From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 1 00:26:32 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:26:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation Message-ID: >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 The description "Stayman" is, in my opinion, adequate for the class of opponent (major event, experienced pair) involved. It is true that a 2C Stayman call is forcing for at least one round in an uncontested auction. But only a sponsor should assume that the forcing nature of Stayman remains a default when the opponents are scrambling to avoid a doubled penalty. An experienced player in a major event should realise that *any* call may be passed by an opponent, even if the denomination is a poor fit, if it results in an *undoubled* penalty. Best wishes Richard From lskelso@ihug.com.au Tue Apr 1 00:34:44 2003 From: lskelso@ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 09:34:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030401093444.0095f100@pop3.norton.antivirus> Richard Hills wrote: > >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? Sorry Richard, but what you have written above is just not true! The ABF does have a duly constituted National Authority. If you wish I can (by a private email) give you it's current composition. It last meet about nine months ago. Regards Laurie (Melbourne, Australia) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 1 02:40:58 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:40:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority Message-ID: >Sorry Richard, but what you have written above >is just not true! > >The ABF does have a duly constituted National >Authority. If you wish I can (by a private email) >give you it's current composition. It last meet >about nine months ago. > >Regards >Laurie >(Melbourne, Australia) My apologies to the ABF for not verifying a second- hand (and obviously incorrect) assertion I received. Sven wrote: >>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). Herman replied: >As is the case at international championships as >well. The EBL AC serves as L93C NA as well >(stipulated in regulations). 'I'll be judge, I'll be jury,' Said cunning old Fury: 'I'll try the whole cause, and condemn you to death.' Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 1 03:16:19 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 12:16:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: David Burn wrote: [big snip] >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. [snip] I agree with David Burn that Law 16 and Law 73C are tautological. But I agree with David Stevenson that bending over backwards is a useful metaphor. In my opinion, the metaphor helps hoi polloi players avoid self-deception. Without use of the metaphor, hoi polloi often fool themselves that "I would always...", and then opt for a demonstrably suggested logical alternative from amongst non-suggested logical alternatives. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 1 05:46:28 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 14:46:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Rule of Coincidence (was Psyching) Message-ID: David Burn wrote: >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. If these are the *only* three possibilities, then David Burn is correct in arguing that this situation has nothing to do with the Rule of Coincidence. But, in my opinion, there is also a fourth possibility: (d) X's partner is telling the truth, and has subsequently chosen from amongst calls one which coincidentally leads to a lucky result; this is also entirely legal. >It also seems to me correct that the official should never >assume without firm evidence that (c) is the case. I agree that firm evidence should also be provided for the unlikely coincidental possibility of (d). A case where such evidence was found for (d) is in the WBF CoP, Appeal Example Number 9. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 1 06:13:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:13:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Rule of Coincidence (was Psyching) Message-ID: Alain wrote (in Illogical Explanation): [big snip] >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 ? [big snip] Answer to Question 1: No. West either did not give MI, or West deliberately lied. Answer to Question 2: No. A temporary inadvertent lapsus would have been later corrected by East or West. Answer to Question 3: Definitely not. The absence of the CC is only one factor the TD needs to weigh in the Law 85 determination of a disputed fact. >(there always was a consensus that, if the >explanation doesn't match the hand, MI is >decided barring evidence to the contrary) But in my opinion, in the opinion of the TD, and in the opinion of the AC, East's cards were consistent with West's explanation. Therefore, the tiebreak between MI or misbid given by the Law 75 footnote is not relevant. Of course, in my further opinion, East's 2C bid was a poor bid. However, the Rule of Coincidence that poor bids which get lucky prove that an infraction has occurred is totally contrary to the qualified right to bad bidding granted by Law 40A. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 1 06:56:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:56:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: jp rocafort wrote: >A new winning strategy will become to use >systems with uninformative artificial calls >only intended to compel opponents to give >info (AI for you and UI for them) according >to whether they ask or don't. Fortunately this EBU modification does not apply in Australia, as opponents would miss out on a lot of fun at my table. My pard and I occasionally take our Symmetric Relay system on the road to a country town's annual bridge congress. A popular action by opponents flabbergasted by our auctions is to ask after each of our relays. Opponents then burst into laughter as I give my deadpan iterations, "relay, asking me to describe my hand further"; "relay, asking me to describe my hand further"; "relay, asking me to describe my hand further"..... Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 1 07:38:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:38:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 8 Message-ID: Marv wrote: [snip] >The Director Panel who heard the appeal agreed >that N/S had compromised their position by not >calling the Director immediately after becoming >aware of the infraction. Correct. Since the display of dummy revealed the E/W infraction, N/S have also committed an infraction by not summoning the TD as soon as dummy appeared. Law 9A2a and Law 72A6. [snip] >However, the declaring side should have called the >TD to report the misinformation before the opening >lead was made, and were later told that. Correct, Law 75D2. >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. Doubtful. Law 11A is ambiguously worded: >>The right to penalise an irregularity may be >>forfeited if either member of the non-offending >>side takes any action before summoning the >>Director. The Director so rules when the non- >>offending side may have gained through subsequent >>action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the >>penalty. BLML had an extensive thread on Law 11A interpretation some months ago; no definitive conclusion was reached. Unless either the WBF LC or the ACBL LC have produced a contrary authorised interpretation of Law 11A, it is possible to argue that the two sentences of Law 11A are independent clauses. [snip] Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Apr 1 07:44:06 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 08:44:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority References: Message-ID: <3E893536.2020503@skynet.be> In fact, Richard sets up an interesting question: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman replied: > > >>As is the case at international championships as >>well. The EBL AC serves as L93C NA as well >>(stipulated in regulations). >> > > 'I'll be > judge, I'll > be jury,' > Said cunning > old Fury: > 'I'll try > the whole > cause, and > condemn > you > to > death.' > The EBL regulations state that the AC also acts as NA for L93C purposes. Does this mean that after an appeal one can re-appeal (presumably to a different composition of the same body) under application of L93C? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 1 07:52:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:52:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: <200303312130.QAA09490@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c2f81b$538ead20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner ......... > 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. IMO you are missing the fact that the board was actually played through all thirteen tricks without anybody noticing that there was anything wrong with the hands. Furthermore North contradicted the statement by East and West to the effect that their hands were correct. Imagine a little test on your own: Pick a board during any tournament, preferably a board where a major feature is a long suit in one hand; and make that hand hold 14 cards instead of 13 by giving it another insignificant card in that suit from the hand of it's partner. Now show those hands to players who have played it just a couple of rounds ago and ask if that were the hands they held (without saying anything about 12/14 cards). My bet is that most players will "recognize" the hands and confirm: "Sure that was the hands we held". Only when you tell them that there are now 12 and 14 cards will they say: "Hey wait a moment, I think that small club should be with partner. Was it the three or the four you held?" Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 1 08:00:06 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 17:00:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Mumbo-jumbo Message-ID: [snip] Gordon Bower wrote: >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 You may have misread the scenario. Without an arrow switch, a Mitchell movement is two fields, with the 5 expert pairs cannibalising amongst themselves in the EW field. > - 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. A "mumbo-jumbo pseudomathematical" arrowswitch converts a Mitchell movement into one field. If the timing of the arrowswitch is appropriately arranged, the movement approximates the accuracy of a Howell, increasing the chance that all 5 EW experts qualify for the final. The point of this thought experiment is to contradict David Burn's assertion that, "If you play better bridge than your rivals, you will probably beat them. If you don't, you probably won't." Rather, I assert that if the conditions of contest are skewed, then the better pair may get skewered. Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 1 08:06:23 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:06:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority In-Reply-To: <3E893536.2020503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c2f81d$3467e7c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ........... > The EBL regulations state that the AC also acts as NA for L93C > purposes. Does this mean that after an appeal one can re-appeal > (presumably to a different composition of the same body) under > application of L93C? No, I don't think so. A parallel from the courts of justice is if you bypass the first appeals court and have the appeal handled directly in the supreme court of = justice. The main purpose of Law 93C must be to secure a possibility for = (difficult) cases to be solved in a uniform way regardless of how various local AC's = may rule individually. Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Apr 1 07:58:49 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 08:58:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: Yesterday I asked about the origin of 1 April jokes. My encyclopia tells me that it is unknown, but very old (more than 500 years) and it has an Indo-German (Indo-European) (whatever that means) background. And that Europe brought it to America where it has become quite popular too. Conclusion: it is not originated in bridge. But in England after the third such question opponents hand is known completely: A5 KQ8 J962 K10743 ton > > My pard and I occasionally take our Symmetric > Relay system on the road to a country town's > annual bridge congress. A popular action by > opponents flabbergasted by our auctions is to > ask after each of our relays. > > Opponents then burst into laughter as I give > my deadpan iterations, "relay, asking me to > describe my hand further"; "relay, asking me > to describe my hand further"; "relay, asking > me to describe my hand further"..... > > Best wishes > > Richard From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Apr 1 08:09:57 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 09:09:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required Message-ID: > > 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? make it 2,047 which is one of those 2**n - 1 numbers, but not a prime. Do you still agree with Herman that "claims are easy"? No and Yes; 'Yes' since I would award 1 trick to the defenders in each case. It is not uncommon to show your complete control by proudly playing your highest trump (no outside trumps left). And 'no' because claims are not easy to handle. Once in a while I have problems myself. But if declarer showed his last 2 cards and had said: I am not sure, may be there is still a trump left, I would give him both tricks in at least some of the cases. Then playing the ace from A2 is beyond careless. Especially when you need both tricks to fulfil your contract. ton From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Apr 1 07:58:56 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:58:56 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Mumbo-jumbo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >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 > > You may have misread the scenario. Without an > arrow switch, a Mitchell movement is two fields, > with the 5 expert pairs cannibalising amongst > themselves in the EW field. Yes. You may have misread my reply -- which was merely an observation that the scenario as origianlly presented was a sufficiently silly situation that no director would let it arise. The remainder of my post, including the portions you commented on, was aimed at the relative small improvements that an arrowswitfch gives you if the field has been correctly balanced before the start. > The point of this thought experiment is to > contradict David Burn's assertion that, "If you > play better bridge than your rivals, you will > probably beat them. If you don't, you probably > won't." > > Rather, I assert that if the conditions of > contest are skewed, then the better pair may get > skewered. But these two positions are not contradictory, and both seem to be self-evident truths. I am confident David Burn knows that the details of the movement do have some effect on one's chances, but also knows that the effect is quite small in most reasonable movements for reasonable field sizes. And coming from The Land Of 2 1/2 Table Howells All Winter, I have felt the skewer (though over the course of the winter, I lose despite playing well and win despite playing badly enough times each for it to still be fair in the long run.) GRB From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Apr 1 08:50:51 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:50:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) References: Message-ID: <000b01c2f823$b620c560$dc4ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'David Burn'" ; "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:10 AM Subject: RE: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) > > > 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 > +=+ The 'historical background' goes back a long way. The principle was taught by Harold Franklin, sometime WBF CTD, and the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee of that day, in discussing what constitutes evidence in a matter of propriety, and it was expanded under Edgar's leadership in the 1987 revision of the Laws. The EBL Laws Committee supported the principle in 1986/7 (Pencharz, Besse, Endicott, Glykis, Schroeder),and again in 1991 (Endicott, Auken, Besse, Dadoun, Hansen, Michaud, Pelikan, Schroeder); it is present in WBF appeals committee material and in related comment, and has been the basis of EBL appeals committee decisions on occasions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 1 09:14:30 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 10:14:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] illogical explanation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030401101242.00aa92d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:55 1/04/2003 +1000, you wrote: >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. AG : South called the TD to say that the explanation (Stayman) didn't match with the hand, and offered as evidence the pass from West. Is that an infraction worthy of expulsion ? >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. AG : this is not far from reality. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Apr 1 10:51:40 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 11:51:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: > > > > > 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 > > > +=+ The 'historical background' goes back a long way. > The principle was taught by Harold Franklin, sometime WBF > CTD, and the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee of that day, in > discussing what constitutes evidence in a matter of propriety, > and it was expanded under Edgar's leadership in the 1987 > revision of the Laws. Sounds impressive, but nothing of this nature has appeared in the laws of '87 or others. Is it possible to show one or more not-EBU-statements on this matter? Not that I am very interested, an aberration it is, but it might be possible to point to a misinterpretation of what is said, which would solve this problem quite easily. ton The EBL Laws Committee supported > the principle in 1986/7 (Pencharz, Besse, Endicott, Glykis, > Schroeder),and again in 1991 (Endicott, Auken, Besse, > Dadoun, Hansen, Michaud, Pelikan, Schroeder); it is > present in WBF appeals committee material and in related > comment, and has been the basis of EBL appeals committee > decisions on occasions. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Tue Apr 1 16:00:13 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:00:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) References: Message-ID: <002801c2f85f$8ab08140$1e182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:51 AM Subject: RE: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) > > > > > > > Sounds impressive, but nothing of this nature > has appeared in the laws of '87 or others. > > Is it possible to show one or more not-EBU-statements > on this matter? Not that I am very interested, an > aberration it is, but it might be possible to point to a > misinterpretation of what is said, which would solve this > problem quite easily. > +=+ You are flying in the face of precedent for what this is worth. The 1986/7 EBL committee made the case that Kaplan accepted for the enhancement of Law 73F2, applying inter alia to questions asked, so that it was not necessary to presume intent along the lines of the earlier practice. It was with Kaplan's concurrence that the EBL published with the approval of the EBL Laws Committee and the authorization of the Executive the EBL statement endorsing this situation in the EBL Commentary of 1992 on Law 73. The position is also endorsed in the 2001 issue of Jurisprudence attached to the WBF Code of Practice in one of the examples selected by the four WBF Appeals Committee members charged with the task. This application of the Law by international Appeals Committees is very long established, and was deliberately made easier in the 1987 Laws. ~ G ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Apr 1 17:27:15 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:27:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 8 Message-ID: <200304011627.LAA15587@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Correct. Since the display of dummy revealed > the E/W infraction, N/S have also committed an > infraction by not summoning the TD as soon as > dummy appeared. Law 9A2a and Law 72A6. L9A2a says "may," so there cannot be an infraction there. And there is no hint of the players trying to enforce the laws themselves, so I cannot imagine what infraction of L72A6 you mean. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Apr 1 17:32:42 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:32:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: <200304011632.LAA15593@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > > 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: "Sven Pran" > IMO you are missing the fact that the board was actually played through all > thirteen tricks without anybody noticing that there was anything wrong with > the hands. Furthermore North contradicted the statement by East and West to > the effect that their hands were correct. You have completely lost me. What scenario do you see where the EW hands were correct throughout play and also the EW statement that West had 14 cards and East 12 was correct? This looks like a logical impossibility. _On the facts reported to BLML_, we know for sure EW have made some mistake. Why is this so hard to follow? Of course we don't know for sure which mistake they have made, but the TD has to make a ruling based on the best evidence. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Apr 1 17:44:23 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:44:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: <200304011644.LAA15609@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: > The 1986/7 EBL committee made the case > that Kaplan accepted for the enhancement of Law > 73F2, applying inter alia to questions asked, Kaplan even gave an example, if memory serves. After the opening lead of a king, and holding the ace himself, declarer asks "What do you lead from A-K?" Declarer may need to know the answer, but obviously the question is very misleading to opponents. Whatever the rules may be, they have to come to grips with this example. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Apr 1 17:42:17 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:42:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights Message-ID: <000901c2f86e$2e967ae0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> I guess I'll have to pose my questions more directly. Suppose when I make my opening lead, the sight of dummy shows that I have been given MI about the opposing auction. My inclination is to wait until the end of the deal in order to determine if our side has been damaged. Usually it hasn't been, and calling the TD earlier would have been a waste of everyone's time. 1. Am I obligated to call the TD when I see that dummy? 2. Does failure to do so jeopardize my rights? If the answer to either question is yes, please cite the applicable law. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Apr 1 18:01:00 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:01:00 -0800 Subject: [blml] Arrow Switch Message-ID: <001301c2f870$48dd8d60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> There has been considerable discussion in the ACBL C&C committee meetings about the avoidance of playbacks. The seeders argue that proper reseeding for the finals makes playbacks unavoidable, but pairs don't like meeting another pair more than once during the event. The movement for finals is a straight Mitchell, with everyone changing direction for the second session. This is a two-winner movement with inappropriate overall ranking. Questions for BLML. Besides providing a one-winner movement, would a couple of arrow switches correct any imbalance of strength arising from a no-playback rule? Would the fairness of finals be improved by having only half the pairs switch direction for the second session? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Apr 1 18:21:05 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 12:21:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: <200304011721.MAA15639@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: dalburn@btopenworld.com > 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. There was a lengthy BLML discussion on this in 1999. At the time, there were at least three situations suggested where L73C could apply when L16A or C did not: 1. A player chooses an illogical action suggested by UI. Some people are happy to use L16A here ("The action becomes logical because the player chose it."), but there is no need. 2. The advantage involves something other than choosing a call or play. ("Look at their convention card, you idiot," comes to mind, although in such a blatant case we can use L73B1. Which David may say is not a Law either.) 3. The case for "demonstrably suggested" cannot be made because there are in theory two or more possibilities, but the action chosen is so wildly unlikely absent the UI that the TD/AC are convinced the player knew perfectly well what the UI showed and took advantage. In contrast to David, I think the people who made L73 part of the laws knew exactly what they were doing. From HarrisR@missouri.edu Tue Apr 1 22:20:33 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:20:33 -0600 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> References: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: D Burn 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: 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? My comments: If South doesn't know a trump is out, why would we assume South knows West will follow suit to East's lead of a spade honor? Maybe he will ruff high on the theory West might be able to over-ruff? If he doesn't know a trump is out, he doesn't know a trump isn't out. Law 70C makes it clear that South should be presumed to play in a manner that losses the most tricks in all these examples. Ruffing low when high works better, or ruffing high when low works better, depends on knowing there is a trump out. Neither mode of play is clearly the not irrational action in all these sorts of cases, though it may be judged careless, even very careless. If West is on lead, presumably the problem comes when West leads something other than a trump. Then there is no over-ruff problem, and I (for one) would award South all the tricks he gets from a low ruff. In drawing trumps high is common, and actions that normally lead to losing tricks might not be considered rational. Top down in playing suits is a reasonable standard position to take for making rulings. Ruffing bottom up seems to go along with this. But then, why not the "shoot it if it claims wrong" principle to go with the UI rulings? If it can be got wrong, shouldn't be assumed to be wrong? Why are we saddled with this "but not irrational" business? Nobody knows what it means. Maybe we can get a psychic to find out from the spirit of EK. -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 1 22:40:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 23:40:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: <200304011632.LAA15593@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c2f897$5021fcb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > > > 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. >=20 > > From: "Sven Pran" > > IMO you are missing the fact that the board was actually played > > through all thirteen tricks without anybody noticing that there > > was anything wrong with the hands. Furthermore North contradicted > > the statement by East and West to the effect that their hands were > > correct. >=20 > You have completely lost me. >=20 > What scenario do you see where the EW hands were correct throughout > play and also the EW statement that West had 14 cards and East 12 was > correct? This looks like a logical impossibility. That is exactly what worries me for a ruling. > _On the facts reported to BLML_, we know for sure EW have made some > mistake. Why is this so hard to follow? Of course we don't know for > sure which mistake they have made, but the TD has to make a ruling > based on the best evidence. The point is that we were also told for a fact that the board was = originally played through all thirteen tricks to a normal completion. This makes it very unlikely that any hand during the play held a number of cards = different from thirteen; in fact it makes it most probable that the statements by = East and West must be wrong! Corroborating this as a theory is the statement = by North which contradicts the statements by East and West. Therefore we have to look for other possible explanations before drawing = any conclusion; one scenario which fits all the facts is if someone tampered with the board after the play was completed at table 1, either before or after the board was passed on to the next table. Another scenario, = although most improbable, is if the players who reported the 12-14 split between = East and West actually fouled the board somehow while taking the cards from = the pockets.=20 We have no way of telling what really happened, thus we have no ground = for any kind of PP against the East-West pair who first played the board. = The evidence we have makes it more probable that it is their memory and statement that is wrong, not their actions (or lack of actions) at the table. Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Apr 1 22:50:59 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:50:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: <200304012150.QAA15840@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > > Steve Willner > > > > 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: "Sven Pran" > > > IMO you are missing the fact that the board was actually played > > > through all thirteen tricks without anybody noticing that there > > > was anything wrong with the hands. Furthermore North contradicted > > > the statement by East and West to the effect that their hands were > > > correct. > > > > You have completely lost me. > > > > What scenario do you see where the EW hands were correct throughout > > play and also the EW statement that West had 14 cards and East 12 was > > correct? This looks like a logical impossibility. > From: "Sven Pran" > That is exactly what worries me for a ruling. > > > _On the facts reported to BLML_, we know for sure EW have made some > > mistake. Why is this so hard to follow? Of course we don't know for > > sure which mistake they have made, but the TD has to make a ruling > > based on the best evidence. > > The point is that we were also told for a fact that the board was originally > played through all thirteen tricks to a normal completion. This makes it > very unlikely that any hand during the play held a number of cards different > from thirteen; in fact it makes it most probable that the statements by East > and West must be wrong! Corroborating this as a theory is the statement by > North which contradicts the statements by East and West. So up to here we agree completely, despite your previous insistence that we don't. On the facts presented, it now appears that we will both rule that the board was played in proper form at Table 1 and therefore the Table 1 score stands. The question is whether we can restore the board for play at other tables. > Therefore we have to look for other possible explanations before drawing any > conclusion; one scenario which fits all the facts is if someone tampered > with the board after the play was completed at table 1, either before or > after the board was passed on to the next table. Another scenario, although > most improbable, is if the players who reported the 12-14 split between East > and West actually fouled the board somehow while taking the cards from the > pockets. > > We have no way of telling what really happened, thus we have no ground for > any kind of PP against the East-West pair who first played the board. The > evidence we have makes it more probable that it is their memory and > statement that is wrong, not their actions (or lack of actions) at the > table. We have no certainty, but we still have to give a score according to the best evidence we have. Since the evidence says that the NS memory is correct and the EW memory is not, one option is to restore the board according to the NS testimony and play it that way at the other tables. From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 1 22:54:53 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 23:54:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: <000901c2f86e$2e967ae0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c2f899$5401e410$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French > I guess I'll have to pose my questions more directly. >=20 > Suppose when I make my opening lead, the sight of dummy shows that I = have > been given MI about the opposing auction. My inclination is to wait = until > the end of the deal in order to determine if our side has been = damaged. > Usually it hasn't been, and calling the TD earlier would have been a = waste > of everyone's time. >=20 > 1. Am I obligated to call the TD when I see that dummy? Law 9B1(a) - YES! Misinformation in the explanation of any of dummy's calls becomes = evident when dummy is faced; so if you do not call attention to such = irregularity and summon the Director at this time you may forfeit your rights from = that irregularity. >=20 > 2. Does failure to do so jeopardize my rights? Law 11A. - Possibly! (at the discretion of the Director) but this is not automatic. >=20 > If the answer to either question is yes, please cite the applicable = law. >=20 There may be other relevant laws as well, I haven't made a complete = search; but the above laws cited are in any case sufficient for the situation. Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Apr 1 23:42:50 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 17:42:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) In-Reply-To: <200304011644.LAA15609@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030401172028.02719c60@pop.starpower.net> At 11:44 AM 4/1/03, Steve wrote: >Kaplan even gave an example, if memory serves. After the opening lead >of a king, and holding the ace himself, declarer asks "What do you lead >from A-K?" > >Declarer may need to know the answer, but obviously the question is >very misleading to opponents. Whatever the rules may be, they have to >come to grips with this example. Since declarer may indeed need to know, in order to determine his best line of play, he must be allowed to ask -- at least until Marv gets his way, but even then, he must be allowed to inspect the opponents' CC, which is an essesntially equivalent action. Moreover, he must be allowed to ask if he *thinks* he needs to know, even if a post-mortem analysis of the deal demonstrates that he really didn't in order to find the optimal line of play. He needs to know when he might be contemplating a line of play which depends on his RHO not knowing who holds the A at some crucial point in the play. But this creates a catch-22. Any declarer who embarks on a line of play that depends on RHO not knowing who has the A perforce "could have known" that asking will (if he gets the answer he hopes for) sow the seeds of doubt (if they weren't already present) in RHO's mind as to who has the A -- and it will always be the case that declarer will know that such doubt "could work to his benefit". So he cannot avoid running afoul of L73F2 -- at least until I get my way, and TDs/ACs awaken to the realization that L73F2 is written in "lawyer French", and should only be invoked when there is some reason to believe that a player might actually be trying to perpetrate a deception. Perhaps a possible answer would be to add words to L73B1 similar to those of L73D1 for tempo variations, stating that an opponent may draw inferences from such communications, but does so at his own risk. That would recognize that such questions are sometimes necessary (just as long huddles are sometimes necessary), but leave recourse to L73F2 if it looks like the only purpose for the question might have been an attempt to pull a fast one. 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 Wed Apr 2 00:46:07 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:46:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights Message-ID: Marv asked: >I guess I'll have to pose my questions more directly. > >Suppose when I make my opening lead, the sight of dummy >shows that I have been given MI about the opposing >auction. The sight of dummy can *never* show that you have been given MI about the opposing auction. Dummy may merely have misbid, which is not an infraction. If dummy has misbid, the TD need not be summoned. >My inclination is to wait until the end of the deal in >order to determine if our side has been damaged. My inclination is to wait until the end of the deal before determining whether or not declarer has infracted Law 75D1. >Usually it hasn't been, and calling the TD earlier would >have been a waste of everyone's time. > >1. Am I obligated to call the TD when I see that dummy? No. See above. >2. Does failure to do so jeopardize my rights? Your rights *would* be jeopardised in the parallel UI situation. See the footnote to Law 16A2. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 2 00:32:39 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:32:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Arrow Switch Message-ID: Marv wrote: [snip] >The seeders argue that proper reseeding >for the finals makes playbacks unavoidable, >but pairs don't like meeting another pair >more than once during the event. > >The movement for finals is a straight >Mitchell, with everyone changing >direction for the second session. This is a >two-winner movement with inappropriate >overall ranking. [snip] I dislike the ACBL philosophy. Seeding of qualifying heats is a necessary evil, but reseeding a final - urgh. If I was El Supremo of the ACBL, I would reduce the number of pairs in the final to the point where every finalist could meet every other finalist *during* the final. I would arrange the movement to be a Flower Howell barometer. Therefore, any arbitrary reseeding of the final would not be needed. Of course, my El Supremo CoC also involves playbacks, but Aussie experience suggests that playbacks are unobjectionable when balanced by playing *all* the other finalists. Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Apr 2 01:10:26 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:10:26 -0800 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights References: <000101c2f899$5401e410$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002201c2f8ac$4490d140$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" < > Marvin French > Suppose when I make my opening lead, the sight of dummy shows that I have > been given MI about the opposing auction. My inclination is to wait until > the end of the deal in order to determine if our side has been damaged. > Usually it hasn't been, and calling the TD earlier would have been a waste > of everyone's time. > > 1. Am I obligated to call the TD when I see that dummy? [SP] Law 9B1(a) - YES! [SP] Misinformation in the explanation of any of dummy's calls becomes evident when dummy is faced; so if you do not call attention to such irregularity and summon the Director at this time you may forfeit your rights from that irregularity. [MF] L9B1(a) says the TD must be summoned when attention is drawn to an irregularity, not when an irregularity is perceived. If no attention has been drawn it, there is no requirement that the TD must be called. The only exceptions I can think of are (1) a player who realizes he has given MI must call the TD at once, (2) a player whose partner has given MI must call the TD before the opening lead (for the declaring side) or when play is complete (for defenders). L75D > > 2. Does failure to do so jeopardize my rights? [SP] Law 11A. - Possibly! [MF] Impossibly. L11A speaks of cancelling a penalty. A score adjustment is not a penalty, even though it feels like one (Scope). Besides, is it not obvious that "takes any action" refers to taking an action that should be governed by the TD's ruling? Also, what is the TD going to do? He is going to say "Play on, and call me back if you feel you were damaged." Complete waste of everyone's time. >(at the discretion of the Director) but this is not automatic. > > If the answer to either question is yes, please cite the applicable law. > [SP] There may be other relevant laws as well, I haven't made a complete search; but the above laws cited are in any case sufficient for the situation. [MF] Look again, I don't think these laws suffice to support your position. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 2 01:07:29 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:07:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: >+=+ You are flying in the face of precedent for >what this is worth. > The 1986/7 EBL committee made the case >that Kaplan accepted for the enhancement of Law >73F2, applying inter alia to questions asked, >so that it was not necessary to presume intent [big snip] True, but not totally relevant to the issue at hand. There are two distinct and non-overlapping scenarios: a) drawing a false inference from an opponent's action (which has no demonstrable bridge reason); b) an opponent's action (which has no demonstrable bridge reason) from which it is impossible to draw a false inference. Under Law 73F2 as is currently written, opponent's action a) is illegal, but opponent's action b) is legal. The EBU modification outlaws both a) and b). Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Apr 2 03:23:51 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 18:23:51 -0800 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights References: Message-ID: <002f01c2f8be$e87a5080$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > > Marv asked: > > >I guess I'll have to pose my questions more directly. > > > >Suppose when I make my opening lead, the sight of dummy > >shows that I have been given MI about the opposing > >auction. > > The sight of dummy can *never* show that you have been > given MI about the opposing auction. Dummy may merely > have misbid, which is not an infraction. If dummy has > misbid, the TD need not be summoned. > Okay, good. Now suppose that declarer calls attention to his irregularity when he sees the dummy, correcting his former statement that dummy's hand would have 12-14 HCP, but it only has 8. Now technically the TD must be called (declarer's duty, but a defender can do it). However, most pairs who know the opening lead cannot be changed handle this in a fashion similar to UI misuse, which is to agree on the infraction and delay calling the TD until he is needed (NOS believing they may have been damaged.) That seems like a "marginal infringement of the Laws," not something that would annul any redress for the NOS, as the ACBL and Sven seem to think. The sole purpose of calling the TD at this time, when he can only have play continue, is for him to get a timely description of the infraction, before memories fade. That's well and good, I suppose, but MI is usually so clear-cut that this step really isn't needed. If the NOS is willing to risk the adverse effects of waiting until play is complete, why should that "jeopardize their rights" to redress when the MI is not in question? