > example, "Throughout the time interval from the final > pass until the end of the play period....") > +=+ The facing of the opening lead is at the point of demarcation between the auction period and the play period. It constitutes the first action of the play period (and may be - ? - simultaneously, perhaps, also the last action of the auction period). I will bear your thought in mind. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 28 00:40:48 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:40:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/24/03, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Butler is *not* the same as head-to-head team play, by any stretch of >the imagination. That wasn't his point. His point was that the law refers to "IMP play", and Butler is a form of IMP play. It may not be the same as team play, but the law makes no distinction. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 28 00:38:14 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:38:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) References: Message-ID: <007001c2f4c6$6d3cd380$4a3987d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 5:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) > Like David Burn, I mostly reside in the Paleolithic > Era, so I agree with his comments as a general rule. > > However, I note that some experts have non-sensible, > even irrational, partnership agreements. > +=+ A key requirement of a member of an appeals committee is the ability to identify h/self with the player whose action is to be judged - 'playing' his methods to his standards and setting aside personal prejudices and preconceptions. Not all those who are burdened with such tasks perform them equally well, it is a difficult role, but among those whom I observe to make an excellent fist of it is a certain D. Burn. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 28 01:05:19 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:05:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) References: Message-ID: <007101c2f4c6$6f5468e0$4a3987d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:33 PM Subject: RE: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) > Like Ton, I am unhappy when an SO makes a general > regulation (rather than a specific Law 78D or Law > 80E regulation) which changes the meaning of a Law. > +=+ The regulation in question would seem to define a situation in which Law 73F2 applies. If this is so there is no modification of 20F1 since the latter Law does not preclude the possibility of conveying information or giving a false inference by asking a question. A player avails himself of 20F1 at risk of these effects. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 28 01:06:35 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:06:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) Message-ID: On 3/25/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Should a TD rule that their system card is an >automatic MI infraction? On what basis? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 28 01:05:49 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:05:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyching Message-ID: On 3/25/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >These are the rules; and players are expected to play by them." > >Comments please Pfui. You can't put a number on it. If two hands worth a psyche come up in a session, then psyching twice is not frivolous, whatever the reg says. Same if the number is three, or ten. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 28 00:54:18 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:54:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/25/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Butler does *not* have "two scores compared"; it has one score compared >with an artificial datum. Therefore, Butler is *not* IMP play. The law refers to, but does not define "the two scores". So why can't one of them be an artificial datum? Second question: if it ain't IMP play, what is it? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 28 00:49:14 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:49:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/24/03, Gordon Bower wrote: >Interestingly, I've not seen anyone play it through 6S. Negative >through 3S is far and away most common, despite ACBL deciding the >cutoff ought to be at 4H for Alerting purposes. Er... "Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert." - ACBL Alert Regs. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 28 01:06:14 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:06:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) Message-ID: On 3/24/03, Walt.Flory@fscv.net wrote: >I recall Marty Bergen being an advocate of "Negative through 7H". Hm. I believe he said 5D in his book on the subject. Gave a pretty good argument for it, too. From john@asimere.com Fri Mar 28 01:33:38 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:33:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Ed Reppert writes >On 3/25/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>Butler does *not* have "two scores compared"; it has one score compared >>with an artificial datum. Therefore, Butler is *not* IMP play. > >The law refers to, but does not define "the two scores". So why can't >one of them be an artificial datum? > >Second question: if it ain't IMP play, what is it? > It is a method of scoring regulated by the sponsoring organisation. The laws only cover imps (teams head-to-head) and matchpoints explicitly. >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Fri Mar 28 01:38:23 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:38:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) In-Reply-To: <007001c2f4c6$6d3cd380$4a3987d9@4nrw70j> References: <007001c2f4c6$6d3cd380$4a3987d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: In article <007001c2f4c6$6d3cd380$4a3987d9@4nrw70j>, grandeval writes > >Grattan Endicott======================================= > "And as she looked about, she did behold, >How over that same door was likewise writ, >Be bold, be bold, and everywhere Be bold ... >At last she spied at that room's upper end >Another iron door, on which was writ >Be not too bold." {'The Faerie Queen'} > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 5:33 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) > > >> Like David Burn, I mostly reside in the Paleolithic >> Era, so I agree with his comments as a general rule. >> >> However, I note that some experts have non-sensible, >> even irrational, partnership agreements. >> >+=+ A key requirement of a member of an appeals >committee is the ability to identify h/self with the >player whose action is to be judged - 'playing' his >methods to his standards and setting aside personal >prejudices and preconceptions. Not all those who are >burdened with such tasks perform them equally well, >it is a difficult role, but among those whom I observe >to make an excellent fist of it is a certain D. Burn. > ~ G ~ +=+ I have had a number of my rulings considered by DALB either as referee of as Chairman of an AC. Whilst he hasn't always agreed with my rulings I have never had him pass down a judgment (sic) which leaves me shaking my head. I cannot say this about many other ACs and referees. Some of the opinions which he promulgates here are not the way which he actually *does* rule the game. cheers john > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Mar 28 01:43:27 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:43:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs References: Message-ID: <00a601c2f4cb$6e14f1c0$fa9727d9@pbncomputer> Ed wrote: > On 3/25/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >Butler does *not* have "two scores compared"; it has one score compared > >with an artificial datum. Therefore, Butler is *not* IMP play. I did not see this message, which is perhaps as well. I saw this one: >Butler is *not* the same as head-to-head team play, by any stretch of >the imagination. which is pretty much nonsense. The number of occasions on which one makes some decision based solely on the likely outcome at one other table is vanishingly small compared to the number of occasions on which one simply tries to achieve a par result or better on a deal. Much is written about "state of the match" decisions; almost all of it is rhubarb, largely because if one makes such decisions, the state of the match from the point of view of the decision-maker almost invariably worsens. I suppose that in the course of my long and undistinguished career, I must have made something like thirty or forty thousand decisions on deals where IMPs was the unit of scoring. It is safe to say that the number of decisions I would have made differently depending on whether I were playing in a Butler competition or a head-to-head match can be counted on the toes of a very small number of three-toed sloths. Certainly, I cannot at this moment call to mind a single one. > The law refers to, but does not define "the two scores". So why can't > one of them be an artificial datum? A datum is not "artificial". A datum is, far more often than not, an empirical measure of the expected score on a deal, generated by a large number of actual players actually playing that deal. It is, if you like, an approximation to what God would score on a given deal with Himself as both team-mates and opponents; in that sense, it may be said to be far more "real" than a single result generated by the morons with our cards against the cheats with theirs at the other table. > Second question: if it ain't IMP play, what is it? Of course it is IMP play, just as soccer is "goal" play and baseball is "runs" play. David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 28 03:16:22 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:16:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs Message-ID: In earlier postings on this thread I have been arguing that Butler scoring is not defined by the Laws as imp scoring, and consequently that Law 86A was not relevant to Butler scored events (with Law 78D being the relevant Law instead). As well as disputing my interpretation that Butler scoring is Lawfully different from imp scoring, David Burn argues that the winning strategy in both head-to-head matches and Butler matches is digitally equivalent. David wrote: [big snip] >decisions I would have made differently >depending on whether I were playing in a Butler >competition or a head-to-head match can be >counted on the toes of a very small number of >three-toed sloths. [big snip] Assume that a vulnerable game will either make or be at most one off. In a head-to-head imp match, the breakeven point to bid that vul game is when the chance of success is 37.5%. In a Butler match (scored against a datum), the breakeven chance is significantly lower, in the vicinity of 33%. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Mar 28 02:15:46 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:15:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) References: <007001c2f4c6$6d3cd380$4a3987d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <00b601c2f4cf$f193d440$fa9727d9@pbncomputer> John wrote: > Some of the opinions which he promulgates here are not the way which he > actually *does* rule the game. My castles are my King's alone, >From turret to foundation stone. The hand of Douglas is his own... David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 28 03:49:29 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:49:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: I requiemed: >>>Like Ton, I am unhappy when an SO makes a general >>>regulation (rather than a specific Law 78D or Law >>>80E regulation) which changes the meaning of a Law. Grattan descanted: >>+=+ The regulation in question would seem to define a >>situation in which Law 73F2 applies. If this is so there >>is no modification of 20F1 since the latter Law does not >>preclude the possibility of conveying information or >>giving a false inference by asking a question. A player >>avails himself of 20F1 at risk of these effects. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I counterpoint: In the Gratuitous Question thread, I think it was Steve Willner who noted that Law 73F2 could not apply unless "...an innocent player has drawn a false inference..." By outlawing *all* gratuitous questions, the EBU reg is infracting the specific limitation incorporated in Law 73F2. To make the EBU reg legal, the 2005 Law 73F2 could be rewritten to read: >It is an infraction for remarks, manners, tempos, >questions, or the like, to be made by a player with no >demonstrable bridge reason for the action. If the >Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a >false inference from such action, and if the Director >determines that the offending opponent could have known, >at the time of the action, that the action could work to >their benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted >score. >See: Law 12C Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Mar 28 03:04:15 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:04:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs References: Message-ID: <00c601c2f4d6$b7c03180$fa9727d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: > Assume that a vulnerable game will either make > or be at most one off. In a head-to-head imp > match, the breakeven point to bid that vul > game is when the chance of success is 37.5%. > In a Butler match (scored against a datum), the > breakeven chance is significantly lower, in the > vicinity of 33%. I guess that in Australia, the word "significantly" has a different meaning from that which it has in England. Do you seriously mean to tell me that, in an auction such as 1H-3H (limit), you know enough about the game to evaluate your hand and say: "Well, I estimate that game has a 35.6 chance of making. Let me see now - this is Butler, so I will bid it, whereas in a match I would not"? If you really do know so much, why do I keep reading about Jeff Meckstroth, Norberto Bocchi and Cesare Balicki instead of Richard Hills? The above pseudo-mathematical mumbo-jumbo does not amount to a hill of beans when it comes to decisions that real bridge players with real cards make at real tables. Indeed, I would estimate that it amounts to approximately 0.001% of the requirements for a hill of beans, where a "hill" is defined as the smallest number of beans that can stably be placed such that the highest point of one bean will always be higher than if all beans were coplanar. For the benefit of any laymen who may have wandered in, this requires three beans, or perhaps two beans of sufficiently large cross-section. Pseudo-mathematical mumbo-jumbo of a similar nature dominates such ridiculous discussions as "should we arrow switch the last two and a half boards, or three and one-sixth boards on the fourth round?" It does not matter. It really doesn't. If you play better bridge than your rivals, you will probably beat them. If you don't, you probably won't. If you concentrate on something other than this fundamental truth - for example, how many beans make five - you will... well, you had better become a Director. At least you will gain some distinction thereby: the laws do not spell "player" with a capital P. David Burn London, England From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Mar 28 03:15:16 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:15:16 +1200 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c2f4d8$44d4df70$e82d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Friday, 28 March 2003 11:09 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Psyching > > > > Wayne Burrows: > > >I disagree. > > > >We have some partnership experience that she has psyched > >rarely in the past. We have no agreement concerning maintaining > >or otherwise that frequency in the future. > > I have some experience that the sun rose yesterday. I have no > agreement with the sun maintaining or otherwise the frequency > of sunrise in the future. :-) > A regular (hopefully) part of nature like the sun rising is quite different from my experience with partners. Perhaps I need to choose my partners more carefully :-) Wayne > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Mar 28 03:18:25 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:18:25 +1200 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c2f4d8$b587e2d0$e82d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Friday, 28 March 2003 1:34 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] AAS in butler pairs > > > In article > ]>, Ed Reppert writes > >On 3/25/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >>Butler does *not* have "two scores compared"; it has one > score compared > >>with an artificial datum. Therefore, Butler is *not* IMP play. > > > >The law refers to, but does not define "the two scores". So why can't > >one of them be an artificial datum? > > > >Second question: if it ain't IMP play, what is it? > > > > It is a method of scoring regulated by the sponsoring > organisation. The > laws only cover imps (teams head-to-head) and matchpoints explicitly. I do not believe that the laws refer specifically to 'imps' being 'teams head-to-head'. If that is the intention then reword the law do not allow sponsoring organizations the right to make a regulation that is in conflict with the wording of the law. Wayne From toddz@att.net Fri Mar 28 05:24:46 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:24:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: <00c601c2f4d6$b7c03180$fa9727d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:04 PM > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] AAS in butler pairs > > where a > "hill" is defined as the smallest number of beans that > can stably be > placed such that the highest point of one bean will > always be higher > than if all beans were coplanar. For the benefit of any > laymen who may > have wandered in, this requires three beans, or perhaps > two beans of sufficiently large cross-section. 4. 3 points (beans) are always coplanar. -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Mar 28 06:40:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:40:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyching Message-ID: I paraphrased: >>English regulations classify this as a Red Psyche, and an >>English TD would have ruled against you. The EBU reg is >>based on the idea that selecting a non-logical alternative >>based upon the assumption that pard - rather than an >>opponent - has psyched is demonstrable evidence of a CPU. Wayne asked: >Could the English TD rule thus even when there was no >psyche? I did not say that partner psyched only that >I suspected her of such. On this occasion partner had >her hearts and we missed our heart fit. I believe that an English TD would have to rule that a CPU has thus been demonstrated, even though Wayne's pard had by happenstance not psyched this time. However, in my opinion, the EBU Red Psyche rule is of doubtful legality under the current Laws. Its philosophy is Alice in Wonderland. The EBU demolishes the fact-finding power of the TD to determine whether or not a Law 40B infraction has occurred, instead ordering verdict first, trial afterwards. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Mar 28 07:50:51 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:50:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyching References: <000901c2f498$b4f274b0$aa2e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3E83FEDB.1010806@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > Similarly what if the 2NT bid was not a psyche but a misbid by a > player who normally plays that opening as showing a weak hand > with 5-5 in the minors? In this case am I allowed to field this? > This discussion starts from a wrong premise: that it is in any way wrong to field. It is not, despite what English regulations seem to say. I don't even believe that English regulations actually say that it is illegal to field a psyche. What fielding a psyche does is provide evidence for there to be more "understanding" than with a genuinely unexpected psyche. And I don't even believe that such understanding is illegal. After all, it cannot be a crime to know your partner well, or we'd all be stuck playing individuals all the time. I am not partisan to the idea that "concealed partnership understanding" is a major crime (unless done deliberately!). But rather the technical term for a failure to fully explain all agreements and understandings to opponents. So Wayne, if you next bid 3Cl over 2NT with the intent of catering to both possibilities (2NT being strong or with both minors), then you shall be ruled MI by me if all you state is that 2NT is strong. The information that you have, telling you that partner is more likely to misbid and have 5-5 in the minors, than any other type of non-standard 2NT, is information the opponents are entitled to. > Wayne > > >>Best regards, >> >> Alain. >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Mar 28 07:51:17 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:51:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) References: Message-ID: <001501c2f4fe$e7f79c30$4009e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 3:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) > > I requiemed: > > >>>Like Ton, I am unhappy when an SO makes a general > >>>regulation (rather than a specific Law 78D or Law > >>>80E regulation) which changes the meaning of a Law. > > Grattan descanted: > > >>+=+ The regulation in question would seem to define a > >>situation in which Law 73F2 applies. If this is so there > >>is no modification of 20F1 since the latter Law does not > >>preclude the possibility of conveying information or > >>giving a false inference by asking a question. A player > >>avails himself of 20F1 at risk of these effects. > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I counterpoint: > > In the Gratuitous Question thread, I think it was Steve > Willner who noted that Law 73F2 could not apply unless > > "...an innocent player has drawn a false inference..." > > By outlawing *all* gratuitous questions, the EBU reg is > infracting the specific limitation incorporated in Law > 73F2. > > To make the EBU reg legal, the 2005 Law 73F2 could be > rewritten to read: > > >It is an infraction for remarks, manners, tempos, > >questions, or the like, to be made by a player with no > >demonstrable bridge reason for the action. If the > >Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a > >false inference from such action, and if the Director > >determines that the offending opponent could have known, > >at the time of the action, that the action could work to > >their benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted > >score. > >See: Law 12C > +=+ "The right to ask questions is not a licence to do so without consequence, if you ask about an alerted call and then pass you have shown an interest, which may influence your partner." ........................... \x/......................... "Note: If at your turn to call you do not need to have a call explained, it is in your interest to defer all questions until either you are about to make the opening lead or your partner's lead is face-down on the table." The above are the statements from the Orange Book at 3.4.1. I do not read them as overriding the 73F2 words that are quoted by Richard. To me the OB says that a player shows an interest by asking a question and invites players to defer any question unless they need to know. It puts players on notice that there is no defence in an argument that they had no interest in the answer to the question they asked if partner appears to act upon UI conveyed by the question or if opponent draws a false inference from it. Is there something else in the OB that I have not taken in? ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Mar 28 07:56:29 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:56:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyching References: <000b01c2f49a$e92915c0$aa2e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3E84002D.4050907@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > Driving down a desserted country road that has an average traffic > flow of one car per day or week or something and I come to a > blind corner ... > > I don't expect another car to be coming the other way... > > But this road has two lanes ... > > So I have the luxury of catering to traffic by keeping to the > left (or right as appropriate). > > Likewise in bridge in many situations a good player will cater to > a remote possibility this does not mean you expected traffic only > that you were cautious enough to cater to that possibility. > That's why I say that IMO the fielding is not an infraction. But it does constitute evidence of there being more understanding that what has been disclosed. And that is MI. Mind you, I am very strict in ruling MI, but I am far less severe in ruling damage. The information that you might cater for a particular form of psyche rather than for another, or for no psyche at all (the information that partner never psyches, ever, is also something the opponents are entitled to); that information must be told to opponents. What they do with it is another matter. In the original, I would not blame the 3He bidder for not explaining that his partner is a lunatic who is capable of psyching 2NT in first position. I would expect him to explain it immediately after the pass on 3He though. There are many possible reasons for this strange action and he knows which one it is, so he should tell opponents. > Wayne > > > > >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 gillp@bigpond.com Fri Mar 28 08:23:14 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:23:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) Message-ID: <016501c2f503$47cb2d80$75c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Grattan Endicott wrote: >>+=+ A key requirement of a member of an appeals >>committee is the ability to identify h/self with the >>player whose action is to be judged - 'playing' his >>methods to his standards and setting aside personal >>prejudices and preconceptions. Not all those who are >>burdened with such tasks perform them equally well, >>it is a difficult role, but among those whom I observe >>to make an excellent fist of it is a certain D. Burn. John Probst wrote: >I have had a number of my rulings considered by DALB either >as referee of as Chairman of an AC. Whilst he hasn't always >agreed with my rulings I have never had him pass down a >judgment (sic) which leaves me shaking >my head. I cannot say this about many other ACs and referees. > >Some of the opinions which he promulgates here are not the >way which he actually *does* rule the game. cheers john The first AC which I was on in EBUland last year was at the Easter Congress. Bob Rowlands had an appeal which revolved around what Bob would have done (competed or not) had the "whatever" not happened. I was most impressed by the speed and accuracy with which David Burn and the other members knew what Bob would have done. Later at the Brighton Congress, I wished David was on the AC when we grappled with a tough AC decision. The tough part was judging what the players would have done. I hope we got it right. This "hope we got it right" feeling is how I have often felt on the only previous ACs I'd been on - those run by the ABF (Australia) and WBF. Peter Gill Australia. From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Mar 28 08:46:54 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:46:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyching References: Message-ID: <000901c2f506$a9659190$473ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 6:40 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Psyching > > I believe that an English TD would have to rule that a CPU has > thus been demonstrated, even though Wayne's pard had by > happenstance not psyched this time. > > However, in my opinion, the EBU Red Psyche rule is of doubtful > legality under the current Laws. > > Its philosophy is Alice in Wonderland. The EBU demolishes > the fact-finding power of the TD to determine whether or not a > Law 40B infraction has occurred, instead ordering verdict first, > trial afterwards. > +=+ Perhaps it would be best to examine what the Orange Book actually says: "The actions of you and your partner following a psyche *may* provide evidence of an unauthorized - and therefore illegal - understanding. If so then your partnership is said to have 'fielded' the psyche. ................................." and "A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorized understanding........ . This is classified as a Red Psyche." and "A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an unauthorized understanding it is not sufficient, of itself, to deserve an adjusted score. This is classified as an Amber Psyche. In particular, if both players psyche on the same hand, this is likely to be evidence of an unauthorized understanding." and "In the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a Green Psyche". I do not find in this anything that removes the Director's power to make judgements. There are standards set by which he may make those judgements. Psyche records are received by the Laws & Ethics Committee which has a procedure for promoting consistency by identifying cases that are worthy of further comment, or as it may be of amendment (i.e. altering the classification). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Fri Mar 28 11:25:01 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:25:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) References: <007001c2f4c6$6d3cd380$4a3987d9@4nrw70j> <00b601c2f4cf$f193d440$fa9727d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001301c2f51d$daab20a0$9b242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 2:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Irrational agreement (was Private ... TD) > My castles are my King's alone, > From turret to foundation stone. > The hand of Douglas is his own... > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ > Thou shalt make castels thanne in Spayne And dream of joye, all but in vayne. +=+ From rwilley@mit.edu Fri Mar 28 11:39:21 2003 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:39:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Quote In-Reply-To: <3E84002D.4050907@skynet.be> References: <000b01c2f49a$e92915c0$aa2e37d2@Desktop> <3E84002D.4050907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1048851561.3e8434696b773@webmail.mit.edu> I could have sworn that the quote was "but the hand of Sinclair is his alone." From David.Burn@chesterton.co.uk Fri Mar 28 12:20:03 2003 From: David.Burn@chesterton.co.uk (David Burn) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:20:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: quote Message-ID: Richard wrote: > I could have sworn that the quote was =20 > "but the hand of Sinclair is his alone." In the poem "Marmion", by Walter Scott, this stanza appears: But Douglas round him drew his cloak, Folded his arms, and thus he spoke:=AF 'My manors, halls, and bowers shall still Be open at my sovereign's will To each one whom he lists, howe'er Unmeet to be the owner's peer. My castles are my King's alone, >From turret to foundation-stone. The hand of Douglas is his own, And never shall in friendly grasp The hand of such as Marmion clasp.' But Scott may have borrowed from the legend of Sinclair: "Now my severed head shall attest to thy parental care but could these few short summers be mine the world would cry Sinclair and echo with our fame My castles are my King's alone from turret to foundation stone but the hand of Sinclair is his alone. I die Canmores obediant servant and he the lesser for it" David Burn London, England _____________________________________________________________________ This=20e-mail=20is=20confidential=20and=20may=20contain=20legally=20privil= eged=20information,=20it=20is=20intended=20for=20the=20use=20of=20the=20ad= dressee=20only.=20=20If=20you=20are=20not=20the=20addressee=20you=20must=20= not=20read,=20use,=20distribute,=20copy=20or=20rely=20on=20this=20e-mail.=20= =20If=20you=20have=20received=20this=20communication=20in=20error=20please= =20notify=20us=20immediately=20by=20e-mail=20or=20by=20telephone=20(+44=20= (0)=2020=207499=200404). The=20contents=20of=20this=20e-mail=20do=20not=20constitute=20a=20commitme= nt=20by=20Chesterton=20plc,=20unless=20separately=20endorsed=20by=20an=20a= uthorised=20representative=20of=20Chesterton=20plc. Chesterton=20plc=20believes=20that=20this=20e-mail=20and=20any=20attachmen= ts=20are=20free=20of=20viruses.=20=20However,=20it=20is=20the=20responsibi= lity=20of=20the=20recipient=20to=20ensure=20it=20is=20virus=20free=20and=20= Chesterton=20plc=20does=20not=20accept=20any=20responsibility=20for=20any=20= loss=20or=20damage=20that=20may=20arise=20from=20the=20use=20of=20this=20e= -mail=20or=20its=20contents. From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Mar 28 13:25:00 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:25:00 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Implausible Concession Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC6D2D41@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: > > No-one would duck to a stiff queen, that is true, but many players > would duck to a queen doubleton. Since apparently the player thought > the queen was doubleton, playing the jack to this trick is a normal > line and so the claim must be judged as down three, as was the result > at the table. > > We know which mistake the player made, and we stick him to that > mistake. What is so difficult about that ? > Many players would duck?? I have never in my life seen anyone but a beginner duck to a 13th card in a suit when one hand is all trumps, even when they have miscounted. A player has 12 trumps between the two hands, missing the king, but thinks he has 11. Down to nothing but trumps, he leads toward the ace and when next hand shows out he "knows" he must lose to the king. No one, but no one, who has played bridge for a while would duck to the king. It isn't normal. ---- I've seen it done against me. Pard had problems believing it when I showed = out on the second round of trumps. So I've actualle scored a trick via a fi= nesse against the trump king when declarer had 12 trumps. My regular partner once (not playing with me) thought spades broke x - Jxxx= when LHO shoved out on the third round of the suit and ducked to the stiff= jack. He lost a KO match this way. >From time to time I duck myself when I know I have a loser. I've never misc= ounted in these situations, though. If you believe everyony plays the suit from the top when they believe (know= ) they have a loser, your defenitely wrong. Harald Skjaeran Oslo, Norway ---- Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California . _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ********************************************************************** ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Mar 28 15:29:35 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:29:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: <002301c2f53e$d953f210$727e870a@sabre.com> I friend of mine recently told me a story from a match in Polish Third Division and asked me for a ruling (at the table the TD wasn't called). Dealer E, WE vul E S W N pass 1C pass 1H x 2H 2NT 4H 5C x xx pass pass pass S : xx H : Axxxxx D : Axx C : xx S : Kx S : J10xxx H : 10xx H : - D : K9xx D : Q10x C: KQxx C : AJxxx S : AQxx H : KQJx D : Jxx C : xx 1C - Polish 2NT - alerted and explained as minors on both sides of the screen Result: 5Cxx made, 11 tricks to WE After the redouble South came to the following conclusions (in his own words): "- the opps are vulnerable & the redouble indicates that they probably know what they are doing - my penalty double of 5C was a bit rash (I don't have many tricks against 5Cxx) - I have +30 IMPs or so from the previous boards" So his screenmate's redouble gave South some second thoughts and he made up his mind to save at 5Hx. However, the tray didn't return for about 90 seconds. Knowing that it was only his partner who could be hesitating South bent over backwards and passed only to find that 5Cxx was unbeatable. After the hand was over South was astonished to learn that it was *East* not North who did his thinking on the other side of the screen - he admitted that his his partner's redouble gave him some second thoughts, too and he was considering a possibility that West had in fact S + D and redoubled for rescue. How do you rule? I think one option is to adjust to 5Hx -3 -500 for both sides using L73D1 for this purpose; East failed to be "particularly careful". The SOS interpretation of the redouble looks absurd to me so East could have known that by hesitating he might have been limitting South's options. On the other hand it we judge that East had a genuine problem than we may rule that South drew all these inferences at his own risk - however this looks like punishing South for being ethical. The problem seems difficult to me so I would welcome all your comments. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Co w swiecie piszczy? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f16fc From john@asimere.com Fri Mar 28 15:59:04 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:59:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] Active ethics In-Reply-To: <002301c2f53e$d953f210$727e870a@sabre.com> References: <002301c2f53e$d953f210$727e870a@sabre.com> Message-ID: In article <002301c2f53e$d953f210$727e870a@sabre.com>, Konrad Ciborowski writes >I friend of mine recently told >me a story from a match in Polish >Third Division and asked me >for a ruling (at the table the TD >wasn't called). > >Dealer E, WE vul > > E S W N >pass 1C pass 1H >x 2H 2NT 4H > 5C x xx pass >pass pass > > S : xx > H : Axxxxx > D : Axx > C : xx >S : Kx S : J10xxx >H : 10xx H : - >D : K9xx D : Q10x >C: KQxx C : AJxxx > S : AQxx > H : KQJx > D : Jxx > C : xx > >1C - Polish >2NT - alerted and explained as minors on both sides of the screen > >Result: 5Cxx made, 11 tricks to WE Result stands. " ... own risk ... ". South's 5H looks pretty normal at imps to me, taking insurance. South may claim a drink off me for trying to be ethical however. > >After the redouble South came to the following conclusions >(in his own words): > -- 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 agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 28 16:28:12 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:28:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030328171035.00aa3600@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Here is a case from an important tournament from last Saturday. The questions it raises are quite uncommon and I would welcome your opinion about it, as would an implied player - so please make a Cc of your answer to the abovementioned address. Mixed pairs, both pairs of fair level. E/W 30 years of bridge facing eachother, N/S 15 years but only episodically. East dealer, amber. K1094 Q4 KQ8 AQ64 J87 62 A98 KJ32 A6 1052 KJ832 10975 AQ53 10765 J9743 ---- The popular contract were 3S, 4S, 3NT all played by N/S. At this table, however ... W N E S p p 1NT (1) X 2C (2) p (3) p p (1) 13-15 (Precision) (2) explained as Stayman (3) "I've no obvious bid, but I can double whatever comes next" Nothing came next. West's pass is barely possible (considering partner's PH status), but it casts doubt on the explanation: not only is the East hand a little bit strange for a Stayman (what do you do over 2S answer ?), but West took a risk in passing (the most logical case, if East makes a Stayman after the double, is a relative shortness in clubs, so as to be able to pass every rebid or perhaps convert 2D to 2H). 