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 2 04:33:48 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:33:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights Message-ID: Marv wrote: >Now suppose that declarer calls attention to his >irregularity when he sees the dummy, correcting his >former statement that dummy's hand would have 12-14 >HCP, but it only has 8. Now technically the TD must >be called (declarer's duty, but a defender can do >it). Incorrect. It is the duty of all four players, including dummy. Law 9B1. >However, most pairs who know the opening lead cannot >be changed handle this in a fashion similar to UI >misuse, which is to agree on the infraction and delay >calling the TD until he is needed (NOS believing they >may have been damaged.) False analogy. Law 16A1 deals with agreeing a fact which *may* be a precursor to a subsequent irregularity. Failing to promptly summon the TD after attention has been drawn to an *actual* irregularity is a different pair of sleeves. >That seems like a "marginal infringement of the Laws," >not something that would annul any redress for the NOS, >as the ACBL and Sven seem to think. Marginally infracting the Laws is like being marginally pregnant. I have often marginally infracted the Laws myself, *but* I have not then belatedly asked the TD for redress. >The sole purpose of calling the TD at this time, when >he can only have play continue, is for him to get a >timely description of the infraction, before memories >fade. Another good reason to let the TD make an automatic ruling of letting play continue, is obeying Law 72A. >That's well and good, I suppose, but MI is usually so >clear-cut that this step really isn't needed. If the >NOS is willing to risk the adverse effects of waiting >until play is complete, why should that "jeopardize >their rights" to redress when the MI is not in >question? The word "should". Marv has made a reasonable case for the 2005 Law 75D1 to read thusly: >>If a player subsequently realises that his own >>explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must >>immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 >>or Law 40C). >>Exception: An opponent may request that any call for >>the Director be deferred until the end of play. If, >>at the end of play, all players agree that the >>lateness of the correct explanation did not cause >>damage, then the Director need not be called at all. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Apr 2 07:40:42 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 07:40:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights References: <000101c2f899$5401e410$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002301c2f8e2$f31a0020$c041e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:54 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights Misinformation in the explanation of any of dummy's calls becomes evident when dummy is faced; so if you do not call attention to such irregularity and summon the Director at this time you may forfeit your rights from that irregularity. +=+ Be careful. The sight of dummy reveals that the holding is not as explained. It may be a case of misinformation, or it may be a misbid, or it may be simply a psychic call. There may be no irregularity. Note that neither dummy nor declarer has followed Law 75D2 so presumptively both consider a correct explanation has been given. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 2 07:19:12 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:19:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] 14-12 (Philadelphia Appeal 5) Message-ID: >The writeup of the case from Philly can be found here: > >ftp://www.acbl.org/nabc/2003spring/db8.pdf > >-- >Adam Wildavsky I have belatedly looked at the writeup, but I am confused about some issues (perhaps partly because the writeup may assume readers understand ACBL defaults). Question 1: Did the players themselves deal the cards (ie no hand record available)? Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is Yes, did the Director search for evidence as to which *specific* club pip was misplaced after play, before the Director moved the club trey from South to East? Question 3: If the answer to question 2 is No, is the Director infracting Law 87A? Best wishes Richard PS I applaud the AC decision in Appeal 6, where the AC was not only tough minded enough to award an Appeal Without Merit in a clearcut UI case, but also carefully examined the adjusted score awarded to the appellants, downgrading their already bad score of -300 to -500. Such decisions should happen more often; in many NBOs potential appellants think that going to an AC is a heads-you-win, tails-you-break-even cost nothing exercise. From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 2 08:33:31 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:33:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c2f8ea$29633b40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ............. > >That seems like a "marginal infringement of the Laws," > >not something that would annul any redress for the NOS, > >as the ACBL and Sven seem to think. I thought I made it quite clear that forfeiting any rights is absolutely = not automatic in a case like this? But a defender who becomes aware (when dummy's cards are faced) of a discrepancy between dummy's hand and an explanation given by declarer has an obligation to protect himself: =20 It is a bit late after the play is completed to call the Director and = say that with the correct information he would have chosen a different = action at the time. The Director should then try the possibility that this claim = could have been caused by a poor result and being an attempt to have the = Director assign a better score.=20 If the connection between the misinformation and the poor result is = apparent then the Director should normally adjust, but if the connection could = seem doubtful I (for one) would refuse on the ground that I was summoned too late. ........... > >The sole purpose of calling the TD at this time, when > >he can only have play continue, is for him to get a > >timely description of the infraction, before memories > >fade. Partly yes, but equally important is to avoid any suspicion of = "Opponents have made an infraction, I'll try some risky action and if it doesn't = work to my advantage then I'll summon the Director and get my redress". >=20 > Another good reason to let the TD make an automatic > ruling of letting play continue, is obeying Law 72A. ????????????? ............ > Marv has made a reasonable case > for the 2005 Law 75D1 to read thusly: >=20 > >>If a player subsequently realises that his own > >>explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must > >>immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 > >>or Law 40C). > >>Exception: An opponent may request that any call for > >>the Director be deferred until the end of play. If, > >>at the end of play, all players agree that the > >>lateness of the correct explanation did not cause > >>damage, then the Director need not be called at all. A fundamental rule in the laws is that no player may object to the = Director being summoned if another player wants the Director to the table. While = the above proposal seems to have some merits it is certainly not acceptable = in its present form. Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 2 08:41:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:41:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: <002301c2f8e2$f31a0020$c041e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000901c2f8eb$57f87960$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott .............. > Misinformation in the explanation of any of > dummy's calls becomes evident when dummy > is faced; so if you do not call attention to such > irregularity and summon the Director at this > time you may forfeit your rights from that > irregularity. >=20 > +=3D+ Be careful. The sight of dummy reveals > that the holding is not as explained. It may be > a case of misinformation, or it may be a misbid, > or it may be simply a psychic call. There may > be no irregularity. > Note that neither dummy nor declarer > has followed Law 75D2 so presumptively both > consider a correct explanation has been given. Absolutely. (And I should probably have written: "Apparent = misinformation in the ....") But at the sight of dummy I should expect some raised eyebrows and a question from defender(s) whether declarer sustains his explanation. = This is the time to have established whether there is misinformation or any kind = of misbid (including psyches). Possible further actions of course depend = upon what is clarified now. Regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 2 08:52:04 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 09:52:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required References: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E8A96A4.30304@skynet.be> No comments on Robert's main contribution. This is indeed something we need more guidance on. However: Robert E. Harris wrote: > > Why are we saddled with this "but not irrational" business? Nobody > knows what it means. Maybe we can get a psychic to find out from the > spirit of EK. Because we are talking about borderline cases here. There are a number of very clear cases out there in which we need the "but not irrational" in order to make rulings that the players do not find lunatic at first sight. Like not awarding all tricks from AKQJT9872. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Apr 2 11:15:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: <000901c2f8eb$57f87960$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > But at the sight of dummy I should expect some raised eyebrows and a > question from defender(s) whether declarer sustains his explanation. So let me get this straight. If I, as a good, law-abiding citizen maintain my facial expression and avoid asking questions that might give UI to partner because I know that it is to late to do anything I jeopardise my rights to any adjustment based on MI. Meanwhile a player who raises eyebrows (an infraction) and assumes that declarer is ignorant of his obligations may receive a beneficial adjustment. Sorry Sven - that stinks. Tim From gester@lineone.net Wed Apr 2 12:52:37 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 12:52:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights References: Message-ID: <000f01c2f90e$7d217c00$9d1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:15 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights > Sven wrote: > > > But at the sight of dummy I should expect > > some raised eyebrows and a question from > > defender(s) whether declarer sustains his > > explanation. > > So let me get this straight. If I, as a good, > law-abiding citizen maintain my facial expression > and avoid asking questions that might give UI to > partner because I know that it is to late to do > anything I jeopardise my rights to any adjustment > based on MI. Meanwhile a player who raises > eyebrows (an infraction) and assumes that declarer > is ignorant of his obligations may receive a beneficial adjustment. Sorry Sven - that stinks. > > Tim > +=+ I do not agree that any rights are lost. Law 81C6 applies. What may be lost is the capacity of the Director to establish some fact, although in the particular set of circumstances this risk seems minimal - the evidence being mostly in the cards. As for Law 9B1(a) it refers to 'an irregularity', not to 'an apparent irregularity'; the *compulsion* to call the Director arises when you *know* there is an irregularity, not when you suspect it. I am not saying that a Director may not be called in the latter circumstances, if the player thinks an irregularity has occurred, but in these circumstances the Director will probably listen to the suggested 'facts' and then have the board completed before he explores what is actually the case among the various possibilities. He must be careful not to elicit for, or cause to be conveyed to, the complaining side any information to which it may turn out they are not entitled. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 2 13:16:15 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:16:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: <000901c2f8eb$57f87960$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <002301c2f8e2$f31a0020$c041e150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030402141217.024e2800@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:41 2/04/2003 +0200, you wrote: >But at the sight of dummy I should expect some raised eyebrows and a >question from defender(s) whether declarer sustains his explanation. This is >the time to have established whether there is misinformation or any kind of >misbid (including psyches). Possible further actions of course depend upon >what is clarified now. AG : if I questioned the non-correction of information and was told by dummy that he has psyched, I might in some cases be inclined to believe him. Then, after the play, I might realize (having seen declarer's 13 cards) that declarer seems to have fielded the (possible) psyche. Then it would be time to summon the TD. Would Sven or anybody else then tell me I should have called the TD before ? I hope they won't, because it's after the deal that 'attention has been called upon the infraction', as a psyche is no infraction. From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 2 13:19:23 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:19:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c2f912$18943990$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: >=20 > > But at the sight of dummy I should expect some raised eyebrows and a > > question from defender(s) whether declarer sustains his explanation. >=20 > So let me get this straight. If I, as a good, law-abiding citizen > maintain my facial expression and avoid asking questions that might = give > UI to partner because I know that it is to late to do anything I > jeopardise my rights to any adjustment based on MI. Meanwhile a = player > who raises eyebrows (an infraction) and assumes that declarer is = ignorant > of his obligations may receive a beneficial adjustment. Sorry Sven - = that > stinks. Even if your partner hasn't already noticed the discrepancy between = dummy's hand and the explanation of one or more of his calls given by declarer = it is certainly not giving your partner any UI calling the attention to this irregularity. See Law 9 in general and Law 9B1(c) in particular. It is already obvious that some irregularity has occurred; but it = remains to be seen whether this irregularity in fact was an infraction of the laws. You have one valid point: The defender in question might be safer by summoning the Director right away, but I think it is both fair, = courteous and in fact within the intention of the laws to first give the declarer = an option either to admit he made a wrong explanation or to maintain that = his explanation was correct. If the latter alternative is accepted around = the table there would be no reason at all to summon the Director. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Apr 2 14:17:31 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 08:17:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Active ethics In-Reply-To: <200304011721.MAA15639@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402080414.01fb9990@pop.starpower.net> At 12:21 PM 4/1/03, Steve wrote: > > From: dalburn@btopenworld.com > > 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. > >There was a lengthy BLML discussion on this in 1999. At the time, >there were at least three situations suggested where L73C could >apply when L16A or C did not: > >1. A player chooses an illogical action suggested by UI. Some people >are happy to use L16A here ("The action becomes logical because the >player chose it."), but there is no need. L16A applies here not because "the action becomes logical", but because there are "logical alternative actions". L16A does not require that the action be logical, only the alternative actions over which it was presumptively suggested. >2. The advantage involves something other than choosing a call or >play. ("Look at their convention card, you idiot," comes to mind, >although in such a blatant case we can use L73B1. Which David may say >is not a Law either.) The "laundry list" of means to EI in L16A is explicitly illustrative rather than definitive. L16A clearly applies to any of the items in the (definitive) list in L73B1. >3. The case for "demonstrably suggested" cannot be made because there >are in theory two or more possibilities, but the action chosen is so >wildly unlikely absent the UI that the TD/AC are convinced the player >knew perfectly well what the UI showed and took advantage. Hmmm... I suppose this could be interpreted as a difference, but is that what we want? Is L73B1 meant to be a fallback for TDs/ACs who cannot find a violation of L16A but want to find some excuse to penalize anyhow? >In contrast to David, I think the people who made L73 part of the laws >knew exactly what they were doing. I think so too. I think the consensus of BLML is that L73B1 explicitly instructs the player as to what (not) to do in order to avoid committing a UI infraction, while L16A explicitly tells the TD/AC what to do when such an infraction occurs. 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 Apr 2 14:44:51 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 08:44:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: <3E8A96A4.30304@skynet.be> References: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> At 02:52 AM 4/2/03, Herman wrote: >No comments on Robert's main contribution. This is indeed something we >need more guidance on. However: > >Robert E. Harris wrote: > >>Why are we saddled with this "but not irrational" business? Nobody >>knows what it means. Maybe we can get a psychic to find out from the >>spirit of EK. > >Because we are talking about borderline cases here. There are a number >of very clear cases out there in which we need the "but not >irrational" in order to make rulings that the players do not find >lunatic at first sight. > >Like not awarding all tricks from AKQJT9872. At the risk of repeating myself, I don't think it would be very difficult to determine what is "irrational"; it would correspond pretty well to what Herman considers "very clear cases". If all we needed to do was come up with a consensual notion of what is considered "irrational" I think we could do it without too much difficulty. The problem is that the current state of interpretation requires us to determine *not* "what is irrational", but rather "what is irrational for the class of player involved". That is illogical, self-contradictory, and the reason why we have so many difficult "borderline cases". Get rid of the dependence of "irrational" on "class of player" and the issues clarify themselves readily enough. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From adam@tameware.com Wed Apr 2 16:17:00 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:17:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] 14-12 (Philadelphia Appeal 5) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 4:19 PM +1000 4/2/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: ftp://www.acbl.org/nabc/2003spring/db8.pdf >Question 1: Did the players themselves deal the >cards (ie no hand record available)? Yes. >Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is Yes, did the Director >search for evidence as to which *specific* club pip was misplaced >after play, before the Director moved the club trey from South to >East? Reading between the lines I conclude that he tried to discover which pip it was but was unable to do so. >Question 3: If the answer to question 2 is No, is the Director >infracting Law 87A? What would you have him do? What would you do? I guess he was willing to have his score penalized! -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From gester@lineone.net Wed Apr 2 16:17:38 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:17:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402080414.01fb9990@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002101c2f92b$26a12480$c4242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Active ethics > At 12:21 PM 4/1/03, Steve Willner wrote: > >In contrast to David, I think the people > > who made L73 part of the laws knew > > exactly what they were doing. > > I think so too. I think the consensus of > BLML is that L73B1 explicitly instructs > the player as to what (not) to do in order > to avoid committing a UI infraction, while > L16A explicitly tells the TD/AC what to >do when such an infraction occurs. > +=+ As the member of the WBF Laws Committee who proposed incorporating the former 'Proprieties' explicitly in the laws, I may be able to throw a little light on the grounds for the proposal. The Proprieties originated as the kind of guidance that some have suggested them to be, but in the hands of the former regime - influenced very much, I believe, by Harold Franklin, the practice had developed of treating them as Law. When the Proprieties were not observed it was regarded as compelling evidence of a breach of the substantive Law. This seemed, to the EBL and to the EBU Committees concerned, to represent an ambivalence that should not continue; if the Proprieties were regarded as having the effect of Law we said that they should be shown to be Laws. My mandate was to get them incorporated into the respective substantive laws but this proved too big a mouthful for my WBF colleagues to digest at one meal. So we made them into laws but left them to stand in their own right - at least until now. Perhaps we may complete the process in the current round. The set of curious chances that has been identified has arisen largely because the intention of the Europeans was not wholly fulfilled when the process faltered; there was incorporation but not integration. ~ G ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 2 16:19:18 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:19:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: <200304021519.KAA20429@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > L16A applies here not because "the action becomes logical", but because > there are "logical alternative actions". This may be the first time I've seen Eric make an error in logic. The exact text is "from among logical alternative actions." An illogical action is thus not forbidden by L16A. This is probably a drafting error and may well be corrected in the next edition, but for now that's what it says. Of course there is no problem whatsoever in ruling. We will all rule the same way, regardless of what route we take to get there. My view is that L73C and 12A1 is the simplest route and one which requires no tortured reading of the text. > >2. The advantage involves something other than choosing a call or > >play. ("Look at their convention card, you idiot," comes to mind, > >although in such a blatant case we can use L73B1. Which David may say > >is not a Law either.) > > The "laundry list" of means to EI in L16A is explicitly illustrative > rather than definitive. L16A clearly applies to any of the items in > the (definitive) list in L73B1. Sorry, I guess my point wasn't clear. If East tells West to look at the CC and West does so, the looking isn't forbidden by L16A, which addresses only calls or plays. Nevertheless, it's an "advantage" forbidden (in my view) by L73C. > >3. The case for "demonstrably suggested" cannot be made because there > >are in theory two or more possibilities, but the action chosen is so > >wildly unlikely absent the UI that the TD/AC are convinced the player > >knew perfectly well what the UI showed and took advantage. > > Hmmm... I suppose this could be interpreted as a difference, but is > that what we want? I think cases will be extremely rare, but there was a good example in the 1999 thread. However, that is the only example I have ever seen. > Is L73B1 meant to be a fallback for TDs/ACs who > cannot find a violation of L16A but want to find some excuse to > penalize anyhow? I think 73B1 stands on its own. In contrast to L16A, it makes the giving of the information, not the use, the infraction. Of course it's only applicable when the giving is easily avoidable and damage results therefrom. In contrast, both 73C and 16 (and also 73F1, which I don't at all understand the need for) deal with _using_ the information. From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 2 16:19:26 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:19:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401c2f92b$3fcb8e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau ............. > The problem is that the current state of interpretation requires us to > determine *not* "what is irrational", but rather "what is irrational > for the class of player involved". That is illogical, > self-contradictory, and the reason why we have so many difficult > "borderline cases". Get rid of the dependence of "irrational" on > "class of player" and the issues clarify themselves readily enough. Come to think of it: What if the interpretation were changed to "what is irrational regardless of the class of player involved" ? regards Sven From gester@lineone.net Wed Apr 2 16:34:07 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:34:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] More guidance required References: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002901c2f92d$6e5b0aa0$c4242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 2:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] More guidance required > > The problem is that the current state of interpretation > requires us to determine *not* "what is irrational", but > rather "what is irrational for the class of player involved". > That is illogical, self-contradictory, and the reason why > we have so many difficult "borderline cases". Get rid of > the dependence of "irrational" on "class of player" and > the issues clarify themselves readily enough. > +=+ So far as the current law goes I consider the problem is that 'irrational' is ill-chosen. I believe that what we really mean is 'unthinkable' in the class of player. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Apr 2 16:34:45 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:34:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: <3e8b0315.1eb2.0@esatclear.ie> [snip ...] >+=+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. +++ been out of circulation for a while so apologises for dragging up this old horse. The amount of correspondance this thread created was pretty phenomenal. Grattan's 2 paragraph's above sum up the AC's position quite eloquently. Their whole ruling hinges on the argument as per Hermann's post was that while the pause did not show any preference for either major it did suggest a short suit lead. This I find hard to swallow, but lets for a moment conceed their point ... >From the actual appeal and the posts it is quite clear that pause or no pause, the leader can work out that partner is longer in hearts than in spades. He can infact be pretty sure that partner has 4+ hearts AT LEAST. Given that his hand is useless defensively - trying to hit partner's suit is surely the best way to try and knock the contract. This in turn strongly suggests leading pds known suit hearts. All of this is 200% legal info NOT effected by the pause in any way. What I can't come to terms with is how this normal legal lead is now suddenly UI. You are now asking me to pick an inferior lead because pd's pause, in your opinion, has suggested I lead my shortest suit ?? I would agree with the AC ... IF ... the logical evidence suggested some other lead and leader elected to lead a heart counter to this evidence .. but he didn't. What the AC seems to be saying is that the pause "confirms" the leader's opinion that Pd's suit is hearts. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't - but from leader's point of view, a heart is still the most likely lead to knock the contract. There are no garuntee's. Pd's pause doesn't take away from the fact that he still has statistically longer hearts than spades. A heart could be a disaster. Its our best guess and nothing more than a guess, based on the evidence to date. To summarize - the leader did the "normal" thing. Why is he getting punished for some hypothetical, nebulous, grey, dare I say unrealistic, possible UI. I think a player should be allowed to come to a logical conclusion based on the facts and act on it regardless of some far fetched possible meaning attached to an action from pd. If Pd's action gave leader an advantage .. sure throw the book at him. What advantage did the leader gain in this case .... that he didn't already have ?? No need to reply on this, its been discussed to death. I understand the AC's position, I just don't agree with it. Far too thin to overturn a normal action IMO. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 2 16:48:29 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:48:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: <200304021540.KAA20455@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000501c2f92f$4e8d7df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> No, I failed to correct the "to" address before pressing "send" with my reply. It was indeed intended for blml as well. But once noticing my error I didn't bother to send it again. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa.harvard.edu] > Sent: 2. april 2003 17:41 > To: svenpran@online.no > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 13 > > We are making progress. Did you mean to send your message just to > me or to BLML as well? > > The ACBL case Adam cited is relevant, too. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 2 16:50:00 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:50:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: <200304021550.KAA20472@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > Since declarer may indeed need to know, in order to determine his best > line of play, he must be allowed to ask -- at least until Marv gets his > way, but even then, he must be allowed to inspect the opponents' CC, > which is an essesntially equivalent action. Just want to point out that inspecting the CC is not at all an equivalent action. In particular, it is much less likely to be misleading to opponents. This distinction is vaguely related to the difference between, "What are your agreements?" and, "Does that really show clubs?" In both situations, the finding-out is necessary and appropriate, but the _means_ of finding out should ideally neither mislead an opponent nor transmit information to partner. How to put the ideal into practice is, of course, not an easy task. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 2 17:24:55 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:24:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics In-Reply-To: <200304021519.KAA20429@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030402181739.00aa5bc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:19 2/04/2003 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > L16A applies here not because "the action becomes logical", but because > > there are "logical alternative actions". > >This may be the first time I've seen Eric make an error in logic. The >exact text is "from among logical alternative actions." An illogical >action is thus not forbidden by L16A. This is probably a drafting >error and may well be corrected in the next edition, but for now that's >what it says. AG : just change it to "over logical alternative actions". 2. The advantage involves something other than choosing a call or > >play. ("Look at their convention card, you idiot," comes to mind, > >although in such a blatant case we can use L73B1. Which David may say > >is not a Law either.) > > The "laundry list" of means to EI in L16A is explicitly illustrative > rather than definitive. L16A clearly applies to any of the items in > the (definitive) list in L73B1. Sorry, I guess my point wasn't clear. If East tells West to look at the CC and West does so, the looking isn't forbidden by L16A, which addresses only calls or plays. Nevertheless, it's an "advantage" forbidden (in my view) by L73C. AG : another example : in the mid of a deal, East (a defender) raises an eyebrow, counts his cards, raises the second one, looks at the floor, and discovers his 13th card. West knows what happened ; he also knows that East had, for some time, one less card in some suit, and that for this reason his count signals are suspect. IMHO, he is not allowed to use that knowledge. It doesn't come, however, from any infraction (the abusive remark in the example above was one), but L73C should apply. Even without the raised eyebrows. Best regards, Alain. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 2 17:10:20 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:10:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 (was Appeal 666) Message-ID: <200304021610.LAA20505@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel" > To summarize - the leader did the "normal" thing. Why is he getting punished > for some hypothetical, nebulous, grey, dare I say unrealistic, possible UI. As most readers will probably know, the legal question is not whether the leader's choice was normal but rather whether alternative leads would also be normal. (Strictly speaking, whether they qualify as "logical alternatives" under the applicable regulations.) From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 2 17:28:41 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:28:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: <200304021628.LAA20519@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Somewhat to my surprise, we have actually made some progress on this question. Sven sent his last message privately but has given me permission to post it. I think there is an interesting issue remaining. > > On the facts presented, it now appears that we will both rule that the > > board was played in proper form at Table 1 and therefore the Table 1 > > score stands. The question is whether we can restore the board for > > play at other tables. > From: "Sven Pran" > Exactly! (But see below if we are unable to restore the board correctly) > > We have no certainty, but we still have to give a score according to > > the best evidence we have. > > > > Since the evidence says that the NS memory is correct and the EW memory > > is not, one option is to restore the board according to the NS > > testimony and play it that way at the other tables. > > We have two options from which we should select option 1 if at all possible: > > 1: If we can satisfy ourselves that we restore the board exactly as it was > played on table 1 we do so, and we have the least possible harm done. I am sure we all agree on this. The question is how much evidence we need to "satisfy ourselves." This is an important question. At first blush, I should think "preponderance of the evidence," the usual standard for score adjustment rulings, would suffice. > 2: If we cannot feel satisfied that the restored board is identical in every > respect to the board originally played at table 1 we have to let the other > tables play the corrected board. In that case we must cancel the result > obtained at table 1 on this board because the board was probably different > in some way from that board when played at the other tables . Both pairs who > get their results cancelled will then receive an A+ score on this board. There are two issues here. First, if we give an artificial score, I don't see how we can give EW an avg+ on the facts presented. We know for sure they have made some mistake, although possibly it is just their memory at fault. Anyone else care to comment? Second, there is another route altogether, which John Probst at least will appreciate. Restore the board to an approximate form according to your best guess, then give an _assigned_ adjusted score (the table result!) at table 1 using L72B1. For this you need "preponderance of the evidence" that the fouled board was the fault of EW. I think you have that from the mere fact that it is the East and West hands that were wrong. Of course it's obvious that they "could have known" that fouling the board would be to their benefit. This route leads to the same outcome as believing the board to have been restored, but there is no need to require it to be restored _exactly_. From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 2 17:56:04 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 18:56:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: <200304021628.LAA20519@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000701c2f938$c0246290$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > Somewhat to my surprise, we have actually made some progress on this > question. Sven sent his last message privately but has given me > permission to post it. I think there is an interesting issue > remaining. I sent it privately by mistake and had absolutely no objection to this = being published. >=20 > > > On the facts presented, it now appears that we will both rule that = the > > > board was played in proper form at Table 1 and therefore the Table = 1 > > > score stands. The question is whether we can restore the board = for > > > play at other tables. >=20 > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Exactly! (But see below if we are unable to restore the board = correctly) >=20 > > > We have no certainty, but we still have to give a score according = to > > > the best evidence we have. > > > > > > Since the evidence says that the NS memory is correct and the EW > memory > > > is not, one option is to restore the board according to the NS > > > testimony and play it that way at the other tables. > > > > We have two options from which we should select option 1 if at all > possible: > > > > 1: If we can satisfy ourselves that we restore the board exactly as = it > was > > played on table 1 we do so, and we have the least possible harm = done. >=20 > I am sure we all agree on this. The question is how much evidence we > need to "satisfy ourselves." This is an important question. At first > blush, I should think "preponderance of the evidence," the usual > standard for score adjustment rulings, would suffice. >=20 > > 2: If we cannot feel satisfied that the restored board is identical = in > every > > respect to the board originally played at table 1 we have to let the > other > > tables play the corrected board. In that case we must cancel the = result > > obtained at table 1 on this board because the board was probably > different > > in some way from that board when played at the other tables . Both = pairs > who > > get their results cancelled will then receive an A+ score on this = board. >=20 > There are two issues here. First, if we give an artificial score, I > don't see how we can give EW an avg+ on the facts presented. We know > for sure they have made some mistake, although possibly it is just > their memory at fault. Anyone else care to comment? And we should not consider them "at fault" simply because they do not remember their cards correct. We know that something probably has = happened to the East-West cards, but we have no good indication that their hands = were fouled by that pair rather than by somebody else. >=20 > Second, there is another route altogether, which John Probst at least > will appreciate. Restore the board to an approximate form according = to > your best guess, then give an _assigned_ adjusted score (the table > result!) at table 1 using L72B1. For this you need "preponderance of > the evidence" that the fouled board was the fault of EW. I think you > have that from the mere fact that it is the East and West hands that > were wrong. Of course it's obvious that they "could have known" that > fouling the board would be to their benefit. >=20 > This route leads to the same outcome as believing the board to have > been restored, but there is no need to require it to be restored > _exactly_. Do not make the mistake of forgetting Law 87. That law leaves nothing to = be judged by the Director. The Director must simply decide ("Yes" or "No"): = Are the board as it was played at the other tables identical to the board as = it was played at table 1? Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 2 18:48:12 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 19:48:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required References: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3E8B225C.7040402@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:52 AM 4/2/03, Herman wrote: > >> >> Because we are talking about borderline cases here. There are a number >> of very clear cases out there in which we need the "but not >> irrational" in order to make rulings that the players do not find >> lunatic at first sight. >> >> Like not awarding all tricks from AKQJT9872. > > > At the risk of repeating myself, I don't think it would be very > difficult to determine what is "irrational"; it would correspond pretty > well to what Herman considers "very clear cases". If all we needed to > do was come up with a consensual notion of what is considered > "irrational" I think we could do it without too much difficulty. > Sorry Eric, but I have got to laugh. You believe the current borderline cases to be difficult, so you want to change the law to accomodate. Presumably you want to rule against all the current borderline cases. But you also want to rule in favour of AKQJT9872. Which simply means that there is still some border. Somewhere that you draw it. I maintain that we shall have just as many problems around your border than there are around the current one. Or even more, since many of the borderline cases of today have been settled by common principles and guidance. Do you really wish to start all that work again? Please forgive me, but then I prefer Burn's approach. > The problem is that the current state of interpretation requires us to > determine *not* "what is irrational", but rather "what is irrational for > the class of player involved". That is illogical, self-contradictory, > and the reason why we have so many difficult "borderline cases". Get > rid of the dependence of "irrational" on "class of player" and the > issues clarify themselves readily enough. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From adam@tameware.com Wed Apr 2 19:18:01 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:18:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] RE: Philadelphia Appeal 5 (was 6) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 4:19 PM +1000 4/2/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: ftp://www.acbl.org/nabc/2003spring/db8.pdf >PS I applaud the AC decision in Appeal 6, where the >AC was not only tough minded enough to award an >Appeal Without Merit in a clearcut UI case, but also >carefully examined the adjusted score awarded to the >appellants, downgrading their already bad score of >-300 to -500. I like that decision as well. I've been managing something similar about once per NABC, though of course the circumstances must warrant it. On the other hand I'm not sure they were tough minded enough! The auction was W N E S 3D P P 4C P 4S X 5C P P X all pass East alerted 4C and explained it as takeout. The writeup is priceless. "West said he had to bid 5C because East did not yet know he had clubs." That being the case I have two questions: 1. Why is it that neither the director nor the AC assessed a procedural penalty against EW? 2. Was this case screened? One of the purposes of screening must be to inform the appellants of the relevant law and its meaning. It's clear that West did not understand the law, either at the table or during the hearing. It's possible that the law was explained to West but that he didn't understand or didn't pay attention. It seems that there are many cases heard at our NABCs that would not come to an AC if the appellants understood the law. I suspect our screening process could be improved upon. Does anyone have a guide for screeners? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Apr 2 20:46:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 20:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: <000201c2f912$18943990$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads > > Sven wrote: > > > > > But at the sight of dummy I should expect some raised eyebrows and a > > > question from defender(s) whether declarer sustains his explanation. > > > > So let me get this straight. If I, as a good, law-abiding citizen > > maintain my facial expression and avoid asking questions that might > > give UI to partner because I know that it is to late to do anything I > > jeopardise my rights to any adjustment based on MI. Meanwhile a > > player who raises eyebrows (an infraction) and assumes that declarer > > is ignorant of his obligations may receive a beneficial adjustment. > > Sorry Sven - that stinks. > > Even if your partner hasn't already noticed the discrepancy between > dummy's hand and the explanation of one or more of his calls given by > declarer it is certainly not giving your partner any UI calling the > attention to this irregularity. See Law 9 in general and Law 9B1(c) in > particular. There may not be any irregularity. Dummy may have psyched/misbid - I have no wish to *risk* giving UI to partner (I don't even know if I might have been damaged). I have no problem with a defender who *chooses* to call a director at this point. I just wish to be allowed to choose not to as I see fit without jeopardising my rights. Thankfully the current laws support that position. Tim From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Apr 2 21:19:48 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 12:19:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights References: <000801c2f8ea$29633b40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001c01c2f955$36f5a5c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" [SP] If the connection between the misinformation and the poor result is apparent then the Director should normally adjust, but if the connection could seem doubtful I (for one) would refuse on the ground that I was summoned too late. I can't find justification for that in the Laws. ........... [MF]> >The sole purpose of calling the TD at this time, when > >he can only have play continue, is for him to get a > >timely description of the infraction, before memories > >fade. [SP]Partly yes, but equally important is to avoid any suspicion of "Opponents have made an infraction, I'll try some risky action and if it doesn't work to my advantage then I'll summon the Director and get my redress". That is possible no matter when the TD is summoned, and will be considered in a potential score adjustment for the NOS. What bothers me especially is that the OS is left off scot-free in such cases, under a misapplication of L11A, which applies to penalties, not score adjustments. Even if the NOS takes some "wild, gambling, or irrrational" action, thereby losing the right to redress, that does not mean the OS score should not be adjusted. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Apr 2 21:44:19 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:44:19 -0600 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: <3E8A96A4.30304@skynet.be> References: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <3E8A96A4.30304@skynet.be> Message-ID: HdW writes: >No comments on Robert's main contribution. This is indeed something >we need more guidance on. However: > >Robert E. Harris wrote: > >> >>Why are we saddled with this "but not irrational" business? Nobody >>knows what it means. Maybe we can get a psychic to find out from >>the spirit of EK. > > >Because we are talking about borderline cases here. There are a >number of very clear cases out there in which we need the "but not >irrational" in order to make rulings that the players do not find >lunatic at first sight. > >Like not awarding all tricks from AKQJT9872. Of course not. What we need is clear-cut guidance. Most of the partners I play with claim clearly and correctly. My 85+ year old partner soon will be back from his winter sojourn in Florida, and he claims by fanning his hand face up. He often says, "I have the rest." If a trump is out, he says he will draw it. But first the hand comes down. It's a while before any statement about line of play is made. ("We play the "Weak No Trump System." That means he can bid whatever he likes whenever he likes.) I worry about his claims, and many others like them, where only a maniac (or a bridge lawyer) could dispute the claim, and yet in some circles there seems to be a tendency to assume idiotic but not irrational play. If it's idiotic, it's irrational, I hope. But what is idiotic to me may be careless but not irrational to you. -- 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 Apr 2 21:43:11 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 12:43:11 -0800 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights References: Message-ID: <002301c2f958$7b17f0c0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> >From Richard Hills > > Marv wrote: > > >Now suppose that declarer calls attention to his > >irregularity when he sees the dummy, correcting his > >former statement that dummy's hand would have 12-14 > >HCP, but it only has 8. Now technically the TD must > >be called (declarer's duty, but a defender can do > >it). > > Incorrect. It is the duty of all four players, > including dummy. Law 9B1. Yes, terrible mistake on my part. If someone else has called attention to an irregularity, then (and only then) dummy may summon the TD. >Marv has made a reasonable case > for the 2005 Law 75D1 to read thusly: > > >>If a player subsequently realises that his own > >>explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must > >>immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 > >>or Law 40C). Without describing the irregularity, presumably. The TD may not want others at the table to know about it until play is complete. > >>Exception: An opponent may request that any call for > >>the Director be deferred until the end of play. If, > >>at the end of play, all players agree that the > >>lateness of the correct explanation did not cause > >>damage, then the Director need not be called at all. I don't see why following this procedure now should be grounds for denying redress (or for not adjusting the OS score). If a player has violated L75D1 by not calling the TD immediately when realizing the MI, and describes it to the opponents first, then it seems wrong that the NOS should suffer any adverse consequences for that irregularity. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Apr 2 23:03:14 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:03:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Active ethics In-Reply-To: <200304021519.KAA20429@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402165048.01fc3430@pop.starpower.net> At 10:19 AM 4/2/03, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > L16A applies here not because "the action becomes logical", but > because > > there are "logical alternative actions". > >This may be the first time I've seen Eric make an error in logic. The >exact text is "from among logical alternative actions." An illogical >action is thus not forbidden by L16A. This is probably a drafting >error and may well be corrected in the next edition, but for now that's >what it says. "among: 1. In the midst of; in the company of; surrounded by." [AHD] If I find a sheep among the goats, that doesn't make the sheep a goat. I can have logical alternatives to my chosen action without my chosen action necessarily being logical. >Of course there is no problem whatsoever in ruling. We will all rule >the same way, regardless of what route we take to get there. My view >is that L73C and 12A1 is the simplest route and one which requires no >tortured reading of the text. > > > >2. The advantage involves something other than choosing a call or > > >play. ("Look at their convention card, you idiot," comes to mind, > > >although in such a blatant case we can use L73B1. Which David may say > > >is not a Law either.) > > > > The "laundry list" of means to EI in L16A is explicitly illustrative > > rather than definitive. L16A clearly applies to any of the items in > > the (definitive) list in L73B1. > >Sorry, I guess my point wasn't clear. If East tells West to look at >the CC and West does so, the looking isn't forbidden by L16A, which >addresses only calls or plays. Nevertheless, it's an "advantage" >forbidden (in my view) by L73C. L16A1 refers to "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play". I don't read that as requiring that the EI suggest a call or play directly. I think it applies equally if the EI suggests a call or play indirectly, i.e. whenever the EI results in a call or play being suggested. "Look at their convention card, you idiot" is, by that reading, a "remark" that would violate L16A1 if it results in a call or play being suggested. > > >3. The case for "demonstrably suggested" cannot be made because there > > >are in theory two or more possibilities, but the action chosen is so > > >wildly unlikely absent the UI that the TD/AC are convinced the player > > >knew perfectly well what the UI showed and took advantage. > > > > Hmmm... I suppose this could be interpreted as a difference, but is > > that what we want? > >I think cases will be extremely rare, but there was a good example in >the 1999 thread. However, that is the only example I have ever seen. > > > Is L73B1 meant to be a fallback for TDs/ACs who > > cannot find a violation of L16A but want to find some excuse to > > penalize anyhow? > >I think 73B1 stands on its own. In contrast to L16A, it makes the >giving of the information, not the use, the infraction. Of course it's >only applicable when the giving is easily avoidable and damage >results therefrom. > >In contrast, both 73C and 16 (and also 73F1, which I don't at all >understand the need for) deal with _using_ the information. We are discusssing semantics, which are interesting, but don't really matter. In real life, I expect Steve and I would make similar rulings in similar situations, whether we chose to read L16A or L73B1 to the players. 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 Apr 2 23:01:05 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:01:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Dummy and card left face up Message-ID: <200304022201.RAA20779@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Here's one I hadn't seen before. Declarer, South, wins a trick in dummy. West leaves his card face up, but declarer does not notice and calls for a card to be led to the next trick. What should dummy do? Please cite specific Laws: 42A3 comes to mind as one that will surely be involved. From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Apr 2 23:11:32 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:11:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: <000401c2f92b$3fcb8e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402170443.02000c40@pop.starpower.net> At 10:19 AM 4/2/03, Sven wrote: >Eric Landau >............. > > The problem is that the current state of interpretation requires us to > > determine *not* "what is irrational", but rather "what is irrational > > for the class of player involved". That is illogical, > > self-contradictory, and the reason why we have so many difficult > > "borderline cases". Get rid of the dependence of "irrational" on > > "class of player" and the issues clarify themselves readily enough. > >Come to think of it: What if the interpretation were changed to > >"what is irrational regardless of the class of player involved" ? I had always interpreted the dreaded footnote that way, until the WBF offered its contradictory, and, IMO, self-contradictory interpretation. I'd be happy to see it changed to "...play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational (regardless of the class of player involved)", which would clarify it as meaning what I continue to believe it means in plain, "uninterpreted" English, which is the same as what my revised wording would mean without the parenthetical (i.e. with no mention of "class of player" at all). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Apr 2 23:19:58 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:19:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: <002901c2f92d$6e5b0aa0$c4242850@pacific> References: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402171223.02001240@pop.starpower.net> At 10:34 AM 4/2/03, gester wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > The problem is that the current state of interpretation > > requires us to determine *not* "what is irrational", but > > rather "what is irrational for the class of player involved". > > That is illogical, self-contradictory, and the reason why > > we have so many difficult "borderline cases". Get rid of > > the dependence of "irrational" on "class of player" and > > the issues clarify themselves readily enough. > >+=+ So far as the current law goes I consider the problem >is that 'irrational' is ill-chosen. I believe that what we really >mean is 'unthinkable' in the class of player. It doesn't matter what word is chosen; as long as we cannot make a lawful ruling without first making a determination as to the "class of player involved" we will have problematic and inconsistent rulings. "Irrational" is a fine word provided we don't try to illogically link its meaning to "class of player". Deciding what is "'unthinkable' in the class of player" requires more than just mind-reading; it requires "meta-mind-reading", knowing not just what a player is thinking, but what he might be capable of thinking. Ordinary mind-reading is hard enough. 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 Apr 2 23:26:15 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:26:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) In-Reply-To: <200304021550.KAA20472@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402172319.01ffabc0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:50 AM 4/2/03, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > Since declarer may indeed need to know, in order to determine his best > > line of play, he must be allowed to ask -- at least until Marv gets > his > > way, but even then, he must be allowed to inspect the opponents' CC, > > which is an essesntially equivalent action. > >Just want to point out that inspecting the CC is not at all an >equivalent action. In particular, it is much less likely to be >misleading to opponents. > >This distinction is vaguely related to the difference between, "What >are your agreements?" and, "Does that really show clubs?" In both >situations, the finding-out is necessary and appropriate, but the >_means_ of finding out should ideally neither mislead an opponent nor >transmit information to partner. Steve is right. I should have said "which might be an essentially equivalent action" (depending on the circumstances). The analogy to the distinction between Steve's two questions is a valid one. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 2 23:38:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 00:38:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy and card left face up In-Reply-To: <200304022201.RAA20779@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001201c2f968$8558f5b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > Here's one I hadn't seen before. >=20 > Declarer, South, wins a trick in dummy. West leaves his card face up, > but declarer does not notice and calls for a card to be led to the = next > trick. What should dummy do? Please cite specific Laws: 42A3 comes = to > mind as one that will surely be involved. Dummy will do exactly as he has been told by declarer; he should not = even call attention to the fact that West has not yet turned his last played = card face down. Applicable laws: 42A3 - yes, and also 45B and 42B3. Note that Law 42B2 is not applicable; South has already played the card = by naming it so it is too late for dummy to try to prevent an irregularity. = Actually I find it very doubtful if this action by South is any = irregularity at all, nowhere in the laws do I find any rule that the lead to a trick = must only be done after all four players have turned their last played card = face down.=20 Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Apr 2 23:46:25 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:46:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: <3E8B225C.7040402@skynet.be> References: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402172951.01ff3b80@pop.starpower.net> At 12:48 PM 4/2/03, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 02:52 AM 4/2/03, Herman wrote: >> >>>Because we are talking about borderline cases here. There are a >>>number of very clear cases out there in which we need the "but not >>>irrational" in order to make rulings that the players do not find >>>lunatic at first sight. >>> >>>Like not awarding all tricks from AKQJT9872. >> >>At the risk of repeating myself, I don't think it would be very >>difficult to determine what is "irrational"; it would correspond >>pretty well to what Herman considers "very clear cases". If all we >>needed to do was come up with a consensual notion of what is >>considered "irrational" I think we could do it without too much difficulty. > >Sorry Eric, but I have got to laugh. >You believe the current borderline cases to be difficult, so you want >to change the law to accomodate. >Presumably you want to rule against all the current borderline cases. >But you also want to rule in favour of AKQJT9872. >Which simply means that there is still some border. Somewhere that you >draw it. I don't think that it is very hard to draw *one* border, but if it has to be drawn so that it will move to different places depending on who is affected by it, it becomes impossible. I think we can draw one border easily enough, but drawing one border for each different player, depending on his particular "class", requires us to draw an effectively infinite number of borders on the same map. That we cannot do. >I maintain that we shall have just as many problems around your border >than there are around the current one. My view is that there are problems around the current border only because the current border is not fixed, but keeps moving every time the "class of player involved" changes. If we had one border for everyone, that didn't move, we wouldn't have any trouble knowing which side of it a particular action fell on. >Or even more, since many of the borderline cases of today have been >settled by common principles and guidance. >Do you really wish to start all that work again? On the contrary. To the extent that we have "common principles and guidance" -- meaning principles and guidance that apply in all cases -- we have the basis for putting the border in one place and letting it remain there. I would incorporate what we have today in the way of common principles and guidance, while eliminating any need for principles and guidance that are not "common" -- which is exactly what we do not have today, and the lack (indeed, impossibility) of which presents us with so many problems in making rulings. >Please forgive me, but then I prefer Burn's approach. The primary (only?) virtue of David's approach is its simplicity of application. Expunge all references to "class of player", leaving us with a fixed, unmoving border between "'normal'" and "irrational", and we will reduce the complexity by 90% of what David would achieve without being required to make Draconian rulings of the sort that most of us don't want to see. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Thu Apr 3 00:12:24 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 18:12:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, Club level, ACBL Land At 6th trick, a defender revoked and played to the next trick. Then dummy says: I think there was a revoke. Somebody called the TD who ruled an established revoke, asked players to finish the board and call him back. As the offender won the revoke trick and one other trick later, the TD ruled that 2 tricks should be transferred to non-offenders. As the dummy acted against Law 43A1B when being the first to draw attention to the irregularity, can the TD cancel the revoke penalty ? Using which Law ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From adam@irvine.com Thu Apr 3 00:43:30 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 15:43:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:12:24 EST." Message-ID: <200304022343.PAA09074@mailhub.irvine.com> > Hi BLMLrs, > > Club level, ACBL Land > > At 6th trick, a defender revoked and played to the next trick. > Then dummy says: I think there was a revoke. Somebody called > the TD who ruled an established revoke, asked players to finish > the board and call him back. As the offender won the revoke > trick and one other trick later, the TD ruled that 2 tricks > should be transferred to non-offenders. > > As the dummy acted against Law 43A1B when being the first > to draw attention to the irregularity, can the TD cancel > the revoke penalty ? No. Law 43B is clear about the penalties for violations of L43A. L43B1 says that when the limitations in L43A1 or L43A2 are violated, dummy is liable under Law 90; this means you can slap dummy with a procedural penalty, but that's all. L43B3 says that *after* dummy has violated one of the limitations in L43A2 (e.g. he looked at a defender's hand), *then* if dummy is the first to draw attention to a defender's irregularity, the irregularity is not penalized. But unless there's something you haven't told us, there was no L43A2 violation, so L43B3 does not apply. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 3 00:21:53 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:21:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fair is foul and foul is fair Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky, 14-12 (Philadelphia Appeal 5): [snip] >Reading between the lines I conclude that he >tried to discover which pip it was but was >unable to do so. Richard Hills: >>Question 3: If the answer to question 2 is No, >>is the Director infracting Law 87A? Adam Wildavsky: >What would you have him do? What would you do? >I guess he was willing to have his score >penalized! I would have the TD rule according to the second sentence of Law 13, "Otherwise, the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score and may penalise an offender." But, on a closer look at Law 87A, it seems that my Question 3 above was a trick question. Law 87A does *not* state "a board is fouled if one or more cards were misplaced....." Rather, Law 87A states "a board is *considered to be* fouled if *the Director determines* that one or more cards were misplaced....." Therefore, the Philadelphia TD's Earth is flat ruling was perfectly *legal*, despite the reasonable *practical* chance that the Earth is round. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Apr 3 02:46:33 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 02:46:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] More guidance required References: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402172951.01ff3b80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002a01c2f982$db5f0f20$973c23d9@pbncomputer> Eric wrote: > I don't think that it is very hard to draw *one* border I do. We have tried, and we have come up with "cash from the top down, ruff from the bottom up". But: 432 None None None None None 3 None KQ J10 None 2 None AQ2 None None South, declarer in a heart contract and believing there to be no missing trump, claims the rest. East demurs, pointing out that if he were to lead his club... How many tricks to declarer? Would your ruling differ if South's trumps were A42? > but if it has > to be drawn so that it will move to different places depending on who > is affected by it, it becomes impossible. Exactly so. At the moment, it does, and it is. Grattan's substitution of "unthinkable" is not helpful, for it still requires some referee to imagine what some player might think. As you will have gathered, it is my opinion that the only way in which equitable rulings (in the sense that all are treated alike) become possible is for the laws to take no account whatever of how people might reason, or what people might think. The original problem, where South had the 75 of hearts and West the six (but would follow to East's lead anyway) produced no consensus; some were in favour of awarding a trick to the defence, others were not. Now, if a trivial case such as that generates differences of opinion about what the laws require, then one of three conclusions is inescapable: we are no good; or the laws are no good; or both. > I think we can draw one border easily enough You have, as Herman correctly points out, got to be joking. I will make you this guarantee: whatever border you draw, I will smuggle millions of dollars worth of contraband over it tomorrow night. Unless, of course, it is the border that I would draw, on one side of which are legal plays embraced by a claim statement, and on the other side of which there are no options. [Herman] > >Or even more, since many of the borderline cases of today have been > >settled by common principles and guidance. > >Do you really wish to start all that work again? No, of course not. It is useless, for there are no common principles and there is no guidance. When a claim is contested, the claimer ends up with the number of tricks that the officials think he might have made. But this has nothing to do with the rules. > On the contrary. To the extent that we have "common principles and > guidance" -- meaning principles and guidance that apply in all cases -- > we have the basis for putting the border in one place and letting it > remain there. Sure we do. How is that "ruffing from the bottom up" principle doing in the light of the example above? The extent to which we have common principles and guidance is... well, it does not equate to nothing at all, for it will probably ensure that a claimer takes a trick with an ace. But it is almost meaningless to say that the border is, or can be, "in one place". Which place? How will I find it on a map? What is its climate, its topography? We have fiddled around to the extent that someone with AKQJ2 might be entitled to more than no tricks even if he just puts his hand on the table. Good for us, but this does not exactly represent progress. [Herman] > >Please forgive me, but then I prefer Burn's approach. Ego te absolvo. > The primary (only?) virtue of David's approach is its simplicity of > application. Do I have to do this again? The primary virtues of David's approach are that: it is simple; it is consistent; it requires no subjectivity; it ensures that all claims are treated equally under the law; it ensures also that players will, when claiming, make proper statements of claim. The primary virtues of the alternative approach are that they rely on Eric to draw the border and Herman to decide what mistake Hallberg might have made. Oh, well. > Expunge all references to "class of player", leaving us > with a fixed, unmoving border between "'normal'" and "irrational", Draw it. Or at any rate, sketch it. Then, prove the Riemann hypothesis - that ought to be a cakewalk. I'm being simplistic, and I know it. But for most of my life as a bridge lawyer, I have been told that this, or that, or the other, should be so. Well, maybe it should, and maybe it should not. But if a thing "should be so", then you have to have a form of words to express the notion that "this is so, and other things are not so". What words should Ton Kooijman put in the next edition of the Laws, Eric, so that things are as you would have them? The one thing about the Burn view of the rules is this: I know how to say them. > and > we will reduce the complexity by 90% of what David would achieve > without being required to make Draconian rulings of the sort that most > of us don't want to see. I don't actually think that most of us would want to see a man spread his cards and say nothing. I think we would rather see a man spread his cards and say "These are the tricks that I have, and this is why I have them". This may, of course, be just me. David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 3 01:42:07 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:42:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Dummy and card left face up Message-ID: [big snip] >Actually I find it very doubtful if this action by >South is any irregularity at all, nowhere in the >laws do I find any rule that the lead to a trick >must only be done after all four players have >turned their last played card face down. > >Regards Sven Law 65A specifies that for a trick to be completed "each player turns his own card face down near him on the table." The question therefore is whether Law 44G, "the player who has won the trick leads to the next trick," applies in the case of a player who has won? will win? an incomplete trick. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 3 02:00:19 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:00:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights Message-ID: Sven wrote: [snip] >it is certainly not giving your partner any UI >calling the attention to this irregularity. See >Law 9 in general and Law 9B1(c) in particular. > >It is already obvious that some irregularity has >occurred; but it remains to be seen whether this >irregularity in fact was an infraction of the laws. [snip] In my opinion, in the context of a discussion about Bridge Laws, the words "irregularity" and "infraction" are synonyms. See the Chapter 1 definition: >>Irregularity - A deviation from the correct >>procedures set forth in the Laws. Therefore, I disagree with the distinction between the two words that Sven is trying to create. Perhaps this is a problem caused by an erroneous Norse translation of the Laws? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 3 02:09:42 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:09:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights Message-ID: Sven wrote: [big snip] >A fundamental rule in the laws is that no player >may object to the Director being summoned if >another player wants the Director to the table. I cannot find any such Law. On the contrary, as TD I might rule that an unnecessary summoning of me to the table was in and of itself an infraction of Law 74B5. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 3 04:44:28 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:44:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] RE: Philadelphia Appeal 5 (was 6) Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky wrote: [snip] >East alerted 4C and explained it as takeout. > >The writeup is priceless. "West said he had to >bid 5C because East did not yet know he had >clubs." That being the case I have two questions: > >1. Why is it that neither the director nor the AC >assessed a procedural penalty against EW? If I had been TD, I would not have assessed a PP either. I would PP an expert who apparently flouted an obligation they knew (or should have known). West's naive self-incriminating testimony shows that West is not an expert. Therefore, as TD and AC, I would merely have educated West. Hopefully, West seeing their name prominently displayed in the Daily Bulletin is educative, and West may even peruse the AC's reasoning. >2. Was this case screened? One of the purposes of >screening must be to inform the appellants of the >relevant law and its meaning. It's clear that West >did not understand the law, either at the table or >during the hearing. It's possible that the law was >explained to West but that he didn't understand or >didn't pay attention. > >It seems that there are many cases heard at our >NABCs that would not come to an AC if the >appellants understood the law. I suspect our >screening process could be improved upon. Does >anyone have a guide for screeners? In some major ABF events there used to be Appeal Advisors. The selection criteria for Appeal Advisors was that they had to both understand the MI and UI Laws, and that they had to be experts. If a potential appellant consulted an Appeals Advisor, and if the Appeals Advisor agreed that the potential appellant had a prima facie case, then, if there was an appeal, the appellant was given a guarantee of being able to keep their appeal deposit. I am not sure whether the ABF has abandoned the concept of Appeals Advisors, and, if so, what replacement concept the ABF uses. Laurie Kelso, are you able to enlighten? Best wishes Richard From adam@tameware.com Thu Apr 3 06:27:55 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 00:27:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] RE: Philadelphia Appeal 6 (was 5) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I got case numbers in the subject mixed up -- sorry! I've fixed it. At 1:44 PM +1000 4/3/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >If I had been TD, I would not have assessed a PP either. I would PP >an expert who apparently flouted an obligation they knew (or should >have known). West's naive self-incriminating testimony shows that >West is not an expert. Surely the laws are for everyone, not just experts. This hand was from the final of a national event, but I'd assign a PP in any serious competition. All we can take from EW are matchpoints, and take them we should. If EW don't care to learn the rules then they ought not care about their score. >Therefore, as TD and AC, I would merely have educated West. My experience is that nothing educates like a justifiable score penalty. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Apr 3 08:24:25 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:24:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: > > Grattan Endicott ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > "If we live influenced by wind, and sun, > and tree, and not by the passions and > deeds of the past, we are a thriftless > and hopeless people." > - Thomas Davis. The real problem, dear Grattan, is that we are hopeless people anyway, no matter what we do with experience, knowledge etc, and more even when we include passions, then we are lost for sure. This not per definition but per deeds of the past (and present). It shouldn't be too difficult to show us the WBF CofP example supporting your exegeses? I am still hoping to find a way to escape from this approach. And if we have to conclude that this is really what passionated people have said, then we need to bring this issue in the drafting committee. ton From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 3 08:45:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:45:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy and card left face up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c2f9b4$ee2002e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills > [big snip] > > >Actually I find it very doubtful if this action by > >South is any irregularity at all, nowhere in the > >laws do I find any rule that the lead to a trick > >must only be done after all four players have > >turned their last played card face down. > > > >Regards Sven > > Law 65A specifies that for a trick to be completed > "each player turns his own card face down near him > on the table." First a technicality: No, Law 65A doesn't say that; it tells us the correct procedure when four cards have been played to a trick. > > The question therefore is whether Law 44G, "the > player who has won the trick leads to the next > trick," applies in the case of a player who > > has won? > will win? > > an incomplete trick. Law 44B: The four cards played constitute a trick, so the trick is complete even before the cards are turned face down. Law 44E and Law 44F tell us who has won the trick, and this fact is established while all four cards are still visible to everybody (see also Law 45G). Law 44G tells us that the player who has won the trick leads to the next trick. Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 3 08:54:49 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:54:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2f9b6$4dc16800$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills > Sven wrote: > > [snip] > > >it is certainly not giving your partner any UI > >calling the attention to this irregularity. See > >Law 9 in general and Law 9B1(c) in particular. > > > >It is already obvious that some irregularity has > >occurred; but it remains to be seen whether this > >irregularity in fact was an infraction of the laws. > > [snip] > > In my opinion, in the context of a discussion about > Bridge Laws, the words "irregularity" and > "infraction" are synonyms. > > See the Chapter 1 definition: > > >>Irregularity - A deviation from the correct > >>procedures set forth in the Laws. > > Therefore, I disagree with the distinction between > the two words that Sven is trying to create. Perhaps > this is a problem caused by an erroneous Norse > translation of the Laws? No, my fault - I didn't look up the definitions. So I automatically used the word "irregularity" to describe something that was not what usually occurs (or should occur) but which not necessarily is an infraction of the laws. Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Apr 3 08:50:41 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:50:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: > Kaplan even gave an example, if memory serves. After the opening lead > of a king, and holding the ace himself, declarer asks "What > do you lead > from A-K?" > > Declarer may need to know the answer, but obviously the question is > very misleading to opponents. Whatever the rules may be, they have to > come to grips with this example. This example is what I hoped for. It has nothing to do with 'auction' in the first place, secondly the misleading intent seems clear (there most probably is no bridge reason for this question). That indeed is where we have 73F2 for: asker could have known etc. So yes it is possible to find examples in which questioning the auction is done with the intention to mislead. But that is a rare situation, and to be honest I have never met such case, while during play the examples are numerous. (In many cases, and in all cases in the EBU, questioning helps the opponents to find the best play, isn't that somewhat peculiar?) ton From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 3 09:00:34 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:00:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c2f9b7$1b3450e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills > Sven wrote: > > [big snip] > > >A fundamental rule in the laws is that no player > >may object to the Director being summoned if > >another player wants the Director to the table. > > I cannot find any such Law. > > On the contrary, as TD I might rule that an > unnecessary summoning of me to the table was in and > of itself an infraction of Law 74B5. Law 74B5 goes on the manner in which the Director is summoned and/or addressed, not on actually summoning the Director. The Director should appreciate that whenever a player feels he needs the assistance of a Director for whatever reason, the player should be free to call upon such assistance. Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Apr 3 09:18:13 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 10:18:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Arrow Switch Message-ID: > There has been considerable discussion in the ACBL C&C > committee meetings > about the avoidance of playbacks. The seeders argue that > proper reseeding > for the finals makes playbacks unavoidable, but pairs don't > like meeting > another pair more than once during the event. > > The movement for finals is a straight Mitchell, with everyone changing > direction for the second session. This is a two-winner movement with > inappropriate overall ranking. For sure, very strange movement, not even coping with walking inconveniences. > > Questions for BLML. > > Besides providing a one-winner movement, would a couple of > arrow switches > correct any imbalance of strength arising from a no-playback rule? That relation seems weak to me. But arrow switches in itself seem mandatory when you don't switch some of the directions halfway. If you do switch some groups arrow switches are often considered a burden creating more problems than it has advantages. > Would the fairness of finals be improved by having only half the pairs > switch direction for the second session? Instead of all you mean? Of course. ton > Marv From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Apr 3 09:30:04 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 10:30:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required Message-ID: > > > The problem is that the current state of interpretation > requires us to > determine *not* "what is irrational", but rather "what is irrational > for the class of player involved". That is illogical, > self-contradictory, and the reason why we have so many difficult > "borderline cases". Get rid of the dependence of "irrational" on > "class of player" and the issues clarify themselves readily enough. > > > Eric Landau That sounds really optimistic, I don't believe a word of it. We need to get rid of 'irrational', which we did in my federation. But even that doesn't help us. It is just a step towards better written laws. ton ton From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Apr 3 11:24:04 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:24:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402170443.02000c40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3E8C0BC4.6080302@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:19 AM 4/2/03, Sven wrote: > >> Eric Landau >> ............. >> > The problem is that the current state of interpretation requires us to >> > determine *not* "what is irrational", but rather "what is irrational >> > for the class of player involved". That is illogical, >> > self-contradictory, and the reason why we have so many difficult >> > "borderline cases". Get rid of the dependence of "irrational" on >> > "class of player" and the issues clarify themselves readily enough. >> >> Come to think of it: What if the interpretation were changed to >> >> "what is irrational regardless of the class of player involved" ? > > > I had always interpreted the dreaded footnote that way, until the WBF > offered its contradictory, and, IMO, self-contradictory interpretation. > I'd be happy to see it changed to "...play that would be careless or > inferior, but not irrational (regardless of the class of player > involved)", which would clarify it as meaning what I continue to believe > it means in plain, "uninterpreted" English, which is the same as what my > revised wording would mean without the parenthetical (i.e. with no > mention of "class of player" at all). > alas Eric, it is your interpretation that is self-contradictory. A particular action may be careless for me, but unthinkable for Zia. By the first part of the footnote, the action is normal for me, but not for Zia. Without going into a definition of the word "irrational", that same action is either irrational or not. If you don't qualify that irrational by "for the class of player involved", then one of two things will happen: - either the action is called irrational, in which case for me it is both normal ("careless") and not normal ("irrational"); - or the action is called not irrational, in which case it is for Zia it is both not normal (not "careless") and normal (not "irrational"). So the WBF interpretation is right: if the word "careless" is qualified with "for the class of player involved", then so must "irrational". Which, I agree with you, is a silly conclusion - since something should indeed be either rational or not. The only conclusion is that the WBF clearly allows for a particular line to be normal for one player (me) and not for another (Zia). And that the definition of "normal" is badly written. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From bridgecc@netscape.net Wed Apr 2 07:58:22 2003 From: bridgecc@netscape.net (Club de bridge) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 08:58:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] I FESTIVAL DE BRIDGE GOLF-SPAIN-. Message-ID: <3E8A8A0E.6050909@netscape.net> --------------060703090109030507070007 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I FESTIVAL DE BRIDGE GOLF 2003 This is our bridge golf tournament and it will be placed from the 9 of to the 15 of jun 2003 Almerimar -El Ejido -Almeria- SPAIN- Visita la pagina web en español Visit the pages in English please We are pleased with your visit and your friends visit as well. Please, send this information to all the bridge player. Thanks,we are waiting you. For more information bridgecc@hotmail.com --------------060703090109030507070007 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------060100040401010105050606" --------------060100040401010105050606 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