2C makes, a top for E/W. (okay, perhaps it shouldn't, but +100 is the same bottom for N/S) South claims that he was misinformed ; that E/W's convention more probably is some sort of Baron-type escape, which fits quite well with both East's hand and West's pass. E/W don't have any CC or system notes. How do you rule ? (this is not the unexpected question ; the problem seems to be : who do you believe on the evidence given by the bidding and the hands ?) Thank you for your advice. Alain. From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Fri Mar 28 17:07:41 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:07:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] illogical explanation In-Reply-To: from "Alain Gottcheiner" at Mar 28, 2003 05:28:12 PM Message-ID: <200303281707.h2SH7fmO009881@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:28:12 +0100 > > Dear blmlists, > > Mixed pairs, both pairs of fair level. E/W 30 years of bridge facing > eachother, N/S 15 years but only episodically. > East dealer, amber. > > K1094 > Q4 > KQ8 > AQ64 > J87 62 > A98 KJ32 > A6 1052 > KJ832 10975 > > AQ53 > 10765 > J9743 > ---- > > The popular contract were 3S, 4S, 3NT all played by N/S. At this table, > however ... > > W N E S > > p p > 1NT (1) X 2C (2) p (3) > p p > > (1) 13-15 (Precision) > (2) explained as Stayman > (3) "I've no obvious bid, but I can double whatever comes next" > > Nothing came next. > West's pass is barely possible (considering partner's PH status), but it > casts doubt on the explanation: not only is the East hand a little bit > strange for a Stayman (what do you do over 2S answer ?), but West took a > risk in passing (the most logical case, if East makes a Stayman after the > double, is a relative shortness in clubs, so as to be able to pass every > rebid or perhaps convert 2D to 2H). > > 2C makes, a top for E/W. (okay, perhaps it shouldn't, but +100 is the same > bottom for N/S) > > South claims that he was misinformed ; that E/W's convention more probably > is some sort of Baron-type escape, which fits quite well with both East's > hand and West's pass. > > E/W don't have any CC or system notes. > > How do you rule ? (this is not the unexpected question ; the problem seems > to be : who do you believe on the evidence given by the bidding and the > hands ?) > TY: I find it hard to believe that after 30 years of bridge facing each other that E/W cannot provide a CC in a tournament of such significance. First, I would award a PP for not having a CC. There is no excuse for not having a CC in an experience partnership in a tournament of significance. Second, with the lack of a convention card, the two unusual actions, lead me to believe that either they had an undisclosed agreement, UI, or MI. Each of which I would award in favor of the NOS. I think that E/W need to be more responsible in order to support their case. I would award 4S +4. The laws allow for the NOS "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" and for the OS "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable". -Ted. From kaima13@hotmail.com Fri Mar 28 17:15:15 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:15:15 -0800 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030328171035.00aa3600@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > Dear blmlists, > > Here is a case from an important tournament from last Saturday. The > questions it raises are quite uncommon and I would welcome your opinion > about it, as would an implied player - so please make a Cc of your answer > to the abovementioned address. > > Mixed pairs, both pairs of fair level. E/W 30 years of bridge facing > eachother, N/S 15 years but only episodically. > East dealer, amber. > > K1094 > Q4 > KQ8 > AQ64 > J87 62 > A98 KJ32 > A6 1052 > KJ832 10975 > > AQ53 > 10765 > J9743 > ---- > > The popular contract were 3S, 4S, 3NT all played by N/S. At this table, > however ... > > W N E S > > p p > 1NT (1) X 2C (2) p (3) > p p > > (1) 13-15 (Precision) > (2) explained as Stayman > (3) "I've no obvious bid, but I can double whatever comes next" > > Nothing came next. > West's pass is barely possible (considering partner's PH status), but it > casts doubt on the explanation: not only is the East hand a little bit > strange for a Stayman (what do you do over 2S answer ?), but West took a > risk in passing (the most logical case, if East makes a Stayman after the > double, is a relative shortness in clubs, so as to be able to pass every > rebid or perhaps convert 2D to 2H). > > 2C makes, a top for E/W. (okay, perhaps it shouldn't, but +100 is the same > bottom for N/S) > > South claims that he was misinformed ; that E/W's convention more probably > is some sort of Baron-type escape, which fits quite well with both East's > hand and West's pass. > > E/W don't have any CC or system notes. > > How do you rule ? (this is not the unexpected question ; the problem seems > to be : who do you believe on the evidence given by the bidding and the > hands ?) > > Thank you for your advice. K: My understanding is that most players (at least all that I know of) play that 2C is Stayman over a double of 1NT, as if double never occurred and regardless of what the double means. Looks like opener took a flier with his pretty club suit rather than attempting to play in any 4-3 fit in major, he hoped for Hx xxx or something in clubs from partner and got lucky. NS were fixed, the occasional "rub of the green". No problem, no misinformation, no adjustments, no ruling, result stands. This is a player view - if TD's etc have other views, I will be listening in. Kaima aka D R Davis From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Fri Mar 28 17:34:38 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:34:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] illogical explanation In-Reply-To: from "kaima" at Mar 28, 2003 09:15:15 AM Message-ID: <200303281734.h2SHYciF011233@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: "kaima" > Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:15:15 -0800 > > K: My understanding is that most players (at least all that I know of) play > that 2C is Stayman over a double of 1NT, as if double never occurred and > regardless of what the double means. Looks like opener took a flier with > his pretty club suit rather than attempting to play in any 4-3 fit in major, > he hoped for Hx xxx or something in clubs from partner and got lucky. NS > were fixed, the occasional "rub of the green". No problem, no > misinformation, no adjustments, no ruling, result stands. This is a player > view - if TD's etc have other views, I will be listening in. > Kaima aka D R Davis > TY: I would be more understanding if this were an inexperienced or infrequent partner. However, the original description mentioned that this partnership had some 30 years of experience playing regularly across the table from each others. This isn't just a "most players" or a "rub of the green". Here, this partnership should have an explicit understanding at this point and the two unusual actions combined, along with no CC for a convention card denote irresponsible behavior along with some funny table action. From the information given, I don't think E/W should be given the benefit of the doubt here and I definitely think that a PP for no CC is appropriate. -Ted. From kaima13@hotmail.com Fri Mar 28 17:52:46 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:52:46 -0800 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation References: <200303281734.h2SHYciF011233@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: Ted wrote:. This isn't just a "most players" or a "rub of the > green". Here, this partnership should have an explicit > understanding at this point and the two unusual actions > combined, along with no CC for a convention card denote > irresponsible behavior along with some funny table action. > > From the information given, I don't think E/W should be > given the benefit of the doubt here and I definitely think > that a PP for no CC is appropriate. K: Agree on PP for no CC. Experienced players, significant tournament event as Alain said. From damian.hassan@lineone.net Fri Mar 28 19:38:49 2003 From: damian.hassan@lineone.net (Damian Hassan) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:38:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs References: Message-ID: <006001c2f561$a8124e40$0308a8c0@HassanFamily> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 5:24 AM Subject: RE: [blml] AAS in butler pairs > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Burn > > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:04 PM > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] AAS in butler pairs > > > > where a > > "hill" is defined as the smallest number of beans that > > can stably be > > placed such that the highest point of one bean will > > always be higher > > than if all beans were coplanar. For the benefit of any > > laymen who may > > have wandered in, this requires three beans, or perhaps > > two beans of sufficiently large cross-section. > > 4. 3 points (beans) are always coplanar. > > -Todd > > And I thought everything was bigger in the US :) Beans are not points. At dinner this evening I experimented with baked beans (Heinz, navy haricot beans in tomato sauce). With three beans, I could create a stonehenge trilithon fairly easily. With two beans, the tomato sauce allowed me to balance one on the other, again creating a small bean hill. My daughter, meanwhile, was producing a varied landscape with her beans and mashed potatoes, complete with V-shaped valleys, tarns of tomato sauce, cirques and plateaus. Further experiments were curtailed by the arrival of my wife at the dinner table. One afterthought - if I mashed a large butter-bean, and shaped it into a cone, would that be a hill of bean(s)? Damian Hassan From john@asimere.com Fri Mar 28 20:05:10 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:05:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: <006001c2f561$a8124e40$0308a8c0@HassanFamily> References: <006001c2f561$a8124e40$0308a8c0@HassanFamily> Message-ID: In article <006001c2f561$a8124e40$0308a8c0@HassanFamily>, Damian Hassan writes > >----- Original Message ----- >> >> >And I thought everything was bigger in the US :) >Beans are not points. >At dinner this evening I experimented with baked beans (Heinz, navy >haricot beans in tomato sauce). With three beans, I could create a >stonehenge trilithon fairly easily. With two beans, the tomato sauce >allowed me to balance one on the other, again creating a small bean >hill. >My daughter, meanwhile, was producing a varied landscape with her beans >and mashed potatoes, complete with V-shaped valleys, tarns of tomato >sauce, cirques and plateaus. Further experiments were curtailed by the >arrival of my wife at the dinner table. >One afterthought - if I mashed a large butter-bean, and shaped it into a >cone, would that be a hill of bean(s)? > >Damian Hassan > I think Damian is trying to take the pulse of the newsgroup -- 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 toddz@att.net Fri Mar 28 21:04:15 2003 From: toddz@att.net (toddz@att.net) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:04:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs Message-ID: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > Subject: RE: [blml] AAS in butler pairs > > > David Burn: > > > always be higher than if all beans were coplanar. > > > > 4. 3 points (beans) are always coplanar. > > > And I thought everything was bigger in the US :) > Beans are not points. 3-dimensional objects with non-zero volume are awkward to describe as coplanar. This whole conversation seems to assume gravity as the basis for one bean being "higher than" the others and some plane such as a plate or the floor to be used to help determine coplanarity. Sloppy work for someone who: (a) appears to create extravagant analogies; and (b) is usually quite good at it. -Todd (considering playing with his food tonight at dinner as well.) From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Mar 29 10:03:56 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:03:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs References: <006001c2f561$a8124e40$0308a8c0@HassanFamily> Message-ID: <3E856F8C.10106@skynet.be> Sorry Damien, but as usual a vital piece of information is missing. Damian Hassan wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 5:24 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] AAS in butler pairs > > > My daughter, meanwhile, was producing a varied landscape with her beans > and mashed potatoes, complete with V-shaped valleys, tarns of tomato > sauce, cirques and plateaus. Further experiments were curtailed by the > arrival of my wife at the dinner table. Very important: is your daughter 18 months or 18 years? Would 12 years be a Logical Alternative? > One afterthought - if I mashed a large butter-bean, and shaped it into a > cone, would that be a hill of bean(s)? > > Damian Hassan > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Mar 29 10:12:50 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:12:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation References: <200303281734.h2SHYciF011233@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <3E8571A2.7030408@skynet.be> Yes Ted, but your argument works both ways. Ted Ying wrote: >> > > TY: I would be more understanding if this were an inexperienced > or infrequent partner. However, the original description > mentioned that this partnership had some 30 years of > experience playing regularly across the table from each > others. This isn't just a "most players" or a "rub of the > green". Here, this partnership should have an explicit > understanding at this point and the two unusual actions > combined, along with no CC for a convention card denote > irresponsible behavior along with some funny table action. > You are right in blaming EW for not having a CC, true. But if you are saying that you don't believe they don't have an agreement in this situation, you are bound to draw one of two conclusions: - they do have an agreement, it is an escape sequence, and they are lying cheating bastards; or - they do have an agreement, it is Stayman, and they got lucky. Without any other knowledge, I prefer to believe the second explanation. > From the information given, I don't think E/W should be > given the benefit of the doubt here and I definitely think > that a PP for no CC is appropriate. > > -Ted. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Mar 29 14:39:43 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:39:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4807BA8C-61F4-11D7-864C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 05:15 PM, kaima wrote: > > K: My understanding is that most players (at least all that I know > of) play > that 2C is Stayman over a double of 1NT, as if double never occurred > and > regardless of what the double means. On the contrary, my experience is that the vast majority of weak-NT players I have come across (in a land where weak-NT is prevalent) do not play 2C over a double as Stayman. I wonder if perhaps you play in a strong-NT environment, kaima? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From kaima13@hotmail.com Sat Mar 29 16:11:52 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:11:52 -0800 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation References: <4807BA8C-61F4-11D7-864C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: From: "Gordon Rainsford" > > K: My understanding is that most players (at least all that I know > > of) play > > that 2C is Stayman over a double of 1NT, as if double never occurred > > and > > regardless of what the double means. > > On the contrary, my experience is that the vast majority of weak-NT > players I have come across (in a land where > weak-NT is prevalent) do not play 2C over a double as Stayman. > > I wonder if perhaps you play in a strong-NT environment, kaima? K: The original question was strong NT environment and was also referring to same, yes. Weak notrumpers will have their escape methods, as will I, when play weak NT. Kaima From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Mar 29 16:22:29 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:22:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) References: <007101c2f4c6$6f5468e0$4a3987d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <00a901c2f60f$93d9ebf0$62c0f1c3@LNV> Richard: > > Like Ton, I am unhappy when an SO makes a general > > regulation (rather than a specific Law 78D or Law > > 80E regulation) which changes the meaning of a Law. > > > +=+ The regulation in question would seem to define a > situation in which Law 73F2 applies. If this is so there > is no modification of 20F1 since the latter Law does not > preclude the possibility of conveying information or > giving a false inference by asking a question. A player > avails himself of 20F1 at risk of these effects. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ " Let rules consist of 90 laws and there are at least two of them at least remotely related and therewith seeemingly interpretable to support any regulation one wants to introduce. Personally I am still convinced that any regulation putting restrictions related to one's own holding on asking questions is not in accordance with the laws as they are meant. How in heaven can we support an approach in which asking such question automatically creates UI? Not only for the partner of the one asking but also for the opponents? Regulators can't have wanted a situation in which a player with 2 aces doesn't dare to ask a question about the auction of opponents reaching a slam because he therewith tells them he has 2 aces? Such regulation is a beautiful example of a remedy which is worse than the disease, making questioning a strategic weapon in the auction. I was astonished, didn't believe what I heard when this was told to me. May I honestly ask all nbo's not to copy this regulation? It can't be right and I will resist such law (and regulation) till my last gasp. A reasonable regulation could be an approach similar to that we use with screens, telling players to vary the tempo of pushing the tray. Players should ask questions varying their interest, really wanting to know for part of them and to hide such interest using the others. And in my bridgeworld it is simply impossible that a player may refer to L73F2 when an opponent asks him a serious question about his system, the bridgereason being that he wants to know what is going on. Isn't that good enough? ton From ehaa@starpower.net Sat Mar 29 21:15:23 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:15:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation In-Reply-To: <3E8571A2.7030408@skynet.be> References: <200303281734.h2SHYciF011233@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030329154425.023ec280@pop.starpower.net> At 05:12 AM 3/29/03, Herman wrote: >Yes Ted, but your argument works both ways. > >Ted Ying wrote: > >>TY: I would be more understanding if this were an inexperienced >> or infrequent partner. However, the original description >> mentioned that this partnership had some 30 years of >> experience playing regularly across the table from each >> others. This isn't just a "most players" or a "rub of the >> green". Here, this partnership should have an explicit >> understanding at this point and the two unusual actions >> combined, along with no CC for a convention card denote >> irresponsible behavior along with some funny table action. >You are right in blaming EW for not having a CC, true. >But if you are saying that you don't believe they don't have an >agreement in this situation, you are bound to draw one of two conclusions: >- they do have an agreement, it is an escape sequence, and they are >lying cheating bastards; or >- they do have an agreement, it is Stayman, and they got lucky. > >Without any other knowledge, I prefer to believe the second explanation. Once upon a time, it was against the Bridge Laws to be a lying cheating bastard. And those Laws were invoked upon those who were, or, at least, those who were generally perceived to be. And it was good. Then one day there came before the Lawmakers one who was generally perceived to be a lying cheating bastard, and the Lawmakers invoked the Laws upon him. And he said to them, "You have invoked the Laws upon me; do you then call me a lying cheating bastard?" And they said to him, "Well, er, no, not exactly, we invoke the laws upon you because you do that which a lying cheating bastard would do; we do not claim to know your true nature." And he said, "Nevertheless, your Laws say that you may invoke them only upon lying cheating bastards, therefore as you have invoked them upon me, you have perforce called me a lying cheating bastard, and I shall sue." And he did. And it was no longer good. The next year, the Lawmakers changed the Laws, making it no longer against those Laws to be a lying cheating bastard, but instead making it against those Laws to do that which a lying cheating bastard would do. And when those who were lying cheating bastards came before them, they invoked those new laws upon them, or, at least, upon those who were generally perceived to be, and they were not sued, and it was once again good. But today we read those Laws against doing that which a lying cheating bastard would do, and take them for the Literal Truth. And so we invoke those Laws upon those who are totally unsullied by the least suspicion of lying cheating bastardry, or at least, those who are generally perceived to be. And we justify this by quoting to those of pure and innocent heart the same words spoken by the Lawmakers of old to one who was once generally perceived to be a lying cheating bastard, "We do not claim to know your true nature." And we know not whether it is good. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Mar 29 22:05:31 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:05:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation References: <200303281734.h2SHYciF011233@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <5.2.0.9.0.20030329154425.023ec280@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000d01c2f643$107a56d0$eb05e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] illogical explanation > > "We do not claim to know your true nature." > > And we know not whether it is good. > +=+ "O! who can hold a fire in his hand By thinking on the frosty Caucasus? Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite By bare imagination of a feast? Or wallow naked in December snow By thinking on fantastic simmer's heat? O, no! the apprehension of the good Gives but the greater feeling to the worse." +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Mar 29 22:30:40 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:30:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) References: <007101c2f4c6$6f5468e0$4a3987d9@4nrw70j> <00a901c2f60f$93d9ebf0$62c0f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000e01c2f643$114c25c0$eb05e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" ; ; Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 4:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) > > A reasonable regulation could be an approach similar to > that we use with screens, telling players to vary the tempo > of pushing the tray. Players should ask questions varying > their interest, really wanting to know for part of them and > to hide such interest using the others. And in my bridgeworld > it is simply impossible that a player may refer to L73F2 when > an opponent asks him a serious question about his system, > the bridge reason being that he wants to know what is > going on. Isn't that good enough? > > ton > +=+ Question: "What was your demonstrable bridge reason for asking the question from which your opponent drew a false inference?" Answer: "My demonstrable bridge reason was to confuse my opponent as to whether I had a demonstrable bridge reason or not." Question: "Did you consider waiting until the auction was over before asking your question?" Answer: "But that would not have confused him, would it?" Question: "Did you know when you asked your question without being interested in the reply that the action could work to your benefit?" Answer: "But of course, and the Conditions of Contest allow me to do it." +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Mar 29 22:39:24 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:39:24 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] illogical explanation Message-ID: <000e01c2f644$21536e00$9652e150@endicott> Correction. > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Passionless bride, divine Tranquillity, > Yearned after by the wisest of the wise, > Who fail to find thee, being as thou art > Without one pleasure and without one pain." > [Lord Tennyson] > ============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 9:15 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] illogical explanation > > > > > > "We do not claim to know your true nature." > > > > And we know not whether it is good. > > > +=+ > "O! who can hold a fire in his hand > By thinking on the frosty Caucasus? > Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite > By bare imagination of a feast? > Or wallow naked in December snow > By thinking on fantastic summer's heat? > O, no! the apprehension of the good > Gives but the greater feeling to the worse." > +=+ > > > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 30 07:14:53 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 01:14:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] RE: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : RE: [blml] L20F2 Message-ID: On 3/26/03, Sven Pran wrote: >And you may read my other post where I summed up the correct procedure >to be followed after three consecutive passes. Is not declarer also permitted to ask questions somewhere in there? You didn't mention him. From svenpran@online.no Sun Mar 30 08:51:54 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:51:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_=5Bblml=5D_RE:_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f._:_RE:_=5Bblml=5D_L20F2?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c2f691$3bf073a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Ed Reppert=20 > To: Sven Pran > Subject: Re: [blml] RE: [blml] R=E9f. : RE: [blml] L20F2 >=20 > On 3/26/03, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > >And you may read my other post where I summed up the correct = procedure > >to be followed after three consecutive passes. >=20 > Is not declarer also permitted to ask questions somewhere in there? = You > didn't mention him. Yes, he has the same rights as his RHO. (Law 41B) Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 30 22:10:18 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:10:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030327172932.026c1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 3/27/03, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >To summarize my position (and apparently EBU's) : >a) a psyche is an unexpected bid Agree. >b) if you expect it, it is no more a psyche Agree. >c) if you expect it and don't alert it, it is MI Will that not depend on the nature of the psyche?* Granted, the kind of psyche in which you bid spades, for example, not holding enough spades to call it a natural bid, is alertable (in the EBU, at least). But might there not be psyches which are not alertable? I don't see anything in the OB that says "if it could be a psyche, and you expect your partner may psyche, it must be alerted". Side note: the ACBL CC used to have a spot for "psyching tendencies". The ACBL seems to wish to eliminate psyches, so that spot is gone now. But it seems to me a useful thing to know - and as a kind of "pre-alert" (assuming opponents look at the CC, which they are required to do in the EBU, of course, but not, unfortunately, in the ACBL) would perhaps alleviate some alerting problems. >d) There remains to define what you mean by "expect". But any steps >you take to check whether it is a psyche means that you expect it. eg >the 3H bid over 2NT. Erm. This is muddy ground, I think. As I read the regs, and as I understand them to be interepreted, this is probably true. But it seems to me that the mere fact that a bid *could* reveal a psyche should not, IMO, preclude one from making it. Otherwise you have to devise a system which does not allow you to make any such bid, even if the chance partner may psyche is very small. That seems unfair, to me. *Just so you know, the last time I psyched was the '60s - and I don't think I've seen a psyche since I started playing again, ca. 1990. I'm not sure I'd recognize one if I did see it. Not during the auction, anyway. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 30 21:52:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:52:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: <200303271602.LAA12248@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 3/27/03, Steve Willner wrote: >Once you combine these two questions, don't you know for sure West has >done something wrong? Hasn't West in effect admitted that he played >with 14 cards if he had seven clubs? No, and no. There are four suits in the deck. West (and North) have said how many clubs were, in their respective opinions, in West's hand. Neither has said anything about how many cards West held in the other three suits. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 30 22:30:46 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:30:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] AAS in butler pairs In-Reply-To: <00a601c2f4cb$6e14f1c0$fa9727d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On 3/28/03, David Burn wrote: >A datum is not "artificial". A datum is, far more often than not, an >empirical measure of the expected score on a deal, generated by a >large number of actual players actually playing that deal. It is, if >you like, an approximation to what God would score on a given deal >with Himself as both team-mates and opponents; in that sense, it may >be said to be far more "real" than a single result generated by the >morons with our cards against the cheats with theirs at the other >table. Um. I believe the term "artificial" was used by Richard. I simply carried it forward. FWIW, I agree with you. Though I don't know whether God plays bridge. :-) >> Second question: if it ain't IMP play, what is it? > >Of course it is IMP play, just as soccer is "goal" play and baseball is >"runs" play. That's what I thought. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 30 22:21:27 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:21:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Procrustean symmetry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/28/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >As a left-hander, I speak from experience. Before the >Canberra Bridge Club acquired left-handed boxes, I had >to painfully twist my wrist placing the right-handed >bidding cards on the table. Most of the lefties around here seem to place the bidding cards on the table backwards. Or sideways. :-) I've never seen a left-handed bidding box. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 30 22:24:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:24:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyching In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/28/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >I have some experience that the sun rose yesterday. I have no >agreement with the sun maintaining or otherwise the frequency >of sunrise in the future. :-) The tendency of the sun to rise is a consequence of the immutable laws of physics. There are no such immutable laws governing a bridge player's tendency to psyche. From ehaa@starpower.net Sun Mar 30 23:25:39 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:25:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) In-Reply-To: <00a901c2f60f$93d9ebf0$62c0f1c3@LNV> References: <007101c2f4c6$6f5468e0$4a3987d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030330165706.022fdc30@pop.starpower.net> At 11:22 AM 3/29/03, Ton wrote: >Let rules consist of 90 laws and there are at least two of them at least >remotely related and therewith seeemingly interpretable to support any >regulation one wants to introduce. >Personally I am still convinced that any regulation putting restrictions >related to one's own holding on asking questions is not in accordance with >the laws as they are meant. >How in heaven can we support an approach in which asking such question >automatically creates UI? Not only for the partner of the one asking but >also for the opponents? Regulators can't have wanted a situation in >which a >player with 2 aces doesn't dare to ask a question about the auction of >opponents reaching a slam because he therewith tells them he has 2 aces? >Such regulation is a beautiful example of a remedy which is worse than the >disease, making questioning a strategic weapon in the auction. I was >astonished, didn't believe what I heard when this was told to me. > >May I honestly ask all nbo's not to copy this regulation? It can't be >right >and I will resist such law (and regulation) till my last gasp. > >A reasonable regulation could be an approach similar to that we use with >screens, telling players to vary the tempo of pushing the tray. Players >should ask questions varying their interest, really wanting to know >for part >of them and to hide such interest using the others. >And in my bridgeworld it is simply impossible that a player may refer to >L73F2 when an opponent asks him a serious question about his system, the >bridgereason being that he wants to know what is going on. Isn't that good >enough? Ton is to be commended for cutting through the legalistic miasma and getting to the heart of the real issue. On the (now quite rare) occasions when I play the game seriously, I (try to) pay attention. I want to follow what's going on at my table -- it keeps me sharp as well as tuned in. I play better if I follow the action, bidding and play, as it is happening, rather than being required to mentally review, analyze and make inferences from it afterwards. When my opponents alert me to their use of some method with which I'm not familiar, especially if it is artificial, I will ask that it be explained. I will do this even if they're having a strong relay auction and I hold a 4-3-3-3 zero count. (I should point out that I do *not* ask for explanations to avoid giving unauthorized information to partner on those occasions when I might be considering some action, and disagree philosophically with those who would justify it on those grounds.) I ask for explanantions because I want to remain current with the action, sharp and tuned in. My bridge reason is that I want to know what is going on. I am disturbed by the notion that some might consider this inappropriate, or even illegal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun Mar 30 23:27:47 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:27:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 04:11 PM, kaima wrote: > From: "Gordon Rainsford" >>> K: My understanding is that most players (at least all that I know >>> of) play >>> that 2C is Stayman over a double of 1NT, as if double never occurred >>> and >>> regardless of what the double means. >> >> On the contrary, my experience is that the vast majority of weak-NT >> players I have come across (in a land where >> weak-NT is prevalent) do not play 2C over a double as Stayman. >> >> I wonder if perhaps you play in a strong-NT environment, kaima? > > K: The original question was strong NT environment and was also > referring to > same, yes. Weak notrumpers will have their escape methods, as will I, > when > play weak NT. > Kaima > The original question specified a 13-15 NT, which I think is usually classified as weak. The hand which opened 1NT had 13hcp. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Mar 30 23:37:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:37:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation Message-ID: Kaima wrote: >K: My understanding is that most players (at >least all that I know of) play that 2C is >Stayman over a double of 1NT, as if double >never occurred and regardless of what the >double means. [snip] No. *Some* players who employ a *strong* 1NT opening have an agreement that 2C remains Stayman as if the double never occurred. One should not assume that local defaults are relevant when determining what ruling should apply to a *particular* partnership agreement. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 31 01:29:42 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:29:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Rule of Coincidence (was Psyching) Message-ID: Grattan wrote: >>+=+ Perhaps it would be best to examine what >>the Orange Book actually says: >> "The actions of you and your partner following >>a psyche *may* provide evidence of an unauthorized >>- and therefore illegal - understanding. If so then your >>partnership is said to have 'fielded' the psyche. >>................................." and >> "A partnership's actions on one board may be >>sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorized >>understanding........ . This is classified as a Red Psyche." [snip] >>I do not find in this anything that removes the Director's >>power to make judgements. There are standards set >>by which he may make those judgements. Psyche >>records are received by the Laws & Ethics Committee >>which has a procedure for promoting consistency by >>identifying cases that are worthy of further comment, >>or as it may be of amendment (i.e. altering the >>classification). >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The June 2000 edition of the White Book also states: >The TD will find that you have such an unauthorised >understanding if, for example, you take any abnormal action, >before the psyche has been exposed, to protect your side from >its effect. The TD will judge your actions objectively: >that is to say your intent will not be taken into account. By saying that "the TD will find" and "intent will not", the EBU in this example seems to be ordering the TD to rule a Red Psyche whenever the partner of the psycher chooses a successful abnormal action (aka non-logical alternative). In my opinion, this is just another variant of the logically flawed Rule of Coincidence. While partnerships with CPUs will get lucky in the auction, partnerships who get lucky in the auction do not necessarily have CPUs. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 31 02:00:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:00:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation Message-ID: [big snip] >South claims that he was misinformed ; that >E/W's convention more probably is some sort >of Baron-type escape, which fits quite well >with both East's hand and West's pass. > >E/W don't have any CC or system notes. > >How do you rule ? (this is not the unexpected >question ; the problem seems to be : who do >you believe on the evidence given by the >bidding and the hands ?) > >Thank you for your advice. > >Alain. As TD, I use Law 91A to eject South from the remainder of the session. South has seriously infracted Law 74A2 by publicly suggesting that both East and West are deliberate liars. West's pass of Stayman is a normal scramble action in an auction where the opponents are looking for penalties. East's use of Stayman is a similar scramble action, presumably the only scramble available in their system for East's cards, once East chooses not to let West play 1NTx. Therefore, as TD, I give a tentative Law 85B ruling of no score adjustment. I order EW to complete their CCs as soon as possible. I fine EW a standard PP for not previously having had a CC available. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 31 03:22:23 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:22:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Mumbo-jumbo Message-ID: In AAS in butler pairs, David Burn wrote: [snip] >Pseudo-mathematical mumbo-jumbo of a similar >nature dominates such ridiculous discussions >as "should we arrow switch the last two and a >half boards, or three and one-sixth boards on >the fourth round?" It does not matter. It >really doesn't. If you play better bridge than >your rivals, you will probably beat them. If >you don't, you probably won't. [snip] A one session five-table Mitchell movement qualifies six of the ten pairs into a Final which has fabulous money prizes. (The remaining four pairs can play in a Consolation, which has prizes of Hills of beans.) Seated NS in this Mitchell are Meckstroth-Rodwell, Reese-Schapiro, Belladonna-Forquet, Hamman-Wolff, Jais-Trezel. Seated EW in this Mitchell are Grattan-Kojak, Sven-Herman, Ton-MadDog, Eric-Adam, Alain-Kaima. If David Burn was CTD of this event, then David Burn would refuse to use the pseudo-mathematical mumbo-jumbo of an arrow switch, since if you play better bridge you qualify for the final. So, if David Burn was CTD, only three of the NS pairs would join the three EW pairs in the final. If Richard Hills was CTD of this event, then Richard Hills would use the pseudomathematical mumbo-jumbo arrow switch, and only one NS pair would join the five EW pairs in the final. Best wishes Richard From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Mon Mar 31 04:00:14 2003 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:00:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030330213407.02e8ca20@mail.fscv.net> At 08:00 PM 30/03/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >[big snip] > > >South claims that he was misinformed ; that > >E/W's convention more probably is some sort > >of Baron-type escape, which fits quite well > >with both East's hand and West's pass. > > > >E/W don't have any CC or system notes. > > > >How do you rule ? (this is not the unexpected > >question ; the problem seems to be : who do > >you believe on the evidence given by the > >bidding and the hands ?) > > > >Thank you for your advice. > > > >Alain. > >As TD, I use Law 91A to eject South from the >remainder of the session. South has seriously >infracted Law 74A2 by publicly suggesting that >both East and West are deliberate liars. > >West's pass of Stayman is a normal scramble >action in an auction where the opponents are >looking for penalties. East's use of Stayman >is a similar scramble action, presumably the >only scramble available in their system for >East's cards, once East chooses not to let West >play 1NTx. > >Therefore, as TD, I give a tentative Law 85B >ruling of no score adjustment. I order EW to >complete their CCs as soon as possible. I fine >EW a standard PP for not previously having had >a CC available. Richard I'm glad to see that someone else understands that auction the way I learned it in the 1970's from the books on Precision by C.C. Wei's group. The scrambling action seems absolutely standard to me for an experienced Precision pair who fear they are about to go down doubled. Walt From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Mar 31 06:13:50 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 20:13:50 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Mumbo-jumbo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > If David Burn was CTD of this event, then David > Burn would refuse to use the pseudo-mathematical > mumbo-jumbo of an arrow switch, since if you play > better bridge you qualify for the final. So, if > David Burn was CTD, only three of the NS pairs > would join the three EW pairs in the final. > > If Richard Hills was CTD of this event, then > Richard Hills would use the pseudomathematical > mumbo-jumbo arrow switch, and only one NS pair > would join the five EW pairs in the final. > I daresay that if either one of you was the CTD of this event, you would have done a somewhat better job of equalizing the strenghs of the EW and NS fields than this. (For that matter, you might even have chosen to use a Howell:)) Whether or not to arrow-switch is still an interesting question, but the 5 expert pairs will probably all qualify whether you do or not - now the effect of the arrow-switch is to give the two fish sitting the "wrong" direction a similar chance of qualifying as the 3 fish sitting the "right" way. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 31 08:06:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:06:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority Message-ID: WBF Code of Practice: >Under the laws it is mandatory that arrangements exist for >an appeal to be made to the national authority from the >decision(s) of an appeal committee. No appeal to the >national authority should be entertained if the prior >stages of ruling and appeal have not been pursued and >exhausted. It is legitimate for the national authority to >set some limitation on matters that it will hear; it is a >widespread practice, commended by the WBF, that the >national authority will not review value judgements except >where the appeal committee has made a judgement that can >have no basis in its findings of the facts of a case. >Debatable matters of law and/or regulation are valid >questions for the national authority. Some years ago, ambiguously written carryforward rules for the Australian team playoff resulted in ambiguity about whether the two finalist teams had tied, and therefore whether an 8-board playoff was required. One of the teams went to the extent of hiring a barrister to appear at the National Authority hearing. (The two teams settled out of court, agreeing to a 64-board playoff with no carryforward.) To avoid any future drawn-out and expensive dramas, the ABF abolished its National Authority. Is the ABF therefore an infractor of Law 93C? Best wishes Richard From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Mar 31 08:20:07 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:20:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: ton: > > > > A reasonable regulation could be an approach similar to > > that we use with screens, telling players to vary the tempo > > of pushing the tray. Players should ask questions varying > > their interest, really wanting to know for part of them and > > to hide such interest using the others. And in my bridgeworld > > it is simply impossible that a player may refer to L73F2 when > > an opponent asks him a serious question about his system, > > the bridge reason being that he wants to know what is > > going on. Isn't that good enough? > > > +=+ Question: "What was your demonstrable bridge > reason for asking the question from which your opponent > drew a false inference?" > Answer: "My demonstrable bridge reason was to > confuse my opponent as to whether I had a demonstrable > bridge reason or not." > Question: "Did you consider waiting until the auction > was over before asking your question?" > Answer: "But that would not have confused him, > would it?" > Question: "Did you know when you asked your > question without being interested in the reply that the > action could work to your benefit?" > Answer: "But of course, and the Conditions of Contest > allow me to do it." +=+ > I suspected you to be amongst those introducing this regulation for the EBU. And we have concluded before that it isn't easy to admit a mistake when one is involved that much. Writing up boring novel conversations instead doesn't help. Questions may be asked during the auction according to L20F without any restriction. And Law L73F2 doesn't apply. Did you notice It is per definition impossible to confuse opponents by asking general questions about the auction when it is a player's turn to call. Which puts your novel in the waste basket. By introducing a relation between a question and the player's holding - and that is what the EBU has done - confusion is introduced at the same time. Declarer: 'but you should have had the club K for your question' etc. etc. You went the wrong way and I don't mind as long as you keep this on your island (hopefully only part of it), but don't try to implement it on a larger scale. Was Max Bavin involved in this anomaly? I can't believe it. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Mar 31 08:31:25 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:31:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: > I ask for explanantions because I want to remain current with the > action, sharp and tuned in. My bridge reason is that I want to know > what is going on. > > I am disturbed by the notion that some might consider this > inappropriate, or even illegal. > Let me be offensive once more (last time this week, but legally unpredictable tomorrow, 1 April, is this a world wide joking day? and if so, can somebody explain the historical background (David, when not involved in a claim?)): Don't worry Eric, this will not happen in the real bridge world. ton Eric From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Mar 31 08:34:15 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:34:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: > Van: Ed Reppert On 3/27/03, Steve Willner wrote: > >Once you combine these two questions, don't you know for > >sure West has done something wrong? Hasn't West in effect admitted that he played > >with 14 cards if he had seven clubs? > No, and no. There are four suits in the deck. West (and > North) have said > how many clubs were, in their respective opinions, in West's hand. > Neither has said anything about how many cards West held in the other > three suits. coward (not meant offensive) ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Mar 31 08:50:41 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:50:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: There is nothing to rule on. Players should be instructed not to involve any hesitation on the other = side of the screen in their decision process and they can't fall back on the = TD when they do.=20 What South could have done is putting the 5 heart bidding card on the = table as soon as he decided to make that call (the tray still being at the = other side). That is acceptable self protection, in my opinion.=20 ton=20 =20 > The problem seems difficult to me > so I would welcome all your comments. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak=F3w, Poland >=20 From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 31 08:59:06 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:59:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c2f75b$6757b100$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ......... > Some years ago, ambiguously written carryforward rules for > the Australian team playoff resulted in ambiguity about > whether the two finalist teams had tied, and therefore > whether an 8-board playoff was required. One of the teams > went to the extent of hiring a barrister to appear at the > National Authority hearing. (The two teams settled out of > court, agreeing to a 64-board playoff with no carryforward.) > > To avoid any future drawn-out and expensive dramas, the ABF > abolished its National Authority. Is the ABF therefore an > infractor of Law 93C? Obviously yes, unless they have made arrangements for such appeals to be handled by an even higher ranked organization, for instance by WBF! The essence of Law93C is that there shall be some possibility for trying cases again after they have been ruled both by the Director and by some "local" AC. It may be of interest to know that by regulation the AC in Norwegian national championships *is* the National Authority, there is to be no local AC at such events (or the National Authority is present at the event). Regards Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Mon Mar 31 09:07:43 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:07:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: "Ton Kooijman" Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 29/03/03 17:22 =20 Pour : "grandeval" , = ,=20 cc :=20 Objet : Re: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Richard: > > Like Ton, I am unhappy when an SO makes a general > > regulation (rather than a specific Law 78D or Law > > 80E regulation) which changes the meaning of a Law. > > > +=3D+ The regulation in question would seem to define a > situation in which Law 73F2 applies. If this is so there > is no modification of 20F1 since the latter Law does not > preclude the possibility of conveying information or > giving a false inference by asking a question. A player > avails himself of 20F1 at risk of these effects. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ " Let rules consist of 90 laws and there are at least two of them at least remotely related and therewith seeemingly interpretable to support any regulation one wants to introduce. Personally I am still convinced that any regulation putting restrictions related to one's own holding on asking questions is not in accordance with the laws as they are meant. How in heaven can we support an approach in which asking such question automatically creates UI? Not only for the partner of the one asking but also for the opponents? Regulators can't have wanted a situation in which=20 a player with 2 aces doesn't dare to ask a question about the auction of opponents reaching a slam because he therewith tells them he has 2 aces? Such regulation is a beautiful example of a remedy which is worse than the disease, making questioning a strategic weapon in the auction. I was astonished, didn't believe what I heard when this was told to me. May I honestly ask all nbo's not to copy this regulation? It can't be=20 right and I will resist such law (and regulation) till my last gasp. A reasonable regulation could be an approach similar to that we use with screens, telling players to vary the tempo of pushing the tray. Players should ask questions varying their interest, really wanting to know for=20 part of them and to hide such interest using the others. And in my bridgeworld it is simply impossible that a player may refer to L73F2 when an opponent asks him a serious question about his system, the bridgereason being that he wants to know what is going on. Isn't that good enough? *** before reading this discussion, i could not imagine anybody not to agree=20 with this view. if you want players to ask only when they could take an=20 action, you force them to give AI about their hand to opponent. A new=20 winning strategy will become to use systems with uninformative artificial=20 calls only intended to compel opponents to give info (AI for you and UI=20 for them) according to whether they ask or don't. it's no more a game with = closed hands. On another hand it could come out to a situation where=20 nobody dares any more to ask any question and the principle of full=20 disclosure is completely destroyed. jp rocafort ***=20 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 mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Mar 31 09:06:25 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:06:25 -0800 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 8 Message-ID: <007b01c2f75c$8045b8a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Appeal Case 8 in Philadelphia involved misinformation that became apparent when dummy was exposed. After play was over the defenders wanted an adjustment, claiming the opening lead would have been different. I won't give the deal because I am more interested in the following statements in regard to the calling of the TD. The director declined to make an adjustment on the grounds that North had failed to protect himself. Had North called the director after seeing dummy, said the director, he'd have been permitted to change his opening lead without penalty. Because N/S had failed to call for a ruling promptly, said the director, citing Laws 9 and 11, they forfeited any right to an adjusted score. The Director Panel who heard the appeal agreed agreed that N/S had compromised their position by not calling the Director immediately after becoming aware of the infraction. The idea that the opening lead could have been changed after dummy was exposed is of course ridiculous (L47E2a). The Director Panel had nothing to say about this. Since no attention was called to the irregularity, I don't think L9 applies. However, the declaring side should have called the TD to report the misinformation before the opening lead was made, and were later told that. L11 is not applicable (as I read it), since the NOS did not gain by its failure to call the TD when dummy came down. The ACBL is quick to annul redress when a player "fails to protect himself" in time, but I can't find that in the Laws. L11 says "the right to penalize may be forfeited." Does BLML think this also applies to the right to redress, as the ACBL seems to believe? Since N/S sought redress even though they did not call the TD at the proper time and presented an argument that had no bridge merit, they were each assessed an Appeal Without Merit Warning. The entire case is shown in the Saturday March 15 issue of the NABC Daily Bulletin, viewable on the ACBL website. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Mar 31 09:14:09 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:14:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) References: Message-ID: <002301c2f75d$818fcf60$fa9727d9@pbncomputer> Ton wrote: > > I ask for explanantions because I want to remain current with the > > action, sharp and tuned in. My bridge reason is that I want to know > > what is going on. > > I am disturbed by the notion that some might consider this > > inappropriate, or even illegal. > Let me be offensive once more (last time this week, but legally > unpredictable tomorrow, 1 April, is this a world wide joking day? and if so, > can somebody explain the historical background (David, when not involved in > a claim?)): Don't worry Eric, this will not happen in the real bridge world. I can tell you the historical background. I cannot explain it. The historical background is that, before I joined our country's laws commission, there was a regulation to the effect that questions should not be asked by a hand uninterested in the answer. Knowing this to be crazy, when I joined the commission I asked for it to be reviewed. It was, and a lot of arguments were introduced as to why it should be retained. Among these were: it would slow the game down if people asked questions when they did not need to; a needless question might convey a false inference to declarer; and some others which I cannot remember but which were even more stupid. As a result, it is an EBU regulation that you are only allowed to ask a question (or to refrain from asking a question) if to do so will convey unauthorised information to partner. >From time to time, I raise the matter again, and am told that we have got a regulation that we have already discussed several times. It is still crazy, and it is almost certainly illegal, but I see no hope that a remedy will ever be found. The trouble with a democracy is that the people are still the people, even the mad ones. David Burn London, England From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Mon Mar 31 09:19:34 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:19:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: "Kooijman, A." Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 31/03/03 09:50 =20 Pour : "'Konrad Ciborowski'" , blml cc :=20 Objet : RE: [blml] Active ethics There is nothing to rule on. Players should be instructed not to involve any hesitation on the other=20 side of the screen in their decision process and they can't fall back on the TD when they do.=20 What South could have done is putting the 5 heart bidding card on the=20 table as soon as he decided to make that call (the tray still being at the other side). That is acceptable self protection, in my opinion.=20 *** don't you remember a thread, somme years ago (UI insurance) where nearly=20 everybody, and maybe yourself, agreed this would be an unlawful action,=20 not to say worse? jp rocafort *** ton=20 =20 > The problem seems difficult to me > so I would welcome all your comments. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak=F3w, Poland >=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=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 Mar 31 09:42:43 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:42:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: >=20 >=20 > There is nothing to rule on. > Players should be instructed not to involve any hesitation on=20 > the other=20 > side > of the screen in their decision process and they can't fall=20 > back on the TD > when they do.=20 > What South could have done is putting the 5 heart bidding card on the = > table > as soon as he decided to make that call (the tray still being=20 > at the other > side). That is acceptable self protection, in my opinion.=20 > *** > don't you remember a thread, somme years ago (UI insurance)=20 > where nearly=20 > everybody, and maybe yourself, agreed this would be an=20 > unlawful action,=20 > not to say worse? I remember the thread yes, but I am sure I was not among those = rejecting this solution. And I still don't see the unlawful (what is worse than = that?) action, though it is against regulations (description of the auction procedure when using screens). I then described what happened in a = match with the Dutch ladies bidding to a slam in spades. After cueing for the grand and having pushed the tray Marijke van der Pas realized she only = asked for trouble and should have bid 7 herself. So she waved the 7S card on = the table and waited for the tray to return. That took indeed a = considerable time. Opponents accepted. It doesn't win the beauty contest, but I liked it.=20 ton >=20 > jp rocafort > *** >=20 > ton=20 >=20 >=20 > =20 > > The problem seems difficult to me > > so I would welcome all your comments. > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Konrad Ciborowski > > Krak=F3w, Poland > >=20 >=20 > __________________________________________________ > 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 >=20 > Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr > ___________________________________________________ >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Mar 31 10:10:39 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:10:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: > Ton wrote: > > (last time this week, but legally > > unpredictable tomorrow, 1 April, is this a world wide > joking day? and > if so, > > can somebody explain the historical background (David, when not > involved in > > a claim?)) David: > I can tell you the historical background. I cannot explain it. ........ > From time to time, I raise the matter again, and am told that we have > got a regulation that we have already discussed several times. It is > still crazy, and it is almost certainly illegal, but I see no > hope that > a remedy will ever be found. The trouble with a democracy is that the > people are still the people, even the mad ones. > > David Burn > London, England I knew your opinion and if you didn't succeed in convincing them, who can? My invitation to you had to do with the 1 of April jokes which go further than just my own country. Is it the whole (non islamic world) having this beautiful day of creativity (once in a while a paper contributes some fake news for which thousands of people become active)and if so, what is the origin? ton From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Mar 31 10:35:54 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:35:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics References: Message-ID: <003701c2f768$efab36f0$727e870a@sabre.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Konrad Ciborowski'" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 9:50 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Active ethics >There is nothing to rule on. >Players should be instructed not to involve any hesitation on the other side >of the screen in their decision process and they can't fall back on the TD >when they do. Several years ago Todd Zimnoch admitted that when he has UI then he makes a bid that he would make anyway and was almost labelled a cheat by some of the BLMLers. If I understand correctly what you are saying is that "bending over backwards" is going to far so when the bidding goes (with screens) South North 1S 3S 4C 4D 4H ...4S South is free to bid over 4S even if pass is LA as long as this is what he was going to bid anyway (that is how I understand "not involving any hesitation on the other side of the screen in their decision process"). Here it is obvious that it was North who hesitated - if South tried to argue along the lines "I don't know who hesitated on the other side of the screen" he would be given a short shritf by the TD. Do you remember a case when a player deliberately slowed down the tray on his side of the screen because he judged that his opponent bid too fast? The player on the other side of the screen noticed the hesitation and bent over backwards but the redress was in fact given (the case involved one of the Dutch pairs IIRC, if anyone remembers the details please speak up). I must say I'm puzzled Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pilkarski portal INTERIA.PL >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1703 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Mar 31 10:59:25 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:59:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: <3712342.1049104765125.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Ton wrote: >What South could have done is putting the 5 heart bidding card on the table as soon as he decided to make that call (the tray still being at the other side). That is acceptable self protection, in my opinion. And in mine. But J-P R wrote: >don't you remember a thread, somme years ago (UI insurance) where nearly everybody, and maybe yourself, agreed this would be an unlawful action, not to say worse? I remember it well. It contained some of the more staggering nonsense I have read, in this forum and elsewhere, notably from Stevenson. "Nearly everybody", as you may have gathered, did not include me then and does not include me now. >I remember the thread yes, but I am sure I was not among those rejecting this solution. Careful, Ton. Someone is bound to have the archive. >So she waved the 7S card on the table and waited for the tray to return. That took indeed a considerable time. Opponents accepted. It doesn't win the beauty contest, but I liked it. As I have said, if the officials make stupid rules, the players will just ignore them and get on with the game. David Burn London, England From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Mar 31 10:59:15 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:59:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: > > >There is nothing to rule on. > >Players should be instructed not to involve any hesitation > on the other > side > >of the screen in their decision process and they can't fall > back on the TD > >when they do. > > Several years ago Todd Zimnoch admitted that when > he has UI then he makes a bid that he would > make anyway and was almost labelled a cheat > by some of the BLMLers. > If I understand correctly what you are saying is that "bending > over backwards" is going to far so when the > bidding goes (with screens) > > South North > 1S 3S > 4C 4D > 4H ...4S > > South is free to bid over 4S even if pass is LA as long > as this is what he was going to bid anyway > (that is how I understand "not involving any hesitation on the > other side of the screen in their decision process"). 'free' goes too far. All his bids may be judged by an AC and that might not agree with such a bid. What I wanted to say is that players should not be accused of unethical play when, with screens and a long hesitation at the other side they make a winning call where a LA exists. Players are encouraged to delay pushing the tray, once in a while a player has to go to the bathroom, they might even use the time consuming procedure of writing down questions and answers, though that is the least likely explanation I can find. > Do you remember a case when a player > deliberately slowed down the tray on his > side of the screen because he judged that his > opponent bid too fast? The player on the > other side of the screen noticed the hesitation > and bent over backwards but the redress was > in fact given (the case involved one of the Dutch > pairs IIRC, if anyone remembers the details please > speak up). I do remember and did express my opinion that to be another terrible decision by an AC. Maas-Ramondt were involved. It was in Lille. They bid 5 clubs and the tray stayed at the other side for some time. Now they claimed not to bid to 6C because they considered that to be unethical after the hesitation. It appeared that the American opponents had delayed the movement of the tray. And the AC awarded the Dutch pair part of 6C, bidding it not being obvious. Incredible. > I must say I'm puzzled You have all the pieces now, put them together. ton From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Mar 31 11:14:26 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:14:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: <2030147.1049105666353.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Konrad wrote: >Several years ago Todd Zimnoch admitted that when he has UI then he makes a bid that he would make anyway and was almost labelled a cheat by some of the BLMLers. I think he was merely accused of having an insufficient understanding of his responsibilities under Law 73 (a favourite topic of DWS, then as now, his understanding of it being incomplete, then as now). > If I understand correctly what you are saying is that "bending over backwards" is going to far so when the bidding goes (with screens) > South North > 1S 3S > 4C 4D > 4H ...4S > South is free to bid over 4S even if pass is LA as long > as this is what he was going to bid anyway If, before or immediately after passing the tray, South indicates to East that whatever happens, after however long, South will take some action other than pass at his next turn, then Ton and I assert that any such action by South is in breach of no law. >(that is how I understand "not involving any hesitation on the other side of the screen in their decision process"). Not really. What Ton is trying to say (and I agree entirely) is that if a player can demonstrate that his actions are not based on unauthorised information, he is free to make them, and they may not be cancelled by reference to law 16 or law 73. >Here it is obvious that it was North who hesitated - if South tried to argue along the lines "I don't know who hesitated on the other side of the screen" he would be given a short shrift by the TD. That is correct. But South will not argue that he has not received extraneous information. He will argue that his action was clearly not "suggested over another" by extraneous information, for he was prepared to take it before he received any extraneous information, and before he even knew whether he would receive such information or not. David Burn London, England From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Mar 31 12:12:38 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:12:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030330213407.02e8ca20@mail.fscv.net> Message-ID: On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 04:00 AM, Walt.Flory@fscv.net wrote: > At 08:00 PM 30/03/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> [big snip] >> >> >South claims that he was misinformed ; that >> >E/W's convention more probably is some sort >> >of Baron-type escape, which fits quite well >> >with both East's hand and West's pass. >> > >> >E/W don't have any CC or system notes. >> > >> >How do you rule ? (this is not the unexpected >> >question ; the problem seems to be : who do >> >you believe on the evidence given by the >> >bidding and the hands ?) >> > >> >Thank you for your advice. >> > >> >Alain. >> >> As TD, I use Law 91A to eject South from the >> remainder of the session. South has seriously >> infracted Law 74A2 by publicly suggesting that >> both East and West are deliberate liars. >> >> West's pass of Stayman is a normal scramble >> action in an auction where the opponents are >> looking for penalties. East's use of Stayman >> is a similar scramble action, presumably the >> only scramble available in their system for >> East's cards, once East chooses not to let West >> play 1NTx. >> >> Therefore, as TD, I give a tentative Law 85B >> ruling of no score adjustment. I order EW to >> complete their CCs as soon as possible. I fine >> EW a standard PP for not previously having had >> a CC available. > > > Richard > > I'm glad to see that someone else understands that auction the way I > learned it in the 1970's from the books on Precision by C.C. Wei's > group. > > The scrambling action seems absolutely standard to me for an > experienced Precision pair who fear they are about to go down doubled. > > Walt > The use of the auction in this way may or may not be 'standard' depending on where you are playing, but the description of it as "Stayman" seems less than complete. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Mar 31 12:37:05 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:37:05 +1200 Subject: [blml] Rule of Coincidence (was Psyching) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c2f779$deb36f00$d12e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Monday, 31 March 2003 12:30 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Rule of Coincidence (was Psyching) > > > > Grattan wrote: > > >>+=+ Perhaps it would be best to examine what > >>the Orange Book actually says: > >> "The actions of you and your partner following > >>a psyche *may* provide evidence of an unauthorized > >>- and therefore illegal - understanding. If so then your > >>partnership is said to have 'fielded' the psyche. > >>................................." and > >> "A partnership's actions on one board may be > >>sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorized > >>understanding........ . This is classified as a Red Psyche." > > [snip] > > >>I do not find in this anything that removes the Director's > >>power to make judgements. There are standards set > >>by which he may make those judgements. Psyche > >>records are received by the Laws & Ethics Committee > >>which has a procedure for promoting consistency by > >>identifying cases that are worthy of further comment, > >>or as it may be of amendment (i.e. altering the > >>classification). > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > The June 2000 edition of the White Book also states: > > >The TD will find that you have such an unauthorised > >understanding if, for example, you take any abnormal action, > >before the psyche has been exposed, to protect your side from > >its effect. The TD will judge your actions objectively: > >that is to say your intent will not be taken into account. > > By saying that "the TD will find" and "intent will not", the > EBU in this example seems to be ordering the TD to rule a > Red Psyche whenever the partner of the psycher chooses a > successful abnormal action (aka non-logical alternative). > > In my opinion, this is just another variant of the logically > flawed Rule of Coincidence. > > While partnerships with CPUs will get lucky in the auction, > partnerships who get lucky in the auction do not necessarily > have CPUs. Absolutely. Why is this difficult to see? Wayne > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Mar 31 13:14:38 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:14:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Rule of Coincidence (was Psyching) Message-ID: <5694614.1049112878309.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Wayne wrote: > > By saying that "the TD will find" and "intent will not", the > > EBU in this example seems to be ordering the TD to rule a > > Red Psyche whenever the partner of the psycher chooses a > > successful abnormal action (aka non-logical alternative). > > In my opinion, this is just another variant of the logically > > flawed Rule of Coincidence. > > While partnerships with CPUs will get lucky in the auction, > > partnerships who get lucky in the auction do not necessarily > > have CPUs. > Absolutely. > Why is this difficult to see? Because it is not true. We have got some barmy regulations, but these ones are quite sensible. It has got nothing to do with the Rule of Coincidence; what it has to do with is the rules of bridge. If X shows four or more spades, and X's partner tells the opponents that X has shown four or more spades, but then does not act as though X had four or more spades, then one of a number of possibilities exists (and one of them must be true): (a) X's partner is lying to the opponents, thereby concealing his side's partnership understanding [by "lying" I mean "uttering a falsehood", regardless of whether he is doing this knowingly or not] (b) X's partner is telling the truth to the opponents, but knows from previous experience that X does not often actually have spades in this auction, or type of auction; again, this is to conceal his side's actual partnership understanding from the opponents (c) X's partner is telling the truth to the opponents, but can deduce from authorised information alone that on this occasion X does not have spades; this is entirely legal. It seems to me correct that an official should make a judgement as to which of these situations is the actual one. It also seems to me correct that the official should never assume without firm evidence that (c) is the case. He should assume (b), for that is by far the most likely and most common explanation; unless the discrepancy has to do with remembering the system, in which case he should assume (a). David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 31 13:47:28 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:47:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation In-Reply-To: <3E8571A2.7030408@skynet.be> References: <200303281734.h2SHYciF011233@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030331143811.00ac5990@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:12 29/03/2003 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Yes Ted, but your argument works both ways. > >Ted Ying wrote: > >>TY: I would be more understanding if this were an inexperienced >> or infrequent partner. However, the original description >> mentioned that this partnership had some 30 years of >> experience playing regularly across the table from each >> others. This isn't just a "most players" or a "rub of the >> green". Here, this partnership should have an explicit >> understanding at this point and the two unusual actions >> combined, along with no CC for a convention card denote >> irresponsible behavior along with some funny table action. > > >You are right in blaming EW for not having a CC, true. >But if you are saying that you don't believe they don't have an agreement >in this situation, you are bound to draw one of two conclusions: >- they do have an agreement, it is an escape sequence, and they are lying >cheating bastards; or >- they do have an agreement, it is Stayman, and they got lucky. AG : yes, we have to decide this pair's agreement. As East bid 2C with a weak hand lacking a major, and in the absence of any CC, don't we have to decide that it wasn't Stayman ? And West's pass is further evidence. I would have liked to decide according to a third way : West knew it was a scramble, perhaps lacking a major, and eminently passable, but for some reason he made a lapsus and said "Stayman", thus giving MI. Isn't that possible ? Isn't that more plausible that the lucky strike ? And isn't that what we should say absent the CC ? (there always was a consensus that, if the explanation doesn't match the hand, MI is decided barring evidence to the contrary) Of course, one could also call them cheats, because that's what they are (I know them) ; but the AC decided like most contributors did : "one is not allowed to do that and South should be ashamed". That's why this particular pair escapes again and again. And that's why South wanted to have advice from you. Now we all know that they will escape forever. I feel that the AC missed a wonderful opportunity to catch them. Keeping a record of their auctions. Why ? They always have been judge pure of intention ... Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 31 14:00:41 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:00:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics In-Reply-To: <003701c2f768$efab36f0$727e870a@sabre.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030331145818.00ab06c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:35 31/03/2003 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Do you remember a case when a player >deliberately slowed down the tray on his >side of the screen because he judged that his >opponent bid too fast? The player on the >other side of the screen noticed the hesitation >and bent over backwards but the redress was >in fact given (the case involved one of the Dutch >pairs IIRC, if anyone remembers the details please >speak up). AG : I don't know when this happened, but nowadays it has become standard under the denomination "random timing", and many organizers have mentioned that it is proper ; however, it doesn't exceed 10-15 seconds. The problems will arise after that time. Thus I would say : - medium tempo, around 15 sec : no need to bend backwards, because you really don't know who took the time (it might be the opponent, even without any problem, if he uses RT). - longer than that : the command to bend backwards subsists. Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Mar 31 13:49:07 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:49:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: <4348319.1049114947321.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote: > - medium tempo, around 15 sec : no need to bend backwards, because you really don't know who took the time (it might be the opponent, even without any problem, if he uses RT). Quite; where there is no information, there is no extraneous information. > - longer than that : the command to bend backwards subsists. What command? In which law do those words appear? David Burn London, England From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Mon Mar 31 14:08:53 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:08:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046387@hotel.npl.co.uk> In case David's question is not rhetorical > > - longer than that : the command to bend backwards subsists. > What command? In which law do those words appear? This is DWS reading of "carefully avoid taking any advantage" in Law 73C. Robin -----Original Message----- From: dalburn@btopenworld.com [mailto:dalburn@btopenworld.com] Sent: 31 March 2003 13:49 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Active ethics Alain wrote: > - medium tempo, around 15 sec : no need to bend backwards, because you really don't know who took the time (it might be the opponent, even without any problem, if he uses RT). Quite; where there is no information, there is no extraneous information. > - longer than that : the command to bend backwards subsists. What command? In which law do those words appear? David Burn London, England ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Mar 31 14:30:16 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:30:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: <8133117.1049117416944.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Robin wrote: > In case David's question is not rhetorical When it is, I will let you know. A snort will appear in parentheses. >the command to bend backwards subsists. >What command? In which law do those words appear? > This is DWS reading of "carefully avoid taking any advantage" in Law 73C. I thought I had heard it before. Recall if you will that Law 73 was until recently not a law at all; like most of the rest of what used to be the Proprieties, it has been given the status of a law by people who did not do an awful lot of thinking about what this might entail. It is a worthy sentiment, of course, but it has no legal force over and above that of law 16, which sets forth in practical terms what it means to avoid taking advantage of extraneous information, and by what criteria actions which might be so construed are to be judged. What does it mean to "avoid taking advantage" of extraneous information? It means only that you must not do anything predicated upon that information (unless your action is also the only logical one predicated upon the authorised information available to you). "Predicated upon" is to be judged not from your own point of view, but from that of one or more independent observers; though you may in all conscience act according to the law as you perceive your logical alternative actions, the position may be judged otherwise by a referee, and (after exhausting all appeals processes, or in the case of Australia no appeals processes), you are bound by such a judgement. There is nothing here about "bending over backwards", or any other unlikely piece of callisthenics. DWS seeemed to think (indeed, he banged on about it more or less whenever the subject arose) that Law 73 said something that Law 16 does not say. This is not the case; as usual with the laws and the proprieties, the latter express a philosophy, while the former express a practice. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 31 14:47:56 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:47:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority References: <000001c2f75b$6757b100$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E88470C.6060706@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>richard.hills@immi.gov.au >> > ......... > >>Some years ago, ambiguously written carryforward rules for >>the Australian team playoff resulted in ambiguity about >>whether the two finalist teams had tied, and therefore >>whether an 8-board playoff was required. One of the teams >>went to the extent of hiring a barrister to appear at the >>National Authority hearing. (The two teams settled out of >>court, agreeing to a 64-board playoff with no carryforward.) >> >>To avoid any future drawn-out and expensive dramas, the ABF >>abolished its National Authority. Is the ABF therefore an >>infractor of Law 93C? >> > > Obviously yes, unless they have made arrangements for such appeals to be > handled by an even higher ranked organization, for instance by WBF! > Or a lower one, as is the case in Belgium. > The essence of Law93C is that there shall be some possibility for trying > cases again after they have been ruled both by the Director and by some > "local" AC. > So if the ABF decide that the national authority of L93C is the state AC (you must have those, no?) that would satisfy the spirit of L93C. > It may be of interest to know that by regulation the AC in Norwegian > national championships *is* the National Authority, there is to be no local > AC at such events (or the National Authority is present at the event). > As is the case at international championships as well. The EBL AC serves as L93C NA as well (stipulated in regulations). > 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Mar 31 14:59:13 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:59:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] More guidance required Message-ID: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> After "suits from the top down", I fear that we are going to need some more guidance. Is it irrational not to ruff from the bottom up? South, declarer in a heart contract, claims the rest. He has forgotten that H6 is still out, and East is on lead. 32 None None None A KQ 6 None None None None None None 75 None None How many tricks should be awarded to declarer? Stipulate whether your ruling would be different for these values of the oustanding trumps, or for any other values: South West AQ K A2 3 J9 10 97 8 42 3 Would your ruling be different if West were on lead? Do you have any reason to believe that I am not capable of constructing at least 2,037 situations in which similar guidance is going to be required for every bridge club in the world? Do you still agree with Herman that "claims are easy"? Would you care to look at a prospectus for an undiscovered gold mine in Bolivia? David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 31 15:01:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:01:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority In-Reply-To: <3E88470C.6060706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c2f78e$17190e90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Well, I understood the original post that the ABF had abolished whatever they previously had of ABF AC or state AC or any name you have for it. That is why I suggested some international body, for instance WBF as the extreme for the next level of authority. But as far as I can read your post the two of us are completely in-line here. Regards Sven > Herman De Wael > Sent: 31. mars 2003 15:48 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal to National Authority >=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > >>richard.hills@immi.gov.au > >> > > ......... > > > >>Some years ago, ambiguously written carryforward rules for > >>the Australian team playoff resulted in ambiguity about > >>whether the two finalist teams had tied, and therefore > >>whether an 8-board playoff was required. One of the teams > >>went to the extent of hiring a barrister to appear at the > >>National Authority hearing. (The two teams settled out of > >>court, agreeing to a 64-board playoff with no carryforward.) > >> > >>To avoid any future drawn-out and expensive dramas, the ABF > >>abolished its National Authority. Is the ABF therefore an > >>infractor of Law 93C? > >> > > > > Obviously yes, unless they have made arrangements for such appeals = to be > > handled by an even higher ranked organization, for instance by WBF! > > >=20 >=20 > Or a lower one, as is the case in Belgium. >=20 >=20 > > The essence of Law93C is that there shall be some possibility for = trying > > cases again after they have been ruled both by the Director and by = some > > "local" AC. > > >=20 >=20 > So if the ABF decide that the national authority of L93C is the state > AC (you must have those, no?) that would satisfy the spirit of L93C. >=20 >=20 > > It may be of interest to know that by regulation the AC in Norwegian > > national championships *is* the National Authority, there is to be = no > local > > AC at such events (or the National Authority is present at the = event). > > >=20 >=20 > As is the case at international championships as well. The EBL AC > serves as L93C NA as well (stipulated in regulations). >=20 >=20 > > Regards Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > >=20 >=20 > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 31 16:13:03 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:13:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required References: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E885AFF.80504@skynet.be> Indeed David, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > After "suits from the top down", I fear that we are going to need some more guidance. Is it irrational not to ruff from the bottom up? > > South, declarer in a heart contract, claims the rest. He has forgotten that H6 is still out, and East is on lead. > > 32 > None > None > None > A KQ > 6 None > None None > None None > None > 75 > None > None > > How many tricks should be awarded to declarer? Stipulate whether your ruling would be different for these values of the oustanding trumps, or for any other values: I would indeed propose a general guidance that trumps are used bottom-up. > > South West > AQ K > A2 3 > J9 10 > 97 8 > 42 3 > > Would your ruling be different if West were on lead? > If the guidance is not that trumps are always used bottom-up, then certainly the guidance should be like that here. > Do you have any reason to believe that I am not capable of constructing at least 2,037 situations in which similar guidance is going to be required for every bridge club in the world? Do you still agree with Herman that "claims are easy"? Would you care to look at a prospectus for an undiscovered gold mine in Bolivia? > Claims are NOT easy, as I discovered on Saturday: immaterial AK JT7 J9 - - 64 4 - 8 2 - 986 East was declarer in a spade contract and he claims the last five tricks "cross ruff". South says "I still have a trump left". The TD says - but you have to follow suit, how can you overruff?. South agrees that he cannot. He phoned me sunday afternoon with the discovery that he can throw the heart. That's a bit late. Apparently North was on lead, where we thought the lead was in dummy. Would the claim be acceptable if the lead is in dummy? I believe ruffing high twice is inconsistent with a claim on a cross-ruff. > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 31 16:58:29 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:58:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: <3E885AFF.80504@skynet.be> References: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030331175301.00ab9660@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:13 31/03/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Claims are NOT easy, as I discovered on Saturday: > > immaterial >AK JT7 >J9 - >- 64 >4 - > 8 > 2 > - > 986 > >East was declarer in a spade contract and he claims the last five tricks >"cross ruff". >South says "I still have a trump left". The TD says - but you have to >follow suit, how can you overruff?. South agrees that he cannot. >He phoned me sunday afternoon with the discovery that he can throw the >heart. That's a bit late. Apparently North was on lead, where we thought >the lead was in dummy. >Would the claim be acceptable if the lead is in dummy? I believe ruffing >high twice is inconsistent with a claim on a cross-ruff. AG : since there is a well-known expression "ruffing high" which declarer hasn't used, I believe the only way to play in agreement with the statement is to ruff with the smallest possible card each time. Thus, if West was on lead, I would award the contract. You mean that the TD went wrong because he didn't enquire as to who was to lead to the next trick ? Then he is responsible, and should rule according to the last sentence of L83, for which it isn't too late to act. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Mar 31 16:49:53 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:49:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] More guidance required Message-ID: <3869787.1049125793567.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > I would indeed propose a general guidance that trumps are used bottom-up. Very good. Now, suppose declarer claims on a "high cross-ruff" in this position: AK None 32 None J2 None KQ AJ None KQ None None Q10 32 None None Spades are trumps, the lead is in dummy. How many tricks would you award to declarer? Are trumps to be used from the bottom up in a high cross-ruff? Would your ruling differ if declarer required only three tricks to fulfil his redoubled slam contract? 2,036 to go... > If the guidance is not that trumps are always used bottom-up, then certainly the guidance should be like that here. > Claims are NOT easy, as I discovered on Saturday: Actually, they are. It is only claims as judged by Herman that are not. immaterial Well, not all that immaterial, since he was on lead AK J107 J9 None None 64 4 None 8 2 None 986 >East was declarer in a spade contract and he claims the last five tricks "cross ruff". Very well. East has stipulated that he will play on a cross-ruff; he has not stated which cards he will ruff with which trumps; so he is deemed to play as badly as possible consistently with his statement, and to lose a trick by ruffing the second round of hearts with the seven of spades (or the first round, if North is in fact on lead and plays a high diamond). This ruling is entirely consistent with the current laws, and entirely equitable (unlike the ruling actually given, which appears to me to have been both illegal and daft). David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Mar 31 16:53:58 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:53:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] More guidance required Message-ID: <5665956.1049126038267.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote: >AG : since there is a well-known expression "ruffing high" which declarer hasn't used, I believe the only way to play in agreement with the statement is to ruff with the smallest possible card each time. Declarer, with SAKQJ2, claims the last five tricks. Since there is a well-known expresssion "from the top down", which declarer hasn't used, I believe the only way to play in agreement with the statement is to lead the two. Fortunately, Alain isn't reading my messages any more, and I can therefore safely say that his argument above is comfortably the most ludicrous thing I have read since Stevenson on Law 73C. David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Mar 31 18:11:32 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:11:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030331115948.02721510@pop.starpower.net> At 08:59 AM 3/31/03, dalburn wrote: >After "suits from the top down", I fear that we are going to need some >more guidance. Is it irrational not to ruff from the bottom up? I'd say it is "normal" to ruff from the bottom up. This means that if a claimer says he will ruff, or must ruff (as in the example), or will be "allowed" to ruff per L70E ("failure to [do so] would be irrational"), he should be presumed to be ruffing low (unless he has explicitly stated otherwise). >South, declarer in a heart contract, claims the rest. He has forgotten >that H6 is still out, and East is on lead. > > 32 > None > None > None >A KQ >6 None >None None >None None > None > 75 > None > None > >How many tricks should be awarded to declarer? Two. >Stipulate whether your ruling would be different for these values of >the oustanding trumps, or for any other values: > >South West >AQ K >A2 3 >J9 10 >97 8 >42 3 No. >Would your ruling be different if West were on lead? No. >Do you have any reason to believe that I am not capable of >constructing at least 2,037 situations in which similar guidance is >going to be required for every bridge club in the world? Do you still >agree with Herman that "claims are easy"? Would you care to look at a >prospectus for an undiscovered gold mine in Bolivia? As I see it, one simple, common-sense "guidance" -- "it is deemed to be 'normal' to ruff with one's lowest trump unless one states otherwise" -- covers all 2,037 situations. The overwhelming majority of claims *would be* easy if we based our rulings on guidelines grounded on common sense rather than on legalistic nitpicking. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 31 18:53:28 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:53:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required References: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20030331175301.00ab9660@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E888098.7060603@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 17:13 31/03/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Claims are NOT easy, as I discovered on Saturday: >> >> immaterial >> AK JT7 >> J9 - >> - 64 >> 4 - >> 8 >> 2 >> - >> 986 >> >> East was declarer in a spade contract and he claims the last five >> tricks "cross ruff". >> South says "I still have a trump left". The TD says - but you have to >> follow suit, how can you overruff?. South agrees that he cannot. >> He phoned me sunday afternoon with the discovery that he can throw the >> heart. That's a bit late. Apparently North was on lead, where we >> thought the lead was in dummy. >> Would the claim be acceptable if the lead is in dummy? I believe >> ruffing high twice is inconsistent with a claim on a cross-ruff. > > > AG : since there is a well-known expression "ruffing high" which > declarer hasn't used, I believe the only way to play in agreement with > the statement is to ruff with the smallest possible card each time. > Thus, if West was on lead, I would award the contract. > > You mean that the TD went wrong because he didn't enquire as to who was > to lead to the next trick ? Then he is responsible, and should rule > according to the last sentence of L83, for which it isn't too late to act. > It is on Sunday afternoon! (the tournament was on saturday) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 31 19:00:59 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:00:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required References: <3869787.1049125793567.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E88825B.7070200@skynet.be> Hello David, for once you are completely correct in calling my ruling daft: - or rather not. Completely bonkers better describes it. dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>I would indeed propose a general guidance that trumps are used bottom-up. >> > > Very good. Now, suppose declarer claims on a "high cross-ruff" in this position: > > AK > None > 32 > None > J2 None > KQ AJ > None KQ > None None > Q10 > 32 > None > None > > Spades are trumps, the lead is in dummy. How many tricks would you award to declarer? Are trumps to be used from the bottom up in a high cross-ruff? Would your ruling differ if declarer required only three tricks to fulfil his redoubled slam contract? > What does "high cross-ruff" mean? If it means "I start ruffing top-down" that's just silly. So I believe it means "I am aware that you have trumps left, but my ruffs are higher than your trumps". Well, that's not true here, so: diamond ruffed with the 10 and overruffed; trump; one more trick to defence. Two tricks. Easy. But of course this is a case where the non-guidance line provides more tricks than the quidance one. So the question as to whether ruffing high first is normal does not matter. > 2,036 to go... > Please write one in which the less succesful line consists of a high ruff followed by a low one. > >>If the guidance is not that trumps are always used bottom-up, then certainly the guidance should be like that here. >> > >>Claims are NOT easy, as I discovered on Saturday: >> > > Actually, they are. It is only claims as judged by Herman that are not. > > immaterial > Well, not all that immaterial, since he was on lead > > AK J107 > J9 None > None 64 > 4 None > 8 > 2 > None > 986 > > >>East was declarer in a spade contract and he claims the last five tricks "cross ruff". >> > > Very well. East has stipulated that he will play on a cross-ruff; he has not stated which cards he will ruff with which trumps; so he is deemed to play as badly as possible consistently with his statement, and to lose a trick by ruffing the second round of hearts with the seven of spades (or the first round, if North is in fact on lead and plays a high diamond). This ruling is entirely consistent with the current laws, and entirely equitable (unlike the ruling actually given, which appears to me to have been both illegal and daft). Well, not daft, actually, just wrong. Nobody's perfect. > > 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 Mon Mar 31 19:04:02 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:04:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: <3869787.1049125793567.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030331125908.026e0d30@pop.starpower.net> At 10:49 AM 3/31/03, dalburn wrote: >Herman wrote: > > > I would indeed propose a general guidance that trumps are used > bottom-up. > >Very good. Now, suppose declarer claims on a "high cross-ruff" in this >position: > > AK > None > 32 > None >J2 None >KQ AJ >None KQ >None None > Q10 > 32 > None > None > >Spades are trumps, the lead is in dummy. How many tricks would you >award to declarer? Two. >Are trumps to be used from the bottom up in a high cross-ruff? Yes. *High* trumps are to be used from the bottom up. "High trumps" are the n highest trumps held by a claimer proposing to take n ruffs "high". >Would your ruling differ if declarer required only three tricks to >fulfil his redoubled slam contract? No. Unless, of course, declarer has specified that he is claiming three (of the four remaining) tricks, in which case he would be presumed to be using the A,K and Q of trumps for his three "high" ruffs. >2,036 to go... It would be nice if they were all this easy! Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Mar 31 19:06:41 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:06:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030331115948.02721510@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3E8883B1.50204@skynet.be> Eric, my trusted ally, I have to point out that you have not answered David's question satisfactorily. Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:59 AM 3/31/03, dalburn wrote: > >> After "suits from the top down", I fear that we are going to need some >> more guidance. Is it irrational not to ruff from the bottom up? > > > I'd say it is "normal" to ruff from the bottom up. This means that if a > claimer says he will ruff, or must ruff (as in the example), or will be > "allowed" to ruff per L70E ("failure to [do so] would be irrational"), > he should be presumed to be ruffing low (unless he has explicitly stated > otherwise). > The question is not "is it normal to ruff bottom-up?". That one is easy, and we have always ruled such. The question was "Is it irrational not to ruff from the bottom up", which also translates (almost) to "is it normal to ruff top-down?". That is an interesting question and I would like to see David create an example in which it matters. My example is a correct one actually, if the lead had been in dummy immaterial AK JT7 J9 - - 64 4 - 8 2 - 986 One line which leads to a trick for south is: -heart ruffed with the 10 -diamond ruff -heart ruffed with the 7 (overruff) Is this a normal line ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Mon Mar 31 19:19:23 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:19:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_RE=3A_[blml]_Active_ethics?= Message-ID: dalburn@btopenworld.com Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 31/03/03 11:59 =20 Pour : blml@rtflb.org cc :=20 Objet : RE: [blml] Active ethics Ton wrote: >What South could have done is putting the 5 heart bidding card on the=20 table as soon as he decided to make that call (the tray still being at the = other side). That is acceptable self protection, in my opinion. And in mine. But J-P R wrote: >don't you remember a thread, somme years ago (UI insurance) where nearly=20 everybody, and maybe yourself, agreed this would be an unlawful action,=20 not to say worse? I remember it well. It contained some of the more staggering nonsense I=20 have read, in this forum and elsewhere, notably from Stevenson. "Nearly=20 everybody", as you may have gathered, did not include me then and does not = include me now. =20 >I remember the thread yes, but I am sure I was not among those rejecting=20 this solution. Careful, Ton. Someone is bound to have the archive. *** relax, i didn't find a post from Ton, but this one may be interesting: " >Jan Kamras wrote: >>=20 >> vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: >>=20 >> > So for me neither current Laws (L74!)...snip... make possible of such >> > insuring action. >> > And as the action is illegal ... >>=20 >> > Jan Kamras: "Please - show us where in the laws it states >> > that you cannot apply this manoeuvre. ...." ++++ Hi Vitold (and others); thank you for the private=20 email. I am responding to part of it with a published note.=20 The player's remark is a gratuitous comment, not part of=20 the action on the hand, and may be penalized if it affects the play. Say it puts opponent off doubling and the contract goes two down. A breach of Law 74A2 may be adjudged, and there is certainly a=20 breach of 74B2 and consequently 74A3. There is no power by which the director can require the player at his turn to make good his stated intention. You will understand that I am not entering into any debate as to what is desirable. My purpose here is simply not to let the=20 law as it stands become submerged, lost to sight. The discussion=20 has tended to centre on what individuals feel the law should be=20 and has been misrepresented in some of the postings. Where we=20 go next is a matter for the WBFLC and I have no wish to pre-empt=20 any corporate action of the Committee if it did feel inclined to=20 change anything (not impossible, but I would be slightly surprised). When the player's turn comes any UI available from partner affects what he may choose to do. The law stands apart from his=20 illegal wriggles to try to avoid the situation, and whatever he may=20 have known previously, he now has the extra knowledge that his partner would welcome whatever action the UI suggests. The law applies objective criteria which have nothing to do with what is in the player's mind, his intentions, the basis for his action; these things are not the criteria for the application of the law which is based solely on the fact that he has been given UI and what he may now do assessed upon an objective comparison of his desired actiuon with what other players would regard as LAs. =20 ~ Grattan ~ ++++ " jp rocafort *** >So she waved the 7S card on the table and waited for the tray to return.=20 That took indeed a considerable time. Opponents accepted. It doesn't win=20 the beauty contest, but I liked it. As I have said, if the officials make stupid rules, the players will just=20 ignore them and get on with the game. David Burn London, England=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=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 ehaa@starpower.net Mon Mar 31 20:03:50 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:03:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: <3E8883B1.50204@skynet.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030331115948.02721510@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030331132145.026e2ad0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:06 PM 3/31/03, Herman wrote: >Eric, my trusted ally, I have to point out that you have not answered >David's question satisfactorily. > >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 08:59 AM 3/31/03, dalburn wrote: >> >>>After "suits from the top down", I fear that we are going to need >>>some more guidance. Is it irrational not to ruff from the bottom up? >> >>I'd say it is "normal" to ruff from the bottom up. This means that >>if a claimer says he will ruff, or must ruff (as in the example), or >>will be "allowed" to ruff per L70E ("failure to [do so] would be >>irrational"), he should be presumed to be ruffing low (unless he has >>explicitly stated otherwise). > >The question is not "is it normal to ruff bottom-up?". That one is >easy, and we have always ruled such. >The question was "Is it irrational not to ruff from the bottom up", >which also translates (almost) to "is it normal to ruff top-down?". They may be different questions in everyday English, but they will always have the same answer in the context of applying L69-71. It is irrational for a player *who has no need to do so* not to ruff from the bottom up. We therefore assume that a player who has given no indication that he is aware of any need to ruff other than from the bottom up (including, but not limited to, ruffing from the top down) will not do so. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 31 21:07:10 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:07:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: <200303312007.PAA09446@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > >Once you combine these two questions, don't you know for sure West has > >done something wrong? Hasn't West in effect admitted that he played > >with 14 cards if he had seven clubs? > > No, and no. There are four suits in the deck. West (and North) have said > how many clubs were, in their respective opinions, in West's hand. > Neither has said anything about how many cards West held in the other > three suits. One of us seems to have misunderstood the original problem. As it happens, I found the original quote. With 14 cards found in the west hand at table 2... > check with pair 1 E-W and is told by both players: "Our hands were > like that when we played this board. There was 7 clubs in West's hand > and 3 in East". In other words, West is claiming to have held 14 cards when he played the hand, and East is claiming to have held 12. It's of course possible that a card in another suit also needs to be transferred, but that would be a second misplaced card. Probably it's silly to be arguing this; the TD on the scene is the only one who can gather the facts. However, the general point is in how to assess the evidence. If one player's testimony requires him to have had 14 cards or that there be a second, unrelated mistake, it makes sense to give that testimony less weight than another player's. I think William of Occam had something to say on the subject. From svenpran@online.no Mon Mar 31 21:40:01 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:40:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: <200303312007.PAA09446@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000501c2f7c5$b4456560$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner ........... > As it happens, I found the original quote. With 14 cards found > in the west hand at table 2... > > check with pair 1 E-W and is told by both players: "Our hands were > > like that when we played this board. There was 7 clubs in West's = hand > > and 3 in East". >=20 > In other words, West is claiming to have held 14 cards when he played > the hand, and East is claiming to have held 12.=20 No, they are not. They are claiming that they held 7 and 3 clubs, but at = the same time North is claiming that E-W held 6 and 4 clubs. Now which statement is TD going to give the greatest weight? The = statement by E-W is inconsistent with the fact (?) that they played the board to = the end without noticing a 12-14 split between them. (At least that is the = fact as we have been presented it). The statement by North is however consistent with this fact, and that is = one reason why TD probably should assume that North's statement is correct = and that East and West are wrong. ......... > Probably it's silly to be arguing this; the TD on the scene is the = only > one who can gather the facts. However, the general point is in how to > assess the evidence. If one player's testimony requires him to have > had 14 cards or that there be a second, unrelated mistake, it makes > sense to give that testimony less weight than another player's. Quite so when the board was played through all thirteen tricks with = nobody noticing anything wrong. Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 31 22:30:39 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:30:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: <200303312130.QAA09490@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > > As it happens, I found the original quote. With 14 cards found > > in the west hand at table 2... > > > check with pair 1 E-W and is told by both players: "Our hands were > > > like that when we played this board. There was 7 clubs in West's hand > > > and 3 in East". > > > > In other words, West is claiming to have held 14 cards when he played > > the hand, and East is claiming to have held 12. > From: "Sven Pran" > No, they are not. They are claiming that they held 7 and 3 clubs, I am very confused. EW say the board was "like that," and at the moment they say so, West has 14 cards and East has 12. How do you read the original posting to say anything else? Either the EW statement is mistaken, or they failed to count their cards at the beginning. At least those are the only simple options I see, but perhaps I am missing something. From henk@amsterdamned.org Mon Mar 31 23:00:01 2003 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:01 +0200 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 1M 1 of a major 1m 1 of a minor The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Mar 31 23:55:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:55:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation Message-ID: I wrote: >>As TD, I use Law 91A to eject South from the >>remainder of the session. South has seriously >>infracted Law 74A2 by publicly suggesting that >>both East and West are deliberate liars. Alain replied: >AG : yes, that's the problem. They are. However, >one is not allowed to say that. For this reason, >they escaped without penalty, as they usually do. >South tried to imply the TD in the process, but >he and the AC refused to act. Too bad. (no, I >wasn't south. I was only consulted) As TD, determining whether the facts of a *particular* case are consistent with East and/or West being deliberate liars is *my* responsibility. So, as TD, I still eject South from the remainder of the session for suggesting East and West are deliberate liars. Even if East-West have infracted Law 73B2, that does not excuse South infracting Law 74A2. Determining whether East and/or West have a *pattern* of terminological inexactitudes is more appropriately the responsibility of an official Recorder appointed by the Belgian NCBO. South could then appropriately and confidentially report suspicions and evidence against East-West to the Recorder, rather than to a TD and/or AC. It is then the responsibility of the Belgian NCBO Conduct & Ethics Committee to assess reports from the Recorder, and take appropriate action in accordance with Law 73B2. On the facts provided to me, it appears that villains are given incentive to cheat in Belgium due to dereliction of duty by the Belgian NCBO in failing to establish appropriate procedures for villainy to be reported. Therefore, as TD, I assess a PP against the President of the Belgian NCBO. Best wishes Richard