                  I FESTIVAL DE BRIDGE GOLF 2003

 

This is our bridge golf tournament and it will be placed  from the 9 of to the 15 of jun 2003    

 Almerimar -El Ejido -Almeria- SPAIN-

   Visita la  pagina web en español

    Visit the pages in   English please

   We are pleased with your visit and your friends visit as   well. Please, send this

   information to all the bridge player.

   Thanks,we are waiting you.

   For more information   bridgecc@hotmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

--------------060100040401010105050606 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhJgAbAPcAAEcDA5OQCVVTAppMCJADA87OAmdlA9ecAkQoAn9JBa2pCI4rJmpqaW8D A5ZiAnpyAu7uAr69BG8tKK8oAsNsAndQUKyHCGJMS6wEBL5RAkoVDFczIah5B9+6At/cAgAA ADIHAAAE+G8AxCb3v6whwL8oCeAHckL3vwTbAQACAAAAMAxvAND3bwBAiAAAHPhvAOj37wWi hzyOCAEuBwAAirvvBQAAKQAAAFkCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP+G8A0PdvABI/978cAAAA90H3 v5CU/L/5zfe/kJT8v5ggwL//928ABQAAAKz3bwAAAAAAAfhvAJggwL/iE/e/ZwEAAMUS979O cW8AFgAAAFxB978c+W8AAAAAAAUAAAAE+W8AxWP3v//3bwAWAAAAHPlvAJggwL8AAAAABQAA AAAAAACoc0gAZghiQzpcV0lORE9XU1xURU1QXHNwYWluX2dzLmdpZgBHAAAAAAAAAKT4bwCH amKIbwEAAET4bwAmGPe/AAAAAJN5RQAMRPm/uBn3v4KIAAAo/m8AbRj3v4dqYogAAAAAYoh/ UyYAAAAAAEYCAADciAAAwPhvALcWAAA3J1cBAAB/UzcnVwHiiHY91xYEAAAA6RADCQAAtxbi iKY9pPhvAAAAAABHAKwJrAkAADQJAAD8////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAuHNIAGD6bwASP/e/HAAA APdB97+QlPy/+c33v5CU/L+YIMC/AAAAAAUAAADiE/e/ZwEAAMUS97+hcQAAAAAAANxk978A AAAABQAAAAAAAADcTUMAAARvAJggwL8AAAAAIAAAAO4T979nAQAA46L3v/8EAABw+W8A/A8N AOzuTwAcAQAAoKP3vwAATQAI8E8A/A8NAAAAAAAMAE0AAABNAOzuTwBAAAAAAAAAANAFAAD/ BAAAmPlvAFCl978AAE0AZ6X3vwAATQBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMTARAAJ708A+KFO AA3vTwDFc0gA//////DuTwAuwUQACe9PACH5BAEAAB8ALAAAAAAmABsAQAj/AD8IHEjwQoWD BBMOrLBBAoEJFRR+iAChoocICgI8CKCgQMWPHQ5w4JBAgEkBBh50tBiAoIePFQsoyMjRI8yP HhQ8MGDSgAEFFCF4YDAQg9GjBJI2WNogKQYCR5E2AEAVwNKkUBdKnXoV6VOjBKZWpdoULIaI A4N+jBBAI9CbMHXy7Pkggk0FBCdEfRqW6YIJevc+FUtVg4a/ehcsBLxgwVKrZY9CRPvhwlir UJ9SFrgAaVjITsFmfnrZ6oIBeglsVgtBpsaacC0qmGtyY9CcBFlfpAk7tkzaAlS+FOry5u62 b2NDYDs3ZYAIw1sKFKyUadPR2D+PxYpBscAKF8In1wR/QYKExgvASwTfUAJgiBIFlr9uNP3m gRc0kM18/0MF0UxhFlVmEzhWGn1PjQegWAh6pd1lZSW1GWqimZeAcB6ElMFXpBW2gQCweQDf QArg5BpyNsFVQAC0+fRcTNIJVOJHBbCFHGs3yXWSARxZFEFuMB2nEnTKrbhjSgoMV0BxMJ3Y m4o69eRcikzSyFtHw8GVkU8o2fZRjB6E2cGYM7XVFpEWhXSASA5w6VySFcUY2IDWRcYhWISR FaF3H9y54FWj7fUgaEZNUBR11TVYaGPm5YmgQAEBADs= --------------060100040401010105050606 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhJgAbAPcAAAcHQoqGiWwEBHhCQjw5VcG/x5pJSQICi7yKimtqazc3o2hotHEnJ6yn rUUDA1VUY9/f4a9tbaYvLxoaZ5aWrZoDA05OotPJycijpHNVVSMjl0oaGnxqcbxQUHp6wgAA ADIHAAAE+G8AxCb3v6whwL8oCeAHZwEAADz3bwACAAAAMAxvAND3bwBAiAAAHPhvAOj37wWi hzyOCAEuBwAAirvvBQAAKQAAAFkCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP+G8A0PdvABI/978kAAAA90H3 v5CU/L/5zfe/kJT8v5ggwL//928ABQAAAKz3bwAAAAAAAfhvAJggwL/iE/e/ZwEAAMUS979O cW8AFgAAAFxB978c+W8AAAAAAAUAAAAE+W8AxWP3v//3bwAWAAAAHPlvAJggwL8AAAAABQAA AAAAAACoc0gAZghiQzpcV0lORE9XU1xURU1QXHVuaXRlZGtpbmdkb21fZ3MuZ2lmAKT4bwB3 a2KIbwEAAET4bwAmGPe/AAAAAJN5RQAMRPm/uBn3v4KIAAAo/m8AbRj3v3drYogAAAAAYoh/ UyYAAAAAAEYCAADciAAAwPhvALcWAAA3J1cBAAB/UzcnVwHiiHY91xYEAAAA6RADCQAAtxbi iKY9pPhvAAAAAABHAKwMrAwAACwIAAD8////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAuHNIAGD6bwASP/e/JAAA APdB97+QlPy/+c33v5CU/L+YIMC/AAAAAAUAAADiE/e/ZwEAAMUS97+hcQAAAAAAANxk978A AAAABQAAAAAAAADcTUMAogRvAJggwL8AAAAAIAAAAO4T979nAQAA46L3v/8EAABw+W8A/A8N AOzuTwAcAQAAoKP3vwAATQAI8E8A/A8NAAAAAAAMAE0AAABNAOzuTwBAAAAAAAAAANAFAAD/ BAAAmPlvAFCl978AAE0AZ6X3vwAATQBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMTARAAR708A+KFO ABXvTwDNc0gA//////DuTwAuwUQAEe9PACH5BAEAAB8ALAAAAAAmABsAQAj/AD8IHEjwgcEH BBMOfEBgwgQFFBR+0HCgYkUNCTYIMFAAAoQCGCqIhDDBoIMNBAwSUKCBIsKBBjrIlGlgwAAG DAbE7CBBZAUJQBlsGEqUgQQDQBMM9Aghws8LCioCAFCRAgKfEChKnUogQYAAPStEGBjgglOx FBJw0FpxQUiRFyZM5fpAgAQMEC4UUDowrE8BgB0I8En4r4PDiAX/JWixooePAQQwCBDVKlaK CdI+2OBgQIIJFjUsNIChAIUABKY2PrCgAIOXHx7M5Yqhw0/YArVqoJBBwAYOARo0oOjhbQWS UycQOByAwoUFFXE3YPqxwVcOBhAgKH11ZIEMKg9m/4igHUMDgn7/ChA8uDDh9YkV+yTIsqV9 BdYj34VgnGmDAQ4QIGBKFiywgAWwaQARUx0IEMECqh3QQHfHsVVSAgkAKAACHmgwwUAJZJAB hgUx1FAACOSUgUQqERCccCtK9EFDVIVGokI0TqVAAQjESFAGInUgXACyreaWTw3INdsECfSE AEgJEaBBaxIIMABwDSyg1ZEjKQmAcidNBwEFC/CVW2MWZMBZBgVckFVxWMlV0kkYUhBVdAQZ aMGeChgUYgAdedQfbwEK+IBXHT1nAXpANSoUe+0Vpl0GAwyVWKQDoOdeYIC5R1h8h0VaAUGe cirqpqCKSlCgTBWQHwUNBGlKoX8BJOBnZmJCEMBAbFWEX1oaNddAfzsWEACADjBUY0UEDBRa oBEAFgBoB1DQn24YPsCAA5PdKZpAuV5gQAUIBDBXVbOyxZWtHAzWwQURCVRABD11UIAFFi1r 2Uj1aZDaurFeJYFAAQEAOw== --------------060100040401010105050606 Content-Type: image/jpeg Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEASABIAAD/2wBDAAgGBgcGBQgHBwcJCQgKDBQNDAsLDBkSEw8UHRof Hh0aHBwgJC4nICIsIxwcKDcpLDAxNDQ0Hyc5PTgyPC4zNDL/wAALCAAxADYBAREA/8QAHwAA AQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAAAgEDAwIEAwUFBAQAAAF9AQIDAAQR BRIhMUEGE1FhByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkKFhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3ODk6Q0RF RkdISUpTVFVWV1hZWmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWmp6ip qrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oACAEB AAA/APeUVZFDsMkjPJ6fSl2tnaSdnrnn/PX9PekKiLDIMDIGBxnPHSpqpX0jgqoJCkEkjv7f 59aZZyOJQnJXB49P8/1rQqL7jEH7rHg+h9KlqL77Bv4R09z6/wA/zqvfSOCqgkKQSSO/t/n1 qpuYrt6gcgdcdzijcyrgZGepHBI6Y+lTW00iEhVLjH3c9PetEgEYI4qPyyflJyvp3Psfb/P1 lqOSJJVw4z6GoWtdsZWHALcMzE5x+FJHany/Ll2so5UgnIqaKCOHO0cnqT3qQkAZJ4qqLxDM V6L0DH1q3RTWYKP0AHehWzweGHUU6s67nLuY14UcH3NVquWc5J8pjxj5T/SrjMFUk9BTVX+J sFj+lOZc8jhh0NCNuHTGOtVJrNnkLIygHk59ariNGmMasfRSccn/AAPP6Vat7UxvvcgkcDH+ frVuo/8AVf7n/oP/ANb+X06HL/KMhR1P+FPAAGAOB2pk3+pk/wB0/wAqya2qKKjh/wBTH/uj +VSV/9k= --------------060100040401010105050606-- --------------060703090109030507070007-- From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 2 13:10:09 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:10:09 +0200 Subject: Sleeves ; was Re: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030402140432.024e3640@pop.ulb.ac.be> --=====================_14735053==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 13:33 2/04/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Marv wrote: > > > >False analogy. Law 16A1 deals with agreeing a fact >which *may* be a precursor to a subsequent irregularity. >Failing to promptly summon the TD after attention has >been drawn to an *actual* irregularity is a different pair >of sleeves. AG : I'm in search of calque translations from French to English (locutions or catchphrases that underwent a litteral translation). Can anybody confirm that 'a different pair of sleeves' (with the same meaning and language level than 'a horse of another color' or 'a different kettle of fish') is standard English (or perhaps standard Aussie) ? If so, it is a nice example, obviously translated from French 'une autre paire de manches'. Note that a bridge player may translate 'une autre paire de manches' with 'another rubber' :-) Best regards, Alain. --=====================_14735053==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 13:33 2/04/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote:

Marv wrote:



False analogy.  Law 16A1 deals with agreeing a fact
which *may* be a precursor to a subsequent irregularity.
Failing to promptly summon the TD after attention has
been drawn to an *actual* irregularity is a different pair
of sleeves.

AG : I'm in search of calque translations from French to English (locutions or catchphrases that underwent a litteral translation).
Can anybody confirm that 'a different pair of sleeves' (with the same meaning and language level than 'a horse of another color' or 'a different kettle of fish') is standard English (or perhaps standard Aussie) ?
If so, it is a nice example, obviously translated from French 'une autre paire de manches'.

Note that a bridge player may translate 'une autre paire de manches' with 'another rubber' :-)

Best regards,

        Alain.
--=====================_14735053==_.ALT-- From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Apr 3 11:32:11 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:32:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required References: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402172951.01ff3b80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3E8C0DAB.3080709@skynet.be> OK Eric, with this way of putting your argument I can agree: Eric Landau wrote: > > I don't think that it is very hard to draw *one* border, but if it has > to be drawn so that it will move to different places depending on who is > affected by it, it becomes impossible. I think we can draw one border > easily enough, but drawing one border for each different player, > depending on his particular "class", requires us to draw an effectively > infinite number of borders on the same map. That we cannot do. > >> I maintain that we shall have just as many problems around your border >> than there are around the current one. > > > My view is that there are problems around the current border only > because the current border is not fixed, but keeps moving every time the > "class of player involved" changes. If we had one border for everyone, > that didn't move, we wouldn't have any trouble knowing which side of it > a particular action fell on. > OK, I agree that the problem is linked to the difference of border between classes of player. Hallberg gets away with "I claimed it on a double squeeze", I would not, and this creates extra difficulties. But again, that is merely a quantitative argument. These laws are more difficult to administer than would some other set of laws. >> Or even more, since many of the borderline cases of today have been >> settled by common principles and guidance. >> Do you really wish to start all that work again? > > > On the contrary. To the extent that we have "common principles and > guidance" -- meaning principles and guidance that apply in all cases -- > we have the basis for putting the border in one place and letting it > remain there. I would incorporate what we have today in the way of > common principles and guidance, while eliminating any need for > principles and guidance that are not "common" -- which is exactly what > we do not have today, and the lack (indeed, impossibility) of which > presents us with so many problems in making rulings. > But that is not the core of the problem that started this thread. There is no suggestion that the claim that David put forward (where the trump six can overruff the 5 but not the 7) be judged in any way differently for Zia or for me. So your argument, while valid, should be reserved for some different thread. >> Please forgive me, but then I prefer Burn's approach. > > > The primary (only?) virtue of David's approach is its simplicity of > application. Expunge all references to "class of player", leaving us > with a fixed, unmoving border between "'normal'" and "irrational", and > we will reduce the complexity by 90% of what David would achieve without > being required to make Draconian rulings of the sort that most of us > don't want to see. > I happen to believe that Burnian claims are far more draconian than any we have now. I believe David does want to go as far as not granting AKQJT9872 unless the player specifies he plays them top-down. And I believe that that is the only way Burnian claim laws CAN function, because as soon as you allow the above, you are drawing a border, and that border has borderline cases. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gester@lineone.net Thu Apr 3 11:39:02 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:39:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) References: Message-ID: <001901c2f9cd$60044660$48182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: ; "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:24 AM Subject: RE: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) > > It shouldn't be too difficult to show us the WBF CofP > example supporting your exegeses? I am still hoping to > find a way to escape from this approach. And if we have > to conclude that this is really what passionated people > have said, then we need to bring this issue in the drafting > committee. > +=+ At present we have Law 73F2 and, whilst the Laws Committee interprets the meaning of the words, it is the prerogative of the Appeals Committee to determine the application of that meaning to cases, which is what is involved here. The Law would have to change radically to veto the view taken by international appeals committees currently. I would be searching in my examination of any proposed revision, given the experience of past situations. In my opinion we cannot allow the asking of an unnecessary and deceptive question to mislead opponents (or convey information to partner). The reference you seek is in Example Appeal no. 7 in the jurisprudence issued December 2001 - which may be found on Anna Gudge's web site and elsewhere. (I will snail mail you another copy in case your original is mislaid.) Regards, ~ G ~ +=+ From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Apr 3 11:42:33 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:42:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b Message-ID: > > > Hi BLMLrs, > > Club level, ACBL Land > > At 6th trick, a defender revoked and played to the next trick. > Then dummy says: I think there was a revoke. Somebody called > the TD who ruled an established revoke, asked players to finish > the board and call him back. As the offender won the revoke > trick and one other trick later, the TD ruled that 2 tricks > should be transferred to non-offenders. > > As the dummy acted against Law 43A1B when being the first > to draw attention to the irregularity, can the TD cancel > the revoke penalty ? Using which Law ? He should not cancel the penalty, the main reason being that after play previous dummy is entitled to draw attention to this revoke which means that the penalty should have been given anyway. But the TD might give a procedural penalty and he should find out whether drawing attention at the wrong moment might have resulted in UI for declarer, which then could have influenced his play. ton > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 3 12:35:56 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 13:35:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402165048.01fc3430@pop.starpower.net> References: <200304021519.KAA20429@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030403133157.00abde00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:03 2/04/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 10:19 AM 4/2/03, Steve wrote: > >> > From: Eric Landau >> > L16A applies here not because "the action becomes logical", but because >> > there are "logical alternative actions". >> >>This may be the first time I've seen Eric make an error in logic. The >>exact text is "from among logical alternative actions." An illogical >>action is thus not forbidden by L16A. This is probably a drafting >>error and may well be corrected in the next edition, but for now that's >>what it says. > >"among: 1. In the midst of; in the company of; surrounded by." [AHD] If I >find a sheep among the goats, that doesn't make the sheep a goat. I can >have logical alternatives to my chosen action without my chosen action >necessarily being logical. AG : right ! But let's be pragmatic. If some of us find it ambiguous as to whether the bid should be logical or not, to the point that the Law may not be applicable, then the bridge-playing hoi polloi will have the same problem. Which means that we need to reformulate L16. A great bridge thinker said "if you made the right bid and partner didn't understand it, then it wasn't the right bid". If you formulate a Law the right way and ordinary people don't understand it, then it wasn't the right way. Best regards, Alain. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Apr 3 13:12:37 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 14:12:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: > > > > It shouldn't be too difficult to show us the WBF CofP > > example supporting your exegeses? I am still hoping to > > find a way to escape from this approach. And if we have > > to conclude that this is really what passionated people > > have said, then we need to bring this issue in the drafting > > committee. > +=+ At present we have Law 73F2 and, whilst the Laws > Committee interprets the meaning of the words, it is the > prerogative of the Appeals Committee to determine > the application of that meaning to cases, which is what > is involved here. What is involved here is that the LC as far as I know never has expressed an opinion which comes even close to an interpretation that a player only may ask about the meaning of a call if his choice to be made depends on the answer. And if an NBO or an AC applies L73F2 in that direction they make a mistake. The Law would have to change radically > to veto the view taken by international appeals committees > currently. How can you say so? Example 7 you point to doesn't go as far as you suggest. opponents ask a question, therewith MI becomes apparent and since a LA is availabe a player is not allowed to make the saving call. They now say that opponents hadn't a good reason for the question and that without the question they certainly would have made the right call, so damage through the question. The AC doesn't accept this argument, nor do the WBF AC-members. As kind of an aside (and educational remark) the WBF commentary says it to be desirable to ask questions at the end of the auction (not coming into a position to give partner UI, but it also says: 'the suggestion that EW had an ulterior motive for asking the question is highly speculative. Neither the director nor the committee could be expeced to act upon it.' While I wouldn't have supported the suggestion to postpone this questioning, these words make clear that the statement that a player is not allowed to ask such question is false. I would be searching in my examination of any > proposed revision, given the experience of past situations. > In my opinion we cannot allow the asking of an unnecessary > and deceptive question to mislead opponents (or convey > information to partner). 'unnecessary' is not in the laws, so should not be a consideration. 'Deceptive' is in the laws, but not in a statement as yours above. As you have noticed before I don't support this opinion. A question should not be asked if the purpose is to mislead opponents, because then there was no bridgetechnical reason and furthermore the player asking did do so hoping to get advantage. That is what L 73F2 is about. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 3 13:40:05 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 14:40:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030403143622.00abcec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:00 3/04/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >In my opinion, in the context of a discussion about >Bridge Laws, the words "irregularity" and >"infraction" are synonyms. > >See the Chapter 1 definition: > > >>Irregularity - A deviation from the correct > >>procedures set forth in the Laws. > >Therefore, I disagree with the distinction between >the two words that Sven is trying to create. Perhaps >this is a problem caused by an erroneous Norse >translation of the Laws? AG : based on the French meaning of the words, there is a distinction to be done. I leave to native English speakers to decide whether it exists in English, too : Infraction : making something that the Law forbids, or not making something that the Law demands. Irregularity : any deviation from the correct procedure. L12A1 hints that all infractions are irregularities, but there are some irregularities that are not infractions, and says how to deal with this particular fringe. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 3 13:54:58 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 14:54:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy and card left face up In-Reply-To: <001201c2f968$8558f5b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <200304022201.RAA20779@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030403144524.00abd810@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:38 3/04/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > Steve Willner > > Here's one I hadn't seen before. > > > > Declarer, South, wins a trick in dummy. West leaves his card face up, > > but declarer does not notice and calls for a card to be led to the next > > trick. What should dummy do? Please cite specific Laws: 42A3 comes to > > mind as one that will surely be involved. > >Dummy will do exactly as he has been told by declarer; he should not even >call attention to the fact that West has not yet turned his last played card >face down. > >Applicable laws: 42A3 - yes, and also 45B and 42B3. > >Note that Law 42B2 is not applicable; South has already played the card by >naming it so it is too late for dummy to try to prevent an irregularity. > >Actually I find it very doubtful if this action by South is any irregularity >at all, nowhere in the laws do I find any rule that the lead to a trick must >only be done after all four players have turned their last played card face >down. AG : look ! the perfect example we were waiting for ... South's play of a card from the table, with the intent of it being the start of a new trick (else see L45E2), is not what he should do, if only to be polite to West, but doesn't specifically infringe any Law. From john@asimere.com Thu Apr 3 13:49:52 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:49:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402170443.02000c40@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> <000401c2f92b$3fcb8e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402170443.02000c40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article <5.2.0.9.0.20030402170443.02000c40@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 10:19 AM 4/2/03, Sven wrote: > >>Eric Landau >>............. >> > The problem is that the current state of interpretation requires us to >> > determine *not* "what is irrational", but rather "what is irrational >> > for the class of player involved". That is illogical, >> > self-contradictory, and the reason why we have so many difficult >> > "borderline cases". Get rid of the dependence of "irrational" on >> > "class of player" and the issues clarify themselves readily enough. >> >>Come to think of it: What if the interpretation were changed to >> >>"what is irrational regardless of the class of player involved" ? > >I had always interpreted the dreaded footnote that way, until the WBF >offered its contradictory, and, IMO, self-contradictory >interpretation. I'd be happy to see it changed to "...play that would >be careless or inferior, but not irrational (regardless of the class of >player involved)", which would clarify it as meaning what I continue to >believe it means in plain, "uninterpreted" English, which is the same >as what my revised wording would mean without the parenthetical (i.e. >with no mention of "class of player" at all). The problem, of course, is that it's irrational for me (cue hysterical laughter) to misplay AKTx facing Q9xxx but my intermediate class (including a recent winner of the Newcomers Pairs) *do* get it wrong. The main reason I don't get it wrong is because I play a lot of rubber bridge and rubber bridge players are necessarily very strong on suit combinations. Mind you I'd not claim until I'd tested the suit. I think "class of player" is relevant, though I'd rule against my own peers if they didn't state a line. There are other positions where it is less clear how to rule and is a function of class of player. > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Thu Apr 3 14:14:28 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:14:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Laval Dubreuil writes >Hi BLMLrs, > >Club level, ACBL Land > >At 6th trick, a defender revoked and played to the next trick. >Then dummy says: I think there was a revoke. Somebody called >the TD who ruled an established revoke, asked players to finish >the board and call him back. As the offender won the revoke >trick and one other trick later, the TD ruled that 2 tricks >should be transferred to non-offenders. > >As the dummy acted against Law 43A1B when being the first >to draw attention to the irregularity, can the TD cancel >the revoke penalty ? Using which Law ? > I'd adjust the score to equity as a PP against dummy. I'm pretty sure I can do this regardless of any other laws. >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > >_______________________________________________ >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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Apr 3 14:36:34 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:36:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <494EFC31-65D9-11D7-95C0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 02:14 PM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article > > , Laval Dubreuil writes >> Hi BLMLrs, >> >> Club level, ACBL Land >> >> At 6th trick, a defender revoked and played to the next trick. >> Then dummy says: I think there was a revoke. Somebody called >> the TD who ruled an established revoke, asked players to finish >> the board and call him back. As the offender won the revoke >> trick and one other trick later, the TD ruled that 2 tricks >> should be transferred to non-offenders. >> >> As the dummy acted against Law 43A1B when being the first >> to draw attention to the irregularity, can the TD cancel >> the revoke penalty ? Using which Law ? >> > I'd adjust the score to equity as a PP against dummy. I'm pretty sure I > can do this regardless of any other laws. On what basis? 64C doesn't seem to give you this right. And if it's a PP against dummy, presumably the declaring side will need to get a different score. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Apr 3 14:46:30 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 08:46:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: <002a01c2f982$db5f0f20$973c23d9@pbncomputer> References: <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402172951.01ff3b80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030403080927.01fca310@pop.starpower.net> At 08:46 PM 4/2/03, David wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > I don't think that it is very hard to draw *one* border > >I do. We have tried, and we have come up with "cash from the top down, >ruff from the bottom up". But: > > 432 > None > None > None >None None >3 None >KQ J10 >None 2 > None > AQ2 > None > None > >South, declarer in a heart contract and believing there to be no missing >trump, claims the rest. East demurs, pointing out that if he were to >lead his club... How many tricks to declarer? Would your ruling differ >if South's trumps were A42? Two. No. WTP? > > but if it has > > to be drawn so that it will move to different places depending on who > > is affected by it, it becomes impossible. > >Exactly so. At the moment, it does, and it is. Grattan's substitution of >"unthinkable" is not helpful, for it still requires some referee to >imagine what some player might think. As you will have gathered, it is >my opinion that the only way in which equitable rulings (in the sense >that all are treated alike) become possible is for the laws to take no >account whatever of how people might reason, or what people might think. A simple, basic and uniform notion of irrationality puts us in a situation where we don't need to know what someone thinks. But it doesn't require us to assume that a player is thinking something that nobody ever would think. It would never occur even to a player who thinks that his A2 are the last cards in the suit left to cash them in the order 2-A. My notion of fairness or equity (not to mention my customers) are offended by the idea that I might (from their perspective) "pretend" that someone might actually do that. >The original problem, where South had the 75 of hearts and West the six >(but would follow to East's lead anyway) produced no consensus; some >were in favour of awarding a trick to the defence, others were not. Now, >if a trivial case such as that generates differences of opinion about >what the laws require, then one of three conclusions is inescapable: we >are no good; or the laws are no good; or both. > > > I think we can draw one border easily enough > >You have, as Herman correctly points out, got to be joking. I will make >you this guarantee: whatever border you draw, I will smuggle millions of >dollars worth of contraband over it tomorrow night. Unless, of course, >it is the border that I would draw, on one side of which are legal plays >embraced by a claim statement, and on the other side of which there are >no options. I have no problem with a border on one side of which are legal but not irrational plays embraced by a claim statement, and on the other side of which there would be no options. All that is required for the latter to be true is a guideline that says: "The following are to be considered irrational for a claimer who has given no indication that he shall play otherwise: (a)... (b)..." >[Herman] > > >Or even more, since many of the borderline cases of today have been > > >settled by common principles and guidance. > > >Do you really wish to start all that work again? > >No, of course not. It is useless, for there are no common principles and >there is no guidance. When a claim is contested, the claimer ends up >with the number of tricks that the officials think he might have made. >But this has nothing to do with the rules. He shouldn't end up with the number of tricks the officials think *he* might have made; he should end up with the number of tricks *anyone* might have made. That's several orders of magnitude easier, and a lot more sensible than his ending up with the number of tricks that a monkey choosing cards at random would have made. It's a bit less easy than David's approach, but not all that much. The only question is whether we're willing to accept that small amount of complexity and the resulting number of problem adjudications (which would be far less than it is now) in return for the comfort (the customers', not our own) brought by our not having to explain why we must presume that a player who has claimed will make (in many cases many) *fewer* tricks than *anyone* might have made with his cards in his situation. > > On the contrary. To the extent that we have "common principles and > > guidance" -- meaning principles and guidance that apply in all >cases -- > > we have the basis for putting the border in one place and letting it > > remain there. > >Sure we do. How is that "ruffing from the bottom up" principle doing in >the light of the example above? The extent to which we have common >principles and guidance is... well, it does not equate to nothing at >all, for it will probably ensure that a claimer takes a trick with an >ace. But it is almost meaningless to say that the border is, or can be, >"in one place". Which place? How will I find it on a map? What is its >climate, its topography? We have fiddled around to the extent that >someone with AKQJ2 might be entitled to more than no tricks even if he >just puts his hand on the table. Good for us, but this does not exactly >represent progress. > >[Herman] > > >Please forgive me, but then I prefer Burn's approach. > >Ego te absolvo. > > > The primary (only?) virtue of David's approach is its simplicity of > > application. > >Do I have to do this again? The primary virtues of David's approach are >that: it is simple; it is consistent; it requires no subjectivity; it >ensures that all claims are treated equally under the law; it ensures >also that players will, when claiming, make proper statements of claim. >The primary virtues of the alternative approach are that they rely on >Eric to draw the border and Herman to decide what mistake Hallberg might >have made. Oh, well. > > > Expunge all references to "class of player", leaving us > > with a fixed, unmoving border between "'normal'" and "irrational", > >Draw it. Or at any rate, sketch it. Then, prove the Riemann hypothesis - >that ought to be a cakewalk. Let's try... (a) Cashing a suit other than from the top down. (b) Following suit with other than the lowest card held when cashing. (c) Ruffing with other than the lowest trump held, or, if the trick has been previously ruffed by an opponent, the lowest trump held that is higher than the opponent's. (d) Playing an opponent for a card in a suit in which he has already shown out, or would show out in the course of claimer's playing as specified in his claim statement. That's not intended to be exhaustive, and the list may need a couple of additional entries, but not many. I leave the Riemann hypothesis as an exercise for the reader. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Apr 3 15:15:22 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 16:15:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> <000401c2f92b$3fcb8e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402170443.02000c40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3E8C41FA.6070702@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > The problem, of course, is that it's irrational for me (cue hysterical > laughter) to misplay AKTx facing Q9xxx but my intermediate class > (including a recent winner of the Newcomers Pairs) *do* get it wrong. > The main reason I don't get it wrong is because I play a lot of rubber > bridge and rubber bridge players are necessarily very strong on suit > combinations. Mind you I'd not claim until I'd tested the suit. > and that is exactly why Burnian claim laws don't work. Of course you don't claim this. But sometimes a case like this is the end product of a claim which was wrong for a different reason. Suppose you claim all tricks, including 3 in this suit. Something else is wrong and now we have to decide if you shall get 4 or 3 tricks from this suit. In your claim statement you wanted 3 tricks, but is it now normal for you to make only 3? Not in my book! Mind you, if you claim 3 tricks from this holding and nothing else is wrong with the claim, you get only 3. > I think "class of player" is relevant, though I'd rule against my own > peers if they didn't state a line. There are other positions where it is > less clear how to rule and is a function of class of player. > >> >>Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >>1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >>Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Apr 3 15:34:44 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 3 Apr 2003 06:34:44 -0800 Subject: [blml] More guidance required Message-ID: <03040393.23684@webbox.com> Herman wrote: >Suppose you claim all tricks, including 3 in this suit. Something else is wrong and now we have to decide if you shall get 4 or 3 tricks from this suit. In your claim statement you wanted 3 tricks, but is it now normal for you to make only 3? Not in my book! What book is that, Herman? Alice in Wonderland? >Mind you, if you claim 3 tricks from this holding and nothing else is wrong with the claim, you get only 3. Now I've heard it all. A man who claims three winners from a suit in which he has four gets four tricks *if and only if he has made some other mistake in his claim as well*. Not only is it a good idea to claim when Herman is directing, it is a good idea to misclaim, for then you will be given tricks you would never have thought of making. And you have the brass neck to say that *my* claim laws don't work... David Burn London, England From gester@lineone.net Thu Apr 3 15:51:34 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:51:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) References: Message-ID: <001f01c2f9f0$b7dbd560$701e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:12 PM Subject: RE: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) > > > What is involved here is that the LC as far as I know > never has expressed an opinion which comes even > close to an interpretation that a player only may ask > about the meaning of a call if his choice to be made > depends on the answer. And if an NBO or an AC > applies L73F2 in that direction they make a mistake. > +=+ We must not be so arrogant as to tell the Appeals Committee that its bridge judgements are mistaken. +=+ > > 'unnecessary' is not in the laws, so should not be > a consideration. 'Deceptive' is in the laws, but not > in a statement as yours above. As you have noticed > before I don't support this opinion. A question should > not be asked if the purpose is to mislead opponents, > because then there was no bridge technical reason > and furthermore the player asking did do so hoping > to get advantage. That is what L 73F2 is about. > +=+ It is for the Appeals Committee to judge what may be considered capable of deceiving. That question is not for the Laws Committee which should confine itself to interpreting the meaning of the words of the laws, not their application to cases. Since 1991 the minutes show that members of the WBFLC have pointed several times to the requirement that we must not trespass into the areas for which other bodies are responsible. Your statement about Law 73F2 is inaccurate. The question is not whether the purpose of the question was to mislead opponent or to obtain technical advantage; the judgement, which is a bridge judgement ultimately in the hands of the Appeals Committee not the Laws Committee, is whether a false inference was drawn from a question for which the enquirer had no demonstrable bridge reason. Over many years WBF and EBL Appeals Committees have ruled consistently that a question asked when the enquirer has no interest in the answer at the time is a question asked without demonstrable bridge reason, a judgement that is specifically one within the remit of the Appeals Committee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Apr 3 16:23:51 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 17:23:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required References: <03040393.23684@webbox.com> Message-ID: <3E8C5207.2000509@skynet.be> David, this really is not as strange as it all sounds. David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Suppose you claim all tricks, including 3 in this suit. Something >> > else is wrong and now we have to decide if you shall get 4 or > 3 tricks from this suit. In your claim statement you wanted 3 > tricks, but is it now normal for you to make only 3? Not in my > book! > > What book is that, Herman? Alice in Wonderland? > > >>Mind you, if you claim 3 tricks from this holding and nothing >> > else is wrong with the claim, you get only 3. > > Now I've heard it all. A man who claims three winners from a > suit in which he has four gets four tricks *if and only if he > has made some other mistake in his claim as well*. Not only is > it a good idea to claim when Herman is directing, it is a good > idea to misclaim, for then you will be given tricks you would > never have thought of making. And you have the brass neck to > say that *my* claim laws don't work... > The first man (the one who claimed 3 winners with something else wrong) knew all along (or is supposed to have known) that he could get 4 out of them. He only claimed 3 because he thought he had 14 of them. However, if by some unrelated incident it turns out he has only 11 tricks, and a 12th if he is granted 4 tricks from this holding, why should he not get 12? OTOH, the second man (the one who claimed 3 winners) is a clear lunatic. We don't give him 4 tricks. So it is not as strange as it sounds. My point was only that sometimes we cannot blame a person for not spelling out that he will start with the ace from AK10x opp Q9xxx. Sometimes we need to decide how many tricks he would make from this holding, and sometimes all we have to go on is his "class of player". What is so wrong with a law book that awards David Burn 5(4?) tricks from this holding and Herman De Wael only 3? Don't forget David, that under Burnian law this holding yields just 1 trick, or even less. > 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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Apr 3 16:30:45 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:30:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: <200304031530.KAA27468@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> At 17:03 2/04/2003 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >"among: 1. In the midst of; in the company of; surrounded by." [AHD] If I > >find a sheep among the goats, that doesn't make the sheep a goat. I can > >have logical alternatives to my chosen action without my chosen action > >necessarily being logical. If I put six hearts and a spade in a pile and tell you to "choose a card from among the hearts," and you pull out the spade, have you followed instructions? I'll concede you have what the lawyers call "meritorious defenses," but I don't think it's how most people would interpret the instruction. In contrast, the L73C/12A1 route is perfectly clear. I agree that this is an argument about semantics; Eric and I will rule the same in practical cases (given identical bridge judgments). The only difference is that the 73C approach leaves no room for doubt. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Apr 3 16:47:14 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:47:14 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: <507194.1049384834341.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Steve wrote: >If I put six hearts and a spade in a pile and tell you to "choose a card from among the hearts," and you pull out the spade, have you followed instructions? Yes. The spade was a card among the hearts. If you wanted me to choose a heart, you should have said "choose a heart from among the cards". David Burn London, England From john@asimere.com Thu Apr 3 18:03:08 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 18:03:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics In-Reply-To: <507194.1049384834341.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> References: <507194.1049384834341.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: In article <507194.1049384834341.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1>, dalburn@btopenworld.com writes >Steve wrote: > >>If I put six hearts and a spade in a pile and tell you to "choose a card from >among the hearts," and you pull out the spade, have you followed instructions? > >Yes. The spade was a card among the hearts. If you wanted me to choose a heart, >you should have said "choose a heart from among the cards". > >David Burn >London, England > > No! I can't stand this! There is a set which consists of hearts. There is another set which consists of all cards. The set hearts is embedded entirely with the set of all cards. Selecting a heart excludes all those cards which are in the set of all cards and not within the set hearts. Mathematicians would be able to put it better, but then DALB is not a mathematician. >_______________________________________________ >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 Apr 3 18:10:39 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 18:10:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b In-Reply-To: <494EFC31-65D9-11D7-95C0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <494EFC31-65D9-11D7-95C0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <494EFC31-65D9-11D7-95C0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 02:14 PM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> In article >> >> , Laval Dubreuil writes >>> Hi BLMLrs, >>> >>> Club level, ACBL Land >>> >>> At 6th trick, a defender revoked and played to the next trick. >>> Then dummy says: I think there was a revoke. Somebody called >>> the TD who ruled an established revoke, asked players to finish >>> the board and call him back. As the offender won the revoke >>> trick and one other trick later, the TD ruled that 2 tricks >>> should be transferred to non-offenders. >>> >>> As the dummy acted against Law 43A1B when being the first >>> to draw attention to the irregularity, can the TD cancel >>> the revoke penalty ? Using which Law ? >>> >> I'd adjust the score to equity as a PP against dummy. I'm pretty sure I >> can do this regardless of any other laws. > >On what basis? 64C doesn't seem to give you this right. I have no interest in the revoke Laws at all in this matter. I have an infraction by dummy, which I can penalise. I will award a score that is "at all likely" to the declaring side, and that's the end of the matter. > And if it's a >PP against dummy, presumably the declaring side will need to get a >different score. I don't have to award non balancing scores. I know it's rough justice but it is just about supportable by law and appropriate. I'm well aware that I could produce half a dozen different results for this board, and I think equity is the most appropriate. Such is the benefit of having non-Burn-ian Law :) > >-- >Gordon Rainsford >London 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Apr 3 18:16:44 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 18:16:44 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: <5153910.1049390204282.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> John wrote: >Mathematicians would be able to put it better, but then DALB is not a mathematician. He is not. Fortunately, the question was not a mathematical one and had nothing to do with set theory, or with anything else apart from the English language, of which DALB is a speaker. He does not believe, incidentally, that Law 16 forbids the selection of an illogical action; but Steve's question was not analogous to that issue. However, any action taken in the hope of securing an advantage (however unlikely that advantage may be to eventuate) is not an illogical action. David Burn London, England From john@asimere.com Thu Apr 3 18:26:03 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 18:26:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) In-Reply-To: <001f01c2f9f0$b7dbd560$701e2850@pacific> References: <001f01c2f9f0$b7dbd560$701e2850@pacific> Message-ID: In article <001f01c2f9f0$b7dbd560$701e2850@pacific>, gester@lineone.net writes >Grattan Endicott^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ snip >+=+ It is for the Appeals Committee to judge what >may be considered capable of deceiving. That >question is not for the Laws Committee which should >confine itself to interpreting the meaning of the words >of the laws, not their application to cases. Since 1991 >the minutes show that members of the WBFLC have >pointed several times to the requirement that we must >not trespass into the areas for which other bodies are >responsible. As time goes on and I watch the sparring of the LawMakers with the LawGivers, and the jousting of the LawGivers with the LawInterpreters, I more and more conclude that the LawGivers (such as I) should rule as we have been instructed where we have been so instructed, but rule as we see fit within the scope of the laws where not so guided. It then becomes for the LawInterpreters (such as DALB and DWS) to disagree with the LawGivers and pass down judgment (sic) on the LawGivers as they deem appropriate and also to notify the LawMakers (such as ton and Grattan) of the inaccuracy of the Law itself. By this process, and only by this, can I see how we can get a formal change to the Law itself and furthermore to get the appropriate guidance for the LawGivers. I shall continue to make idiosyncratic rulings therefore, where I believe them justifiable in Law until such time as it becomes clear that such rulings have no basis in Law. I invite other LawGivers to join me in this approach such that we form a movement. I propose to call this movement the "pragmatic" school, not to be confused with the HdW school, the Burn school or indeed any other school. > Your statement about Law 73F2 is inaccurate. >The question is not whether the purpose of the >question was to mislead opponent or to obtain >technical advantage; the judgement, which is a bridge >judgement ultimately in the hands of the Appeals >Committee not the Laws Committee, is whether a >false inference was drawn from a question for which >the enquirer had no demonstrable bridge reason. Over >many years WBF and EBL Appeals Committees have >ruled consistently that a question asked when the >enquirer has no interest in the answer at the time is a >question asked without demonstrable bridge reason, a >judgement that is specifically one within the remit of >the Appeals Committee. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 adam@irvine.com Thu Apr 3 18:41:53 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:41:53 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Apr 2003 15:43:30 PST." <200304022343.PAA09074@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200304031741.JAA20802@mailhub.irvine.com> I wrote: > > Hi BLMLrs, > > > > Club level, ACBL Land > > > > At 6th trick, a defender revoked and played to the next trick. > > Then dummy says: I think there was a revoke. Somebody called > > the TD who ruled an established revoke, asked players to finish > > the board and call him back. As the offender won the revoke > > trick and one other trick later, the TD ruled that 2 tricks > > should be transferred to non-offenders. > > > > As the dummy acted against Law 43A1B when being the first > > to draw attention to the irregularity, can the TD cancel > > the revoke penalty ? > > No. Law 43B is clear about the penalties for violations of L43A. > L43B1 says that when the limitations in L43A1 or L43A2 are violated, > dummy is liable under Law 90; this means you can slap dummy with a > procedural penalty, but that's all. L43B3 says that *after* dummy has > violated one of the limitations in L43A2 (e.g. he looked at a > defender's hand), *then* if dummy is the first to draw attention to a > defender's irregularity, the irregularity is not penalized. But > unless there's something you haven't told us, there was no L43A2 > violation, so L43B3 does not apply. I still think my answer is correct, but on reflection I wonder whether there's a problem in the way this law is set up. I don't think a violation of L43A1(b) is all that harmful; in this case, as Ton pointed out, dummy could have simply waited until after the hand, and then the revokers would be subject to the same penalty. But what about L43A1(c)? Suppose declarer, a relatively inexperienced player playing with a much better player, gets to 7S. After he wins the heart opening lead on the table, dummy (the good player) says, "He didn't lead a trump, so it's likely he's void, so that means you have to ruff a heart now to shorten yourself so that you can pick up jack-fourth of trumps with a trump coup." Declarer, who wouldn't have found this play on his own, takes dummy's advice and as a result makes 7S with a trump coup. Obviously this is a severe violation of L43A1(c), and a procedural penalty, preferably ond involving a heavy blunt instrument, is called for by Law 43B1. But do the non-offenders have to keep their score? A procedural penalty is not an adjustment, and I don't see anything in L90 that says the NO's score can be adjusted. L84E allows an adjusted score "if an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by law"; but L84E wouldn't seem to apply, since L43B1 *does* provide a penalty for the L43A1(c) violation. I'm not sure whether L16 applies; I've always thought of this Law as dealing with information about someone's hand, and I'm not convinced it applies to "information" about proper card play technique. It seems like it must be right to adjust the NO's score to 7S-1. But assuming John's "rough justice" isn't good enough for you, what would be the legal basis for such an adjustment? Or do we need to think about rewording some law? -- Adam From toddz@att.net Thu Apr 3 19:05:45 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:05:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Active ethics In-Reply-To: <5153910.1049390204282.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: dalburn@btopenworld.com > > He does not believe, incidentally, that Law 16 forbids > the selection of an illogical action; but Steve's > question was not analogous to that issue. However, any > action taken in the hope of securing an advantage > (however unlikely that advantage may be to eventuate) > is not an illogical action. Alas, the regulations that construct the set of LA's have the possibility of not including the bid actually made at the table. When such occurs, is the player making the strange bid subject to a score adjustment under L16A, immune to a score adjustment under 16A, or is there insufficient information yet to make that decision? If there's insufficient information, what else needs to be known? -Todd From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Apr 3 19:14:45 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:14:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b Message-ID: <200304031814.NAA28929@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Beneschan > Obviously this is a severe violation of L43A1(c), and a procedural > penalty, preferably ond involving a heavy blunt instrument, is called > for by Law 43B1. But do the non-offenders have to keep their score? Obviously one would like to use L12A1 to give a score adjustment for both sides. The question is whether that is forbidden by L43B1 plus 12B. I think it's allowed -- see below -- but I wish the matter were clearer. We also have L45F, which gives clear authority to award an adjusted score if dummy should "indicate any card." That's close enough for me. > A procedural penalty is not an adjustment, and I don't see anything in > L90 that says the NO's score can be adjusted. L84E allows an adjusted > score "if an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is > provided by law"; but L84E wouldn't seem to apply, since L43B1 *does* > provide a penalty for the L43A1(c) violation. Yes, this is the argument against. If L43B1 specifies "the penalty" for any L43A violation, L12B tells us not to change the penalty. Can we use L12A1? After a more careful reading, I think so! L90 provides no "indemnity" for the NOS, and therefore it seems to me 12A1 can still apply. This is in contrast to cases where there is a specific mechanical penalty that normally works to the benefit of the NOS. In those cases, we are stuck with 12B even if the OS happens to gain. > I'm not sure whether L16 applies I don't think it does. Ton referred to "UI" (but otherwise gave the answer I would have given), but I think that is technically not quite correct. It is L45F, not 16, that applies. The effect will, of course, be much the same. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Apr 3 19:22:46 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:22:46 -0800 Subject: Sleeves ; was Re: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030402140432.024e3640@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c2fa0e$0a963ee0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > >Marv wrote: > > > >False analogy. Law 16A1 deals with agreeing a fact > >which *may* be a precursor to a subsequent irregularity. > >Failing to promptly summon the TD after attention has > >been drawn to an *actual* irregularity is a different pair > >of sleeves. > Not my words. Agreeing on a break in tempo and agreeing on MI have something in common: A delay in calling the TD until damage seems to have occurred makes a good bit of sense. The former is okay outside of ACBL-land (where it is widely practiced), and the latter should be okay too. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Apr 3 19:26:55 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:26:55 -0800 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights References: <000201c2f9b7$1b3450e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001501c2fa0e$c23f2700$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > > richard.hills > > Sven wrote: > > > > [big snip] > > > > >A fundamental rule in the laws is that no player > > >may object to the Director being summoned if > > >another player wants the Director to the table. > > > > I cannot find any such Law. > > > > On the contrary, as TD I might rule that an > > unnecessary summoning of me to the table was in and > > of itself an infraction of Law 74B5. > > Law 74B5 goes on the manner in which the Director is summoned and/or > addressed, not on actually summoning the Director. > > The Director should appreciate that whenever a player feels he needs the > assistance of a Director for whatever reason, the player should be free to > call upon such assistance. > Experienced BLs who call the TD for some harmless action by an inexperienced opponent should be dealt with harshly. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Apr 3 20:22:36 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 20:22:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics References: <5153910.1049390204282.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <004301c2fa16$9fbbe170$8148e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Active ethics > > He does not believe, incidentally, that Law 16 > forbids the selection of an illogical action; < +=+ It may be remarked that in the course of 'normal' play, with no trace of UI present, players do select actions that other players judge to be utterly illogical. For the players who choose the actions, given that they are not minded to be frivolous, they are logical. To me it appears that an action chosen in all seriousness is not to be regarded as illogical for the player concerned. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Apr 3 21:07:26 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:07:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: <3E8C0BC4.6080302@skynet.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402170443.02000c40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030403085145.01ffb1c0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:24 AM 4/3/03, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>I had always interpreted the dreaded footnote that way, until the WBF >>offered its contradictory, and, IMO, self-contradictory interpretation. >>I'd be happy to see it changed to "...play that would be careless or >>inferior, but not irrational (regardless of the class of player >>involved)", which would clarify it as meaning what I continue to >>believe it means in plain, "uninterpreted" English, which is the same >>as what my revised wording would mean without the parenthetical (i.e. >>with no mention of "class of player" at all). > >alas Eric, it is your interpretation that is self-contradictory. > >A particular action may be careless for me, but unthinkable for Zia. That doesn't make it irrational, however, for either of you. It would be unthinkable for Zia to give up bridge for pachisi, but would be no more irrational than his not doing so. >By the first part of the footnote, the action is normal for me, but >not for Zia. By the dictionary, the action is normal for Herman but not for Zia. But the footnote, whose whole reason for being there is to redefine the word "normal" in context, says that the action is normal for Herman, but "careless or inferior" for Zia, thus not to be considered "irrational", whether he might ever do it or not. >Without going into a definition of the word "irrational", that same >action is either irrational or not. Yes. Period. For Herman, for Zia, for anybody. >If you don't qualify that irrational by "for the class of player >involved", then one of two things will happen: > >- either the action is called irrational, in which case for me it is >both normal ("careless") and not normal ("irrational"); If the action is called irrational, it is irrational. It may or may not be "careless or inferior" (depending on the class of player), but it is "normal" as the footnote defines "normal". >- or the action is called not irrational, in which case it is for Zia >it is both not normal (not "careless") and normal (not "irrational"). If the action is called not irrational, it is not irrational, regardless of whether it is normal (according to the dictionary) or careless or inferior (according to the dictionary), both of which are, according to the footnote, treated as "normal". >So the WBF interpretation is right: if the word "careless" is >qualified with "for the class of player involved", then so must >"irrational". For some classes of player it will be careless, for others not. But it will be "not irrational" for both. Qualifying "careless" as distinct from normal (according to the dictionary) has nothing to do with qualifying "irrational". The footnote, as I read it, warns us that its peculiar definition of normal may be different from the dictionary's, and reminds us that whether it is, and by how much, will vary with the class of player, but that this need not be taken into account when ruling on claims. >Which, I agree with you, is a silly conclusion - since something >should indeed be either rational or not. Exactly. >The only conclusion is that the WBF clearly allows for a particular >line to be normal for one player (me) and not for another (Zia). Because, of course, it can be (normal for Herman, careless or inferior for Zia). The footnote tells us to treat it as though it were normal, for either player, whether or not the dictionary would so classify it. >And that the definition of "normal" is badly written. It must be, since otherwise rational folks read it in completely opposite ways, but why so continues to mystify me. The only thing wrong with it is that it is so very different from the definition one finds in the dictionary. But that's exactly why the footnote is needed; if we used the term "normal" in the usual way, we wouldn't need a footnote that redefines it to mean something entirely else. The bottom line here is that we have three suggested ways of dealing with claims: (1) The WBF approach protects the claimer from losing any tricks that he would not normally have lost had he played the hand out. (2) The Landau approach protects the claimer from losing any tricks that nobody would normally have lost had they played the hand out. (3) The Burn approach will generally require the claimer to lose tricks that nobody would normally have lost had they played the hand out. The question we should be debating is which of these best serves the customers. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From adam@irvine.com Thu Apr 3 21:15:36 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:15:36 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Apr 2003 13:14:45 EST." <200304031814.NAA28929@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200304032015.MAA22778@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > We also have L45F, which gives clear authority to award an adjusted > score if dummy should "indicate any card." That's close enough for > me. Me too. I had missed that Law. Actually, I'm having trouble thinking of a case where dummy "participates in the play" in violation of L43A1(c) is not also a violation of L45F. Especially if you notice that in L45F, the prohibition that "dummy may not ... indicate any card" does *not* say the card so indicated has to be in dummy's hand!! So if dummy indicates a card in declarer's hand that he should play next, that's also a violation of L45F. On the other hand, since L45F says "after dummy's hand is faced", it would seem that there's a tiny loophole. After the opening lead, dummy could say to declarer "Play the queen" and *then* face his hand . . . :) -- Adam From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Apr 3 21:32:24 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:32:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402170443.02000c40@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> <000401c2f92b$3fcb8e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402170443.02000c40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030403151940.0272bec0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:49 AM 4/3/03, John wrote: >The problem, of course, is that it's irrational for me (cue hysterical >laughter) to misplay AKTx facing Q9xxx but my intermediate class >(including a recent winner of the Newcomers Pairs) *do* get it wrong. It would be irrational for John (or any of his students!) to misplay the suit by starting with the A and the Q on the first trick, or the x and the x. For John to start with Q and the x would be extremely careless for him. It would be demonstrably inferior for him. According to the dictionary, that would be sufficient to consider it "irrational" for him. According to TFLB, however, it must not be so considered when adjudicating claims. >The main reason I don't get it wrong is because I play a lot of rubber >bridge and rubber bridge players are necessarily very strong on suit >combinations. Mind you I'd not claim until I'd tested the suit. And I do not believe that John would become overly distraught if he forgot on some occasion to test the suit and, as a result, were presumed to lose a trick to the Jxxx behind the AK10x. IMO, if there exists a player of Hamman's or Zia's class who would become overly distraught if that ever happened, too bad for them. But neither John nor Hamman nor Zia nor any of John's students would like it very much, or consider it fair or sensible, if they were required to lose a trick when the suit split 2-2. *That* would be irrational, by any definition. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Apr 3 21:52:34 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:52:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] More guidance required In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402171223.02001240@pop.starpower.net> <3614119.1049119153674.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> <002901c2f92d$6e5b0aa0$c4242850@pacific> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402171223.02001240@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030403153517.02732980@pop.starpower.net> At 07:54 AM 4/3/03, John wrote: >Eric, I have a lot of sympathy with your position - right up to the >meta-mind-reading bit. As a TD I believe I have to put myself through >that loop. I can't let Mrs Guggenheim find a safety play that is >routine for David Burn (and which I know is), so I think it's right to >pay me to sort out the mess on a basis of "what would actually have >happened". I don't much like it but that's a different mess of potage. Mrs. Guggenheim will probably never play at David Burn's level, but every one of us, even David Burn, occasionally plays at Mrs. Guggenheim's level, if only on a very bad day. It would offend common sense to let Mrs. Guggenheim find a safety play that would be routine for David. But it would not offend common sense (at least not mine) not to let David find a safety play that would not be routine for Mrs. Guggenheim. If David neglected to mention the need for such a safety play when claiming (or otherwise make it clear that he was aware of it), I would find nothing wrong with that creating a presumption that he's having one of those very bad days. Most players do not want different rules for Mrs. Guggenheim and for David Burn. They want rules that apply to Mr. and Ms. Bridgeplayer, and that can be uniformly enforced by TDs and ACs without their having to know the identities of the players involved. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 3 22:26:54 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 23:26:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: <001501c2fa0e$c23f2700$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001201c2fa27$bfc0b020$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French > > Law 74B5 goes on the manner in which the Director is summoned and/or > > addressed, not on actually summoning the Director. > > > > The Director should appreciate that whenever a player feels he needs = the > > assistance of a Director for whatever reason, the player should be = free > to > > call upon such assistance. > > > Experienced BLs who call the TD for some harmless action by an > inexperienced > opponent should be dealt with harshly. As a violation of Law 74A2 if the action warrants the use of that law, = but not in itself as a violation of Law 74B5! Sven From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Apr 4 00:59:41 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 18:59:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] "Improved" Law Boojk Message-ID: Hi all, Some of you are already aware of the flow charts of Laws I made many years ago (firstly in French). A sample of these charts are on David's Web and Australian Bridge Director's Association put one in each issue of his Bulletin. The French version is part of a Law book since many years (the text one page, the chart just in front). I finally have an agreement with ACBL to use English texts. In counterpart, Butch Campbell from Memphis checked the charts and want to use them. So the English version of this Law book is now available, with 39 charts illustrating most Laws in chapters IV, V and VI. Just click on the above hyperlink to know more (see the bottom of the page). http://www.vinceoddy.com/aids.htm Laval Du Breuil Quebec City PS: I can send you a private email with an attachment if you want a sample. From lskelso@ihug.com.au Fri Apr 4 01:19:59 2003 From: lskelso@ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 10:19:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] RE: Philadelphia Appeal 5 (was 6) Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030404101959.0097c9f0@pop3.norton.antivirus> Richard Hills wrote: >In some major ABF events there used to be Appeal >Advisors. The selection criteria for Appeal >Advisors was that they had to both understand the >MI and UI Laws, and that they had to be experts. > >If a potential appellant consulted an Appeals >Advisor, and if the Appeals Advisor agreed that >the potential appellant had a prima facie case, >then, if there was an appeal, the appellant was >given a guarantee of being able to keep their >appeal deposit. > >I am not sure whether the ABF has abandoned the >concept of Appeals Advisors, and, if so, what >replacement concept the ABF uses. Laurie Kelso, >are you able to enlighten? The ABF still appoints Appeals Consultants for a number of it's National events. The following is an extract of a piece I wrote for another audience about the process: "Having acted in this capacity on a number of occasions, I believe the purpose of an Appeals Advisor is to provide assistance to players with limited tournament experience and/or knowledge of the Appeals process. An advisor should neither encourage nor discourage anyone from appealing. He should have no affiliation or interaction with the appeals committee, but he may need to explain to a first-time appellant how a committee operates. He might even suggest what aspects of law and fact finding could be relevant in a Committee's deliberations. In order to successfully appeal a decision the appellant must first understand the basis upon which it was made. An advisor should therefore have a good grounding in the Laws and be able to evaluate each case from an independent and disinterested third party perspective. An Advisor may sometimes need to speak to a member of the Directing staff in order to understand fully the table situation and ruling as presented to the potential appellant. Occasionally extra facts come to light during the consultation process that the director was unaware of at the time of the initial ruling. In such circumstances the CTD might reverse or vary the original decision. I am against consultation providing indemnity in regard to the committee subsequently deciding an appeal was 'without substantial merit'. The role of an advisor should be separate from that of a committee and one should in no way restrict the powers of the other. An advisor should not and cannot offer a reliable opinion as to the potential outcome of any prospective appeal. No one can predict with certainty what a committee might decide. It should also be remembered that the advisor is only interviewing one of the two parties involved. Other significant facts pertinent to the decision may have been omitted in the story as presented. The use of Senior Directors/officials as advisors, as is the current practice in Australia, does have some drawbacks, but so does the use of Senior players, which is the current New Zealand approach. The workload of an advisor is many times greater than that of any Appeals Committee member. The issue of availability is also paramount, since someone needs to be 'On Call' at the end of every session for an effective review process. This is a big ask for a player-volunteer." Regards Laurie Kelso From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 4 07:02:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:02:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - 2005 Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst, in the thread EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2), wrote about interpretation of the Laws: [snip] >It then becomes for the LawInterpreters >(such as DALB and DWS) to disagree with the >LawGivers and pass down judgment (sic) on the >LawGivers as they deem appropriate and also >to notify the LawMakers (such as ton and >Grattan) of the inaccuracy of the Law itself. [snip] But the $64,000 question is: Why do LawGivers (TDs) need LawInterpreters at all? Why, after 70-odd years, are the Laws still riddled with ambiguity? A partial answer comes from Grattan, who (in the thread Active Ethics), wrote about the seachange of the Proprieties into Laws: [snip] >>My mandate was to get them incorporated >>into the respective substantive laws but this >>proved too big a mouthful for my WBF >>colleagues to digest at one meal. So we made >>them into laws but left them to stand in >>their own right [snip] If I wrote my partnership's system notes in the accretional way that the WBF LC has written the Laws, there would still be fossilised references to Standard American nestling amongst details of my Symmetric Relays. I suggest that the WBF consider a total rewrite from the ground up of the Bridge Laws in 2005, similar to the total rewrite from the ground up of the French legal system brought about by the Code Napoleon. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Apr 4 07:43:14 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 08:43:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] More guidance required References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030402170443.02000c40@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402083736.01fdcc80@pop.starpower.net> <000401c2f92b$3fcb8e50$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20030402170443.02000c40@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030403151940.0272bec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3E8D2982.1000308@skynet.be> For what it's worth, I agree with Eric: Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:49 AM 4/3/03, John wrote: > >> The problem, of course, is that it's irrational for me (cue hysterical >> laughter) to misplay AKTx facing Q9xxx but my intermediate class >> (including a recent winner of the Newcomers Pairs) *do* get it wrong. > > > It would be irrational for John (or any of his students!) to misplay the > suit by starting with the A and the Q on the first trick, or the x and > the x. For John to start with Q and the x would be extremely careless > for him. It would be demonstrably inferior for him. According to the > dictionary, that would be sufficient to consider it "irrational" for > him. According to TFLB, however, it must not be so considered when > adjudicating claims. > I too believe this is more borderline than I made out in my previous posts. My point there was that the laws must permit us to rule that a particular combination can be gotten right in a claim. Maybe this is one such combination, and I would strongly investigate why the player did not simply play the obvious first card to the trick, or say he would. >> The main reason I don't get it wrong is because I play a lot of rubber >> bridge and rubber bridge players are necessarily very strong on suit >> combinations. Mind you I'd not claim until I'd tested the suit. > > > And I do not believe that John would become overly distraught if he > forgot on some occasion to test the suit and, as a result, were presumed > to lose a trick to the Jxxx behind the AK10x. IMO, if there exists a > player of Hamman's or Zia's class who would become overly distraught if > that ever happened, too bad for them. But neither John nor Hamman nor > Zia nor any of John's students would like it very much, or consider it > fair or sensible, if they were required to lose a trick when the suit > split 2-2. *That* would be irrational, by any definition. > which is what some of the hawks are suggesting. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Apr 4 07:55:19 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 07:55:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - 2005 References: Message-ID: <001b01c2fa77$3e3ecaf0$d546e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 7:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - 2005 > > I suggest that the WBF consider a total rewrite > from the ground up of the Bridge Laws in 2005, > similar to the total rewrite from the ground up > of the French legal system brought about by the > Code Napoleon. > +=+ Some such mood is present in the drafting committee but unsurprisingly does not inspire all of its members. There is also a debate as to what principles are to alter, if any - you will have noticed that ton certainly wants some changes, so do I, and likewise Kojak and others - not, of course, all pressing for the same things - but expressed also, and no surprise, is some discomfort with change. We will just have to wait and see where we get to as a group. At least we are prepared to give serious thought to the needs and it is not my impression that as a body we spend our time stealing ducks. ~ G ~ +=+ From gillp@bigpond.com Fri Apr 4 08:50:27 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 17:50:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: <003901c2fa7e$ddf15840$71c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ It may be remarked that in the course of >'normal' play, with no trace of UI present, players >do select actions that other players judge to be >utterly illogical. which is confirmed if one listens to typical post mortems: "What on earth were you doing partner? Don't you have a brain?". Such is bridge. Normal everyday bridge. >For the players who choose the >actions, given that they are not minded to be >frivolous, they are logical. To me it appears that >an action chosen in all seriousness is not to be >regarded as illogical for the player concerned. > ~ G ~ +=+ I agree. In the Bidding Forums and Master Solvers Clubs in bridge magazines, players regularly choose insane bids in all seriousness, then make a comment which with a weird sort of logic makes sense to the caller but to almost noone else. Well,. this may happen more regularly in Australian Bridge magazine than in your country's bridge magazines, but my point is that it does happen. And such panels feature somewhat expert bidding. Bridge is a game of errors. Bids and plays which look illogical to many onlookers are often merely errors. Peter Gill Australia. From gillp@bigpond.com Fri Apr 4 09:05:10 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 18:05:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - 2005 Message-ID: <008001c2fa81$160d70e0$71c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Richard Hills suggested: >> I suggest that the WBF consider a total rewrite >> from the ground up of the Bridge Laws in 2005, >> similar to the total rewrite from the ground up >> of the French legal system brought about by the >> Code Napoleon. Grattan replied: >+=+ Some such mood is present in the drafting >committee but unsurprisingly does not inspire >all of its members. Would it help if a subset of BLML expressed support for Richard's suggestion? I for one am strongly in favour, as I think the main problem with the Laws is the way they're worded. The method of the rewrite would require urgent attention, as it would take the selected people some time to reword the entire Laws Book. I venture to suggest that although a very large number of BLML posters (indcluding me) mangle the English language with astonishing regularity, said fact should not rule out every single BLML poster from contributing to such a rewrite. Peter Gill Australia. >There is also a debate as to what >principles are to alter, if any - you will have noticed >that ton certainly wants some changes, so do I, and >likewise Kojak and others - not, of course, all >pressing for the same things - but expressed also, >and no surprise, is some discomfort with change. >We will just have to wait and see where we get to >as a group. At least we are prepared to give >serious thought to the needs and it is not my >impression that as a body we spend our time >stealing ducks. > ~ G ~ +=+ From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Apr 4 09:02:14 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:02:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics References: <003901c2fa7e$ddf15840$71c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <006e01c2fa80$81ef59a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Peter: > I agree. In the Bidding Forums and Master Solvers Clubs in bridge > magazines, players regularly choose insane bids in all seriousness, > then make a comment which with a weird sort of logic makes sense > to the caller but to almost noone else. Well I run myself a serious panel for more than 10 years so I have some experience on this. Of course you are right. Probably better to drop the word logic al together. Bridge in the end is not a very logical game. There is some logic in the play (deductions from counting data might well be called logic) but there is no such thing in the bidding. Logical alternative is just a silly name for a badly defined concept which has nothing to do with logic. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Active ethics > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >+=+ It may be remarked that in the course of > >'normal' play, with no trace of UI present, players > >do select actions that other players judge to be > >utterly illogical. > > which is confirmed if one listens to typical post mortems: > "What on earth were you doing partner? Don't you have a brain?". > Such is bridge. Normal everyday bridge. > > >For the players who choose the > >actions, given that they are not minded to be > >frivolous, they are logical. To me it appears that > >an action chosen in all seriousness is not to be > >regarded as illogical for the player concerned. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > I agree. In the Bidding Forums and Master Solvers Clubs in bridge > magazines, players regularly choose insane bids in all seriousness, > then make a comment which with a weird sort of logic makes sense > to the caller but to almost noone else. Well,. this may happen more > regularly in Australian Bridge magazine than in your country's bridge > magazines, but my point is that it does happen. And such panels > feature somewhat expert bidding. Bridge is a game of errors. Bids > and plays which look illogical to many onlookers are often merely > errors. > > Peter Gill > Australia. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 14:42:47 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 15:42:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics In-Reply-To: <004301c2fa16$9fbbe170$8148e150@endicott> References: <5153910.1049390204282.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030404153924.00aba550@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:22 3/04/2003 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"God has given you good abilities, instead >of which you go about the country stealing >ducks." > - attributed to Wm. Arabin and another. >============================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:16 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Active ethics > > > > > > He does not believe, incidentally, that Law 16 > > forbids the selection of an illogical action; >< >+=+ It may be remarked that in the course of >'normal' play, with no trace of UI present, players >do select actions that other players judge to be >utterly illogical. For the players who choose the >actions, given that they are not minded to be >frivolous, they are logical. To me it appears that >an action chosen in all seriousness is not to be >regarded as illogical for the player concerned. > ~ G ~ +=+ AG : how should one classify an action that is irrational, and perceived by the player as such, but was choosen for legitimate purposes ? eg : at the beginning of a match, a player makes a penalty double, to "show them they'd better be wary". However, he knows from the bidding that his side has some contract that will earn him a better score. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 4 20:36:28 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:36:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) In-Reply-To: <002301c2f75d$818fcf60$fa9727d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On 3/31/03, David Burn wrote: >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. "Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something." Robert A. Heinlein, "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long" From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 4 21:10:08 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:10:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeal 8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/1/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Correct. Since the display of dummy revealed >the E/W infraction, N/S have also committed an >infraction by not summoning the TD as soon as >dummy appeared. Law 9A2a and Law 72A6. 9A2a *permits* calling the TD, it does not require it. Failure to call is thus not an infraction. 72A6 prohibits players from making rulings. N/S didn't make a ruling, they called the TD. Again, no infraction. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 4 22:18:58 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:18:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: <200304011632.LAA15593@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 4/1/03, Steve Willner wrote: >What scenario do you see where the EW hands were correct throughout >play and also the EW statement that West had 14 cards and East 12 was >correct? This looks like a logical impossibility. > >_On the facts reported to BLML_, we know for sure EW have made some >mistake. Why is this so hard to follow? Of course we don't know for >sure which mistake they have made, but the TD has to make a ruling >based on the best evidence. There was no statement by the EW who played the hand that West had 14 cards and East 12. That problem was discovered by the EW pair in round 2 (I infer pair 13, since Laval mentioned 26 boards in play). Let me go back to the beginning. Perhaps putting my thoughts on the original question in one place will help. Laval's original post said: >>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". So, the EW pair in round 2 (pair 13?) reported a discrepancy in the hands to the TD. The EW pair (pair 1) who played the hand in round 1 said "our hands were like that", and went on to say that W had 7 clubs and E 3. There is *no* evidence here regarding the other three suits. It is highly likely that this EW are looking at the club suit, and not at the other 3, and not considering the "12/14" question. NS who played this hand previously both say (presumably without knowledge of what EW said) that West had only six clubs. Someone alluded to Occam's Razor. Using that principle, it seems to me likely that (a) the hands were probably played with the cards correctly distributed at table 1 and (b) one of East's clubs somehow got mixed in with West's at table 1. But Laval seemed to think it more likely the hand was played with 14 and 12 cards in the EW hands at table 1. I think that had this happened, *somebody* would have noticed that dummy was short a card near the end of play. Nobody did. So I don't buy that this happened. The hands were compromised *after* the play. The TD must determine, if he can, who is at fault for (b) above and which card should be put back into East's hand. This would require further questions, about which no data have been provided. I don't believe Laval would not have asked those questions, so I conclude that the answers did not allow him to make these determinations. The hand was played, in a Mitchell, at table 1, by NS pair 1 and EW pair 1. So it was played in round 1. It has been played once. Now, looking at Law13A, it appears to me that the three options in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 3 fall into a natural precedence: you try 1 first, if that fails, you try 2, and if that fails, you're left with 3. Which is to redeal the board. Laval then asked >What is the best ruling: > >1) Cancel result of round 1 and ask players to replay > board 1 (as reshuffled) as a late play. See below. >2) Cancel result of round 1 and award Avg- to E-W > (directly at fault) and Avg+ to N-S (no way at fault). It doesn't appear to me that the evidence supports this option. >3) Cancel result and award Avg- to all (directly at fault). In the absence of evidence, I don't see how NS pair 1 can be at fault. >4) Cancel result and enter this board as Non-played > (both pairs play 24 boards instead of 26). Um. Wouldn't it be 25 boards? Using ACBLScore, as I understand it, this option in effect gives both pairs for this board their average score on all the other boards. I'm not sure that's legal. If you matchpoint it by hand, I suppose you could work it out (top on this board would be less than top on all the others). Either way, I don't like it. :-) >5) Restore the board (moving a club from West to East) > and let score stand. If you can determine which club (or that it doesn't matter which (presumably a spot) club belongs in the E hand, this is the best option. If you don't know (and on the evidence, you don't) this is a lousy option, imo. Though it *is* legal, I think (L85B). All things considered, I like option 1: cancel the result in round 1, and ask table 1 to replay it as a late play. Hopefully, they'll have the time. :-) >6) Other suggestions, including procedural penalties. > E-W are experienced players. Which EW? :-) Law 7 makes players responsible for ensuring their hands have 13 cards at the beginning of play and for returning those 13 cards to the board at the end of play. Since EW pair 1 apparently did not do that (on the - conflicting - evidence presented) they rate at least a warning (and a PP if it happens again). If there is *any* evidence that NS 1 had a hand in the mixup (eg, East, dummy, left the table, and one of NS played his cards), same thing for them. IAC, the score at table 1 must be discarded, since there's nothing to which to compare it. L85B requires TD to notify players of their right to appeal. Have I gone astray? From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Apr 4 22:47:13 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:47:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: <200304042147.QAA09511@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > It > is highly likely that this EW are looking at the club suit, and not at > the other 3, and not considering the "12/14" question. This is making up facts not reported. Basically it is saying the TD didn't do his job when he queried EW about the hands. That is, of course, entirely possible, but I don't see that we have any reason to assume so (especially if Laval was the TD involved). Once again: >>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. "Like that" was with 14 and 12. > Now, looking at > Law13A, it appears to me that the three options in subparagraphs 1, 2, > and 3 fall into a natural precedence: you try 1 first, if that fails, > you try 2, and if that fails, you're left with 3. Which is to redeal the > board. Thanks, Ed. I believe you have found the correct Law. Note that 3 only applies "if the board was incorrectly dealt." > Law 7 makes players responsible for ensuring their hands have 13 cards > at the beginning of play and for returning those 13 cards to the board > at the end of play. Since EW pair 1 apparently did not do that (on the - > conflicting - evidence presented) they rate at least a warning (and a PP > if it happens again). If there is *any* evidence that NS 1 had a hand in > the mixup (eg, East, dummy, left the table, and one of NS played his > cards), same thing for them. > > IAC, the score at table 1 must be discarded, since there's nothing to > which to compare it. Although the TD could use 72B1 to assign an adjusted score. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 4 22:55:39 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:55:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Arrow Switch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/2/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >I would arrange the movement to be a Flower Howell barometer. Not that I want to display my ignorance or anything, but what the heck is a Flower Howell barometer? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 4 22:28:48 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:28:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: <000901c2f86e$2e967ae0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 4/1/03, Marvin French wrote: >1. Am I obligated to call the TD when I see that dummy? > >2. Does failure to do so jeopardize my rights? > >If the answer to either question is yes, please cite the applicable law. Hi, Marv, Law 16A2: >When a player has substantial reason to believe* that an opponent who >had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been >suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. >*When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed. Preface to the Laws: >When a player "should" do something ("A claim should be accompanied at >once by a statement ..."), his failure to do it is an infraction of >law, which will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a >procedural penalty only seldom. The answer to both questions is "yes". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 4 22:53:11 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:53:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: <000101c2f899$5401e410$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 4/1/03, Sven Pran wrote: >> Marvin French >> 1. Am I obligated to call the TD when I see that dummy? > >Law 9B1(a) - YES! > >Misinformation in the explanation of any of dummy's calls becomes >evident when dummy is faced; so if you do not call attention to such >irregularity and summon the Director at this time you may forfeit your >rights from that irregularity. No attention has been called to any irregularity in Marvin's scenario. Law 9B1(a) doesn't apply. >> 2. Does failure to do so jeopardize my rights? > >Law 11A. - Possibly! > >(at the discretion of the Director) but this is not automatic. Hm. In my response to Marvin, I cited Law 16A2 and the preface to the laws (which says that failure to call the TD *will* jeopardize your rights). So I think the literal answer to 2 is yes. Law 11A deals with the question whether the right to penalize an irregularity will be forfeited. That goes beyond "jeopardized". However this raises a question: is redress for damage a penalty? If not (and I think it's not) then law 11A does not apply to questions of redress for damage. In the case in point, Law 16A2 says "The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." The infraction of law would be violation of Law 16A, choosing a LA suggested by UI. The assigned adjusted score would be made under Law 12, and is not a penalty, so not subject to forfeit under Law 11A. Comment: I think Law 11 is poorly worded. Law 10A says "The Director alone has the right to assess penalties when applicable. Players do not have the right to assess (or waive) penalties on their own initiative." If the Director alone has the right to assess penalties, then players cannot forfeit that right, since they never had it in the first place. Perhaps Law 11A should say "right to redress for damage may be forfeited", if that's what is intended. Grattan, is this one for your notebook? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 4 23:23:58 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:23:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: <000801c2f8ea$29633b40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 4/2/03, Sven Pran wrote: >I thought I made it quite clear that forfeiting any rights is >absolutely not automatic in a case like this? But a defender who >becomes aware (when dummy's cards are faced) of a discrepancy between >dummy's hand and an explanation given by declarer has an obligation to >protect himself: Which law says so? >It is a bit late after the play is completed to call the Director and >say that with the correct information he would have chosen a different >action at the time. Why so? By the time dummy comes down, the opportunity to have chosen a different action at the time of the explanation is already long past. I don't see that waiting until play is completed makes any difference. >The Director should then try the possibility that >this claim could have been caused by a poor result and being an >attempt to have the Director assign a better score. Maybe. But that doesn't mean that he should necessarily conclude that is the case. >If the connection between the misinformation and the poor result is >apparent then the Director should normally adjust, but if the >connection could seem doubtful I (for one) would refuse on the ground >that I was summoned too late. ............ Players have the right to request a ruling (and TD has a duty to make a ruling) until the end of the correction period. That being the case, how can a request at the end of play of a hand be "too late"? >>>The sole purpose of calling the TD at this time, when he can only >>>have play continue, is for him to get a timely description of the >>>infraction, before memories fade. > >Partly yes, but equally important is to avoid any suspicion of >"Opponents have made an infraction, I'll try some risky action and if >it doesn't work to my advantage then I'll summon the Director and get >my redress". Suspicion does not imply conviction. Or shouldn't. >>Marv has made a reasonable case for the 2005 Law 75D1 to read thusly: >> >>>>If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was >>>>erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who >>>>will apply Law 21 or Law 40C). Exception: An opponent may request >>>>that any call for the Director be deferred until the end of play.=20 >>>>If, at the end of play, all players agree that the lateness of the >>>>correct explanation did not cause damage, then the Director need >>>>not be called at all. > >A fundamental rule in the laws is that no player may object to the >Director being summoned if another player wants the Director to the >table. While the above proposal seems to have some merits it is >certainly not acceptable in its present form. Um. okay. Add after the sentence beginning "an opponent may request=8A" the sentence "If any player objects, the director must be summoned forthwith." Easy-peasy. :) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 4 23:04:06 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:04:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: <002f01c2f8be$e87a5080$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 4/1/03, Marvin French wrote: >If the NOS is willing to risk the adverse effects of waiting until >play is complete, why should that "jeopardize their rights" to redress >when the MI is not in question? I addressed this question in another post, but briefly: redress is not a penalty, so Law 11A does not apply. However, the Preface's discussion of the effect of various words in the laws, "should" being the word in question here, does not mention the "right to penalize" but simply "rights". That would include the right to redress. However, the fact that a right is "jeopardized" does not mean that it is forfeit - although I suspect ACBL TDs rule that way. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 4 23:06:52 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:06:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/2/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Marv wrote: > >>Now suppose that declarer calls attention to his >>irregularity when he sees the dummy, correcting his >>former statement that dummy's hand would have 12-14 >>HCP, but it only has 8. Now technically the TD must >>be called (declarer's duty, but a defender can do >>it). > >Incorrect. It is the duty of all four players, >including dummy. Law 9B1. At this point, you're right. However, declarer has *also* infracted L75D1, which requires him to call the TD *before* calling attention to this irregularity. So Marv is also right. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 5 00:50:50 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 18:50:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy and card left face up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/3/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Law 65A specifies that for a trick to be completed >"each player turns his own card face down near him >on the table." > >The question therefore is whether Law 44G, "the >player who has won the trick leads to the next >trick," applies in the case of a player who > >has won? >will win? > >an incomplete trick. A principle I've seen stated here since I first subscribed to this list is that the headings in the law book are not part of the laws. L65A says "When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table." The only reference to a "completed trick" is in the heading. So (a) the heading doesn't apply and (b) Law65A does not specify what you said it does. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 5 00:40:58 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 18:40:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy and card left face up In-Reply-To: <001201c2f968$8558f5b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 4/3/03, Sven Pran wrote: >Dummy will do exactly as he has been told by declarer; he should not >even call attention to the fact that West has not yet turned his last >played card face down. > >Applicable laws: 42A3 - yes, and also 45B and 42B3. > >Note that Law 42B2 is not applicable; South has already played the >card by naming it so it is too late for dummy to try to prevent an >irregularity. > >Actually I find it very doubtful if this action by South is any >irregularity at all, nowhere in the laws do I find any rule that the >lead to a trick must only be done after all four players have turned >their last played card face down. I've been away from the list for a couple of days, and just responded to Steve's message. I agree that the lead is not an irregularity, but I do not agree that dummy should not call attention to West's faced card (which is also not an irregularity). If there is no irregularity in the situation, then dummy is not prohibited from calling attention to it. Please read the argument in my response to Steve, and tell me if there's a hole in it somewhere. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 5 00:34:23 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 18:34:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy and card left face up In-Reply-To: <200304022201.RAA20779@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 4/2/03, Steve Willner wrote: >Declarer, South, wins a trick in dummy. West leaves his card face up, >but declarer does not notice and calls for a card to be led to the next >trick. What should dummy do? Please cite specific Laws: 42A3 comes to >mind as one that will surely be involved. L42A3 says that dummy may not draw attention to an irregularity. However, I can't see any irregularity here. Dummy won the trick, the lead is in dummy, and declarer calls for a card from dummy. Unless the TD deems that this is *not* a lead, but a fifth card played to the previous trick (L45E) (and I don't see how he can, on the evidence given), there has been no irregularity, and even then there is no penalty (L45E2). So I would say that dummy must pick up the card for which declarer called and face it on the table (L45B), but that there is no prohibition against him pointing out that West's card from the previous trick is still faced. I suspect that the problem here is that West now wants to see the cards played to the previous trick. He has that right until his partner plays to this trick (L66) so as long as that hasn't happened, there is no problem. If his partner *does* play to the next trick, well, now there's a problem . West has possibly been denied, by declarer's action, access to information to which he was entitled . However, I can find no law which would allow the director to grant redress for any damage arising. The laws do not say *when* the lead to a trick (other than the opening lead) should be made - perhaps that's a fault that should be corrected in 2005. Grattan? Um. Perhaps there is one possibility: L74B1 says "as a matter of courtesy, players should refrain from paying insufficient attention to the game". Declarer clearly has infracted this Law.* However, I see nothing in L74 (or any other law) which allows redress for damage caused by infractions of L74 (have I missed something?) and the preface says that violations of L74B1 "will incur a penalty only seldom", because it uses the word "should". I note that if dummy *does* point out that West's card is still faced, East, if he knows the laws, is unlikely to play to this trick until he finds out if West wants the cards from the previous trick faced. If East doesn't know the laws, I suppose West is out of luck. *Uh, oh. I added that sentence after I wrote the rest of the above. Then it occurred to me that perhaps dummy pointing out that West's card is still faced *is* "calling attention to an irregularity". But I don't think it is. Doesn't "irregularity" apply to procedure? I doubt courtesy is a matter of procedure. Ah, here it is, in the definitions: an irregularity is "A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws." So declarer's paying insufficient attention to the game is not an irregularity, and dummy is therefor permitted to call attention to it. Right? In fact, it seems to me that "correct procedure" is set forth in Laws 17-22 (for the auction) and 41-45 (for the play), so that dummy is *not* prohibited from calling attention to an infraction of laws not in either of those two sets. In particular, the TD who, when I (dummy) called him because an opponent was badgering my partner, said to me "dummy is not permitted to call the TD", turned and walked away, was dead wrong, even without considering the (supposedly in place in the club in question) Zero Tolerance Policy or Law 81C6. Sorry, it still rankles. :-( From john@asimere.com Sat Apr 5 00:16:35 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 00:16:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Arrow Switch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Ed Reppert writes >On 4/2/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>I would arrange the movement to be a Flower Howell barometer. > >Not that I want to display my ignorance or anything, but what the heck >is a Flower Howell barometer? You move up one table each round till you get to table one where you pivot and then move down till you meet the stationery pair at the highest numbered table. You arrow switch one third of the rounds and you all play the same boards each round. Easy really! It's a pretty good movement as well, classically 14 tables, 27 rounds played over 2 or 3 sessions (54 or 81 boards) > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 5 01:17:32 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 19:17:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/3/03, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >I have no interest in the revoke Laws at all in this matter. I have an >infraction by dummy, which I can penalise. I will award a score that is >"at all likely" to the declaring side, and that's the end of the matter. Under what law will you do this? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 5 01:11:15 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 19:11:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/3/03, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >I'd adjust the score to equity as a PP against dummy. I'm pretty sure I >can do this regardless of any other laws. PPs and score adjustments are separate and distinct entities. If you want to issue a PP, you have the means (Law 43B1 and Law 90). Those means do not include score adjustments. You'd have to cite a specific law allowing you to adjust the score. See Law 12A. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 5 01:05:32 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 19:05:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030403143622.00abcec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 4/3/03, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >L12A1 hints that all infractions are irregularities, but there are some >irregularities that are not infractions, and says how to deal with this >particular fringe. Er, don't you have that backwards? :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 5 00:57:14 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 18:57:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/3/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >>A fundamental rule in the laws is that no player >>may object to the Director being summoned if >>another player wants the Director to the table. > >I cannot find any such Law. Perhaps it would have been better had Sven said that "it is a fundamental principle of the laws that when a director may be needed, no player may object to another player calling him". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 5 00:54:23 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 18:54:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/3/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >n my opinion, in the context of a discussion about >Bridge Laws, the words "irregularity" and >"infraction" are synonyms. > >See the Chapter 1 definition: > >>>Irregularity - A deviation from the correct >>>procedures set forth in the Laws. > >Therefore, I disagree with the distinction between >the two words that Sven is trying to create. Perhaps >this is a problem caused by an erroneous Norse >translation of the Laws? I don't speak Norse, or Norwegian for that matter (though my grandmother did). So the answer to your last question is no. If a player pays insufficient attention to the game, I think you'll agree that is an infraction of L74B1. But it is not an irregularity, because it is not "a deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the laws". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 5 01:15:03 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 19:15:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Active ethics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/3/03, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Mathematicians would be able to put it better, but then DALB is not a >mathematician. And "among", unless I am very much mistaken, is not in the vocabulary of set theory. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Apr 5 01:36:09 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 01:36:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Arrow Switch References: Message-ID: <006d01c2fb0b$5a8876e0$973c23d9@pbncomputer> John wrote: > You move up one table each round till you get to table one where you > pivot and then move down till you meet the stationery pair They would be the ones with all the travelling score slips, presumably. David Burn London, England From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 5 01:32:46 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 19:32:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b In-Reply-To: <200304031741.JAA20802@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On 4/3/03, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Suppose declarer, a relatively inexperienced player playing with a >much better player, gets to 7S. After he wins the heart opening lead >on the table, dummy (the good player) says, "He didn't lead a trump, >so it's likely he's void, so that means you have to ruff a heart now >to shorten yourself so that you can pick up jack-fourth of trumps with >a trump coup." Declarer, who wouldn't have found this play on his >own, takes dummy's advice and as a result makes 7S with a trump coup. > >Obviously this is a severe violation of L43A1(c), and a procedural >penalty, preferably ond involving a heavy blunt instrument, is called >for by Law 43B1. But do the non-offenders have to keep their score? >A procedural penalty is not an adjustment, and I don't see anything in >L90 that says the NO's score can be adjusted. L84E allows an adjusted >score "if an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is >provided by law"; but L84E wouldn't seem to apply, since L43B1 *does* >provide a penalty for the L43A1(c) violation. I'm not sure whether >L16 applies; I've always thought of this Law as dealing with >information about someone's hand, and I'm not convinced it applies to >"information" about proper card play technique. > >It seems like it must be right to adjust the NO's score to 7S-1. But >assuming John's "rough justice" isn't good enough for you, what would >be the legal basis for such an adjustment? Or do we need to think >about rewording some law? Law 16: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. A. Extraneous Information from Partner After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." If there's a logical alternative line of play (and I'm sure there is) that does not involve a trump coup, then declarer having chosen a line including the trump coup is in violation of law 16. See, the law defines authorized information as that coming from legal calls and plays. *Anything* else, including advice from dummy as to how to play the hand, is extraneous. In this case the EI certainly suggests a play (or perhaps several plays), so Law 16 applies. As to adjusting the score, I'd look to law 12A1. "Indemnity" means "security against hurt, loss, or damage", and the argument would be that the laws do not provide indemnity for this violation (a penalty is not indemnity). But I think you have to adjust to 7S-1 for *both* sides - unless you can determine that a result of down more than 1 is "at all probable". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 5 01:42:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 19:42:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: <001501c2fa0e$c23f2700$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 4/3/03, Marvin French wrote: >Experienced BLs who call the TD for some harmless action by an >inexperienced opponent should be dealt with harshly. "Bridge lawyer" is a nebulous pejorative and IMO should not be used. What I think you mean to say is that someone who uses his experience and knowledge of the law to gain advantage over an inexperienced opponent who has committed some minor infraction should be dealt with harshly. Simple enough: for the inexperienced player, this kind of TD call (or indeed in many cases *any* TD call) violates L74A2. Get the TD to issue a PP. In ACBL club games, around here at least, I wish you luck. :) From john@asimere.com Sat Apr 5 01:21:15 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 01:21:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Arrow Switch In-Reply-To: <006d01c2fb0b$5a8876e0$973c23d9@pbncomputer> References: <006d01c2fb0b$5a8876e0$973c23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article <006d01c2fb0b$5a8876e0$973c23d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >John wrote: > >> You move up one table each round till you get to table one where you >> pivot and then move down till you meet the stationery pair > >They would be the ones with all the travelling score slips, presumably. > ROFL, sorry David, I don't usually do that. >David Burn >London, England > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From adam@irvine.com Sat Apr 5 02:27:05 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 17:27:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Apr 2003 19:32:46 EST." Message-ID: <200304050126.RAA09341@mailhub.irvine.com> > On 4/3/03, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >Suppose declarer, a relatively inexperienced player playing with a > >much better player, gets to 7S. After he wins the heart opening lead > >on the table, dummy (the good player) says, "He didn't lead a trump, > >so it's likely he's void, so that means you have to ruff a heart now > >to shorten yourself so that you can pick up jack-fourth of trumps with > >a trump coup." Declarer, who wouldn't have found this play on his > >own, takes dummy's advice and as a result makes 7S with a trump > >coup. . . . > > Law 16: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on > information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. > To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an > infraction of law. But as I said later on in my post: # I'm not sure whether L16 applies; I've always thought of this Law as # dealing with information about someone's hand, and I'm not convinced # it applies to "information" about proper card play technique. and you haven't addressed this point. Here's my problem with treating dummy's suggestion as information covered by L16: After the opening lead is made and the dummy comes down, I plan my play. My plan will be based on information from the opponents' calls, information from their mannerisms, information from the opening lead, information about good card play technique from several books and a bunch of Bridge World articles and other sources, information about how to draw inferences from the opponents' actions from several other books and Bridge World articles and other sources, and so on. But someone who reads L16 too literally might conclude that I need to forget all the good information I read in those books and magazine articles, because that is not a source of information on which I am authorized to base a call or play. Of course that's silly, you say. But why is it silly? If you think about it for a little bit, I think you'd have to conclude that "information" that you get from books or whatever about how to play a hand is fundamentally different from information that you get about a specific hand, and L16 is intended to deal only with information about players' actual holdings. (Yes, it also deals with one's own bidding system, in the event that you've forgotten your system and you have UI that reminds you what it is.) But if L16 is not intended to deal with card play advice that you would get from a book, how can we say that it does deal with card play advice that you get from a loudmouth dummy? I'm not convinced that we can. Anyway, it's not necessary, because Steve Willner pointed out a Law (45F) much better suited to accomplishing what we want. Although he still hasn't told me what happens if dummy tells you how to play before he puts his cards down . . . :) -- Adam From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 5 03:09:25 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 21:09:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Arrow Switch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/5/03, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >You move up one table each round till you get to table one where you >pivot and then move down till you meet the stationery pair at the >highest numbered table. You arrow switch one third of the rounds and >you all play the same boards each round. > >Easy really! It's a pretty good movement as well, classically 14 >tables, 27 rounds played over 2 or 3 sessions (54 or 81 boards) Okay, the "same boards each round" is the barometer part, I get that. But I'm having trouble visualizing the actual movement of pairs. If you start at table 1, which way do you move for round 2? And if it's down (ie, to table 14, where is the stationary pair) what next? It seems like a good movement, though I doubt I could get any of the clubs around here to try it. It seems unlikely it's built into ACBLSCore, and that's a killer. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 5 02:55:36 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 20:55:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: <200304042147.QAA09511@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 4/4/03, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Ed Reppert >>It is highly likely that this EW are looking at the club suit, and >>not at the other 3, and not considering the "12/14" question. > >This is making up facts not reported. I concluded *from the facts in evidence* that in my estimation, what I said above about EW is likely. My conclusion may be wrong, and it may be that my chain of inference is faulty. But I made up no facts. If my conclusion is wrong, or my chain faulty, then I'll thank you to stick to demonstrating *why* that is so, rather than insulting me. >Basically it is saying the TD didn't do his job when he queried EW >about the hands. And don't put words in my mouth. >That is, of course, entirely possible, but I don't see that we have >any reason to assume so (especially if Laval was the TD involved). Neither do I. I believe I said so, somewhere. >Once again: > >>>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. > >"Like that" was with 14 and 12. Uh, huh. >>Now, looking at Law13A, it appears to me that the three options in >>subparagraphs 1, 2, and 3 fall into a natural precedence: you try 1 >>first, if that fails, you try 2, and if that fails, you're left with >>3. Which is to redeal the board. > >Thanks, Ed. I believe you have found the correct Law. Note that 3 >only applies "if the board was incorrectly dealt." Um. It says "if the board was incorrectly dealt", not "only if..." The way I see it, this provision assumes that if the board was correctly dealt, the TD *will* be able to determine which card is in the wrong hand, and thus apply subparagraph 2. In fact this is not the case. If you carry this chain out to its end, it seems the only thing to do is to apply Law 12A2, and give all the other pairs (save pairs 1) scheduled to play this board average plus. But what then do you do with the score obtained at table 1? And in any case, this is to me an unpalatable solution. The alternative is for the TD to take his best guess as to which club to move from West's hand to East, applying 13A2 and 85B. >>Law 7 makes players responsible for ensuring their hands have 13 >>cards at the beginning of play and for returning those 13 cards to >>the board at the end of play. Since EW pair 1 apparently did not do >>that (on the - conflicting - evidence presented) they rate at least a >>warning (and a PP if it happens again). If there is *any* evidence >>that NS 1 had a hand in the mixup (eg, East, dummy, left the table, >>and one of NS played his cards), same thing for them. >> >>IAC, the score at table 1 must be discarded, since there's nothing to >>which to compare it. > >Although the TD could use 72B1 to assign an adjusted score. I don't buy it. Show me how the player who screwed up here (and which one was it?) "could have known" that doing so would damage NS pair 1. For that matter, show me how NS pair 1 are likely to be damaged, and how EW gained through their screwup. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Apr 5 03:27:52 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 21:27:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Dummy and card left face up Message-ID: <200304050227.VAA15806@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response. I seem to recall some rule to the effect that no one should lead while a card of the previous trick is still face up. Could it be an ACBL regulation, or is it in the Laws somewhere? On a side note: > However, I see > nothing in L74 (or any other law) which allows redress for damage caused > by infractions of L74 (have I missed something?) L12A1. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 5 03:20:02 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 21:20:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b In-Reply-To: <200304050126.RAA09341@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On 4/4/03, Adam Beneschan wrote: >But if L16 is not intended to deal with card play advice that you >would get from a book, how can we say that it does deal with card play >advice that you get from a loudmouth dummy? I'm not convinced that we >can. Maybe not, although there *is* a difference - at least, assuming you don't bring your books to the table. >Anyway, it's not necessary, because Steve Willner pointed out a Law >(45F) much better suited to accomplishing what we want. Although he >still hasn't told me what happens if dummy tells you how to play >before he puts his cards down . . . :) I'm all for using the right law, rather than any law that can be bent to support a ruling. :-) From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Apr 5 03:54:37 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 21:54:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: <200304050254.VAA16122@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert [L13A3] > Um. It says "if the board was incorrectly dealt", not "only if..." The OK, Ed. You caught me there. I'm usually the one arguing that the Laws mean what they say. If David S. were with us, he would tell us it means "if and only if," or at least I think he would. But I agree with you, now that you have pointed it out. I like your suggestion of L85B. > >Although the TD could use 72B1 to assign an adjusted score. > > I don't buy it. Show me how the player who screwed up here (and which > one was it?) "could have known" that doing so would damage NS pair 1. According to the original poster, Table 1 EW had just let through a doubled contract. They knew perfectly well they were headed for a zero, and fouling the board not only could but would be to their advantage. I really hate any ruling that gives them anything more than zero. John Probst reported a similar incident in a team game. He did use 72B1, but then, that's his favorite Law. :-) From adam@irvine.com Sat Apr 5 04:15:45 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 19:15:45 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Apr 2003 21:54:37 EST." <200304050254.VAA16122@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200304050315.TAA10803@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > John Probst reported a similar incident in a team game. He did use > 72B1, but then, that's his favorite Law. :-) Hey, you could use that Law to solve the problem of the loudmouth dummy who tells his partner how to play the hand too! -- Adam From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Apr 5 04:24:47 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 04:24:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 13 References: <200304050254.VAA16122@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <009901c2fb22$e94b9620$973c23d9@pbncomputer> Steve wrote: > If David S. were with us, he would tell us it means "if and only if," or > at least I think he would. Very probably. His gift for extrapolation was almost unparalleled. But "if" in English does not mean "if and only if" unless explicitly stated. However... ...someone asked me this evening whether it was legal to put dummy down with the cards in suits, but with the highest card in a suit nearest declarer. Any views? David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Sat Apr 5 06:50:39 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 07:50:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy and card left face up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c2fb37$49af8d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Dummy may not during the play period call attention to an irregularity. = But even if you do not consider the situation an irregularity you have = another relevant law: Dummy may not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything = about the play to declarer.=20 Clear enough? Dummy must keep mum and do exactly as he is told by = declarer. (I leave it to you wise guys to find the actual law yourself, could be a tiny quiz) Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Ed > Reppert > Sent: 5. april 2003 01:34 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy and card left face up >=20 > On 4/2/03, Steve Willner wrote: >=20 > >Declarer, South, wins a trick in dummy. West leaves his card face = up, > >but declarer does not notice and calls for a card to be led to the = next > >trick. What should dummy do? Please cite specific Laws: 42A3 comes = to > >mind as one that will surely be involved. >=20 > L42A3 says that dummy may not draw attention to an irregularity. > However, I can't see any irregularity here. Dummy won the trick, the > lead is in dummy, and declarer calls for a card from dummy. Unless the > TD deems that this is *not* a lead, but a fifth card played to the > previous trick (L45E) (and I don't see how he can, on the evidence > given), there has been no irregularity, and even then there is no > penalty (L45E2). So I would say that dummy must pick up the card for > which declarer called and face it on the table (L45B), but that there = is > no prohibition against him pointing out that West's card from the > previous trick is still faced. >=20 > I suspect that the problem here is that West now wants to see the = cards > played to the previous trick. He has that right until his partner = plays > to this trick (L66) so as long as that hasn't happened, there is no > problem. If his partner *does* play to the next trick, well, now = there's > a problem . West has possibly been denied, by declarer's action, > access to information to which he was entitled . However, I can find = no > law which would allow the director to grant redress for any damage > arising. The laws do not say *when* the lead to a trick (other than = the > opening lead) should be made - perhaps that's a fault that should be > corrected in 2005. Grattan? >=20 > Um. Perhaps there is one possibility: L74B1 says "as a matter of > courtesy, players should refrain from paying insufficient attention to > the game". Declarer clearly has infracted this Law.* However, I see > nothing in L74 (or any other law) which allows redress for damage = caused > by infractions of L74 (have I missed something?) and the preface says > that violations of L74B1 "will incur a penalty only seldom", because = it > uses the word "should". >=20 > I note that if dummy *does* point out that West's card is still faced, > East, if he knows the laws, is unlikely to play to this trick until he > finds out if West wants the cards from the previous trick faced. If = East > doesn't know the laws, I suppose West is out of luck. >=20 > *Uh, oh. I added that sentence after I wrote the rest of the above. = Then > it occurred to me that perhaps dummy pointing out that West's card is > still faced *is* "calling attention to an irregularity". But I don't > think it is. Doesn't "irregularity" apply to procedure? I doubt = courtesy > is a matter of procedure. Ah, here it is, in the definitions: an > irregularity is "A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in > the Laws." So declarer's paying insufficient attention to the game is > not an irregularity, and dummy is therefor permitted to call attention > to it. Right? >=20 > In fact, it seems to me that "correct procedure" is set forth in Laws > 17-22 (for the auction) and 41-45 (for the play), so that dummy is = *not* > prohibited from calling attention to an infraction of laws not in = either > of those two sets. In particular, the TD who, when I (dummy) called = him > because an opponent was badgering my partner, said to me "dummy is not > permitted to call the TD", turned and walked away, was dead wrong, = even > without considering the (supposedly in place in the club in question) > Zero Tolerance Policy or Law 81C6. Sorry, it still rankles. :-( >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Apr 5 08:47:03 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 08:47:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: [blml]Law 41D - was Law 13 References: <200304050254.VAA16122@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <009901c2fb22$e94b9620$973c23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <004b01c2fb47$a55d9a60$d031e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 4:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 13 > > ...someone asked me this evening whether it was > legal to put dummy down with the cards in suits, > but with the highest card in a suit nearest declarer. > Any views? > +=+ I think there is no law against it but that it can be a subject of regulation. ~ G ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Apr 5 09:25:12 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 10:25:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 13 References: <200304050254.VAA16122@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <009901c2fb22$e94b9620$973c23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <002201c2fb4c$f370afd0$3cc0f1c3@LNV> > However... > > ...someone asked me this evening whether it was legal to put dummy down > with the cards in suits, but with the highest card in a suit nearest > declarer. Any views? > > David Burn > London, England It is, but we should change that. Making it ' in descending order towards declarer', if that is considered to be clear. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Apr 5 10:00:59 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 11:00:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Arrow Switch References: Message-ID: <3E8E9B4B.3050808@skynet.be> You move up the tables and then down again. you stay twice at one end of the row, and once at the other end, where there is a stationary (sp?) pair. The arrow switches are not per round, as some may have understood - that would not help - but by table. The swedes have yellow and red table cards indicating whether at that table the pair moving up is NS or EW (and the pair moving down the other of course). Depending on the number of tables, the red and yellow cards are put at indicated tables. Far too difficult for the average Belgian field, we have concluded. And absolutely unnecessary unless you are playing (nearly) all rounds. Ed Reppert wrote: > On 4/5/03, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > >>You move up one table each round till you get to table one where you >>pivot and then move down till you meet the stationery pair at the >>highest numbered table. You arrow switch one third of the rounds and >>you all play the same boards each round. >> >>Easy really! It's a pretty good movement as well, classically 14 >>tables, 27 rounds played over 2 or 3 sessions (54 or 81 boards) >> > > Okay, the "same boards each round" is the barometer part, I get that. > But I'm having trouble visualizing the actual movement of pairs. If you > start at table 1, which way do you move for round 2? And if it's down > (ie, to table 14, where is the stationary pair) what next? > > It seems like a good movement, though I doubt I could get any of the > clubs around here to try it. It seems unlikely it's built into > ACBLSCore, and that's a killer. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john@asimere.com Sat Apr 5 16:08:45 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:08:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Arrow Switch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Ed Reppert writes >On 4/5/03, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>You move up one table each round till you get to table one where you >>pivot and then move down till you meet the stationery pair at the >>highest numbered table. You arrow switch one third of the rounds and >>you all play the same boards each round. >> >>Easy really! It's a pretty good movement as well, classically 14 >>tables, 27 rounds played over 2 or 3 sessions (54 or 81 boards) > >Okay, the "same boards each round" is the barometer part, I get that. >But I'm having trouble visualizing the actual movement of pairs. If you >start at table 1, which way do you move for round 2? And if it's down >(ie, to table 14, where is the stationary pair) what next? > >It seems like a good movement, though I doubt I could get any of the >clubs around here to try it. It seems unlikely it's built into >ACBLSCore, and that's a killer. ok, it's an all-play-all movement with reasonably good balance. Think of a stationAry (pace DALB) pair at 14NS, and the whole of the rest of the movement just moving up the EW line and down the NS line. They meet the pair next to them at table 1 where they pivot and all the other pairs as they move up or down the line. To get good balance every third round is arrow switched (more or less). I played in one of these at the Gold Coast congress near Brisbane and the nice thing is that you get to see your score each round. We played 27 rounds spread over 3 sessions. It would make a very good alternative in the ACBL to the endless 16 team 1-day ko's. You'd have a 14 table 1-day pairs playing 2-board rounds for a total of 54 boards. However it does require 14 sets of boards although these can be used across as many sections as you need, by just off- setting the boards by one set in each section. One caddy per section is needed to shlep the boards. > >_______________________________________________ >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 Sat Apr 5 16:11:01 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:11:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: <009901c2fb22$e94b9620$973c23d9@pbncomputer> References: <200304050254.VAA16122@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <009901c2fb22$e94b9620$973c23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article <009901c2fb22$e94b9620$973c23d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Steve wrote: > >> If David S. were with us, he would tell us it means "if and only if," >or >> at least I think he would. > >Very probably. His gift for extrapolation was almost unparalleled. But >"if" in English does not mean "if and only if" unless explicitly stated. >However... > >...someone asked me this evening whether it was legal to put dummy down >with the cards in suits, but with the highest card in a suit nearest >declarer. Any views? the law says "in order". It doesn't say "in descending order" > >David Burn >London, England > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Sat Apr 5 20:05:48 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 21:05:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Arrow Switch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c2fba6$5ebea310$6900a8c0@WINXP> What is described here is the most common type of event used in Norway = for any pair's tournament where (preferably) all pairs meet. Care should be taken when designing the tables for "arrow switching"; it is far too = simple to just say that about one third of the tables should be switched, a = deeper analysis is required. But such analysis is not difficult to perform.=20 However why cross the river for water? Excellent schedules exist already = for several numbers of tables. The Norwegian championship for pairs is played with 41 tables; I am = today and tomorrow directing our regional championship with 20 tables (playing = 117 boards over 39 rounds). No problem! Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = John > (MadDog) Probst > Sent: 5. april 2003 17:09 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Arrow Switch >=20 > In article = ]>, Ed Reppert writes > >On 4/5/03, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > >>You move up one table each round till you get to table one where you > >>pivot and then move down till you meet the stationery pair at the > >>highest numbered table. You arrow switch one third of the rounds and > >>you all play the same boards each round. > >> > >>Easy really! It's a pretty good movement as well, classically 14 > >>tables, 27 rounds played over 2 or 3 sessions (54 or 81 boards) > > > >Okay, the "same boards each round" is the barometer part, I get that. > >But I'm having trouble visualizing the actual movement of pairs. If = you > >start at table 1, which way do you move for round 2? And if it's down > >(ie, to table 14, where is the stationary pair) what next? > > > >It seems like a good movement, though I doubt I could get any of the > >clubs around here to try it. It seems unlikely it's built into > >ACBLSCore, and that's a killer. >=20 > ok, it's an all-play-all movement with reasonably good balance. Think = of > a stationAry (pace DALB) pair at 14NS, and the whole of the rest of = the > movement just moving up the EW line and down the NS line. They meet = the > pair next to them at table 1 where they pivot and all the other pairs = as > they move up or down the line. To get good balance every third round = is > arrow switched (more or less). I played in one of these at the Gold > Coast congress near Brisbane and the nice thing is that you get to see > your score each round. We played 27 rounds spread over 3 sessions. It > would make a very good alternative in the ACBL to the endless 16 team > 1-day ko's. You'd have a 14 table 1-day pairs playing 2-board rounds = for > a total of 54 boards. However it does require 14 sets of boards = although > these can be used across as many sections as you need, by just off- > setting the boards by one set in each section. One caddy per section = is > needed to shlep the boards. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml@rtflb.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >=20 > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Sun Apr 6 21:27:27 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 16:27:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: <"r01050300-0910-1CF2C30066E311D7A5C02FDDF76E6FC4(a)(091)192.168.1*"@MHS> Message-ID: The TD must determine, if he can, who is at fault for (b) above and which card should be put back into East's hand. This would require further questions, about which no data have been provided. I don't believe Laval would not have asked those questions, so I conclude that the answers did not allow him to make these determinations. ______________________________________________________________________ I was not the TD when this occured, just a player. After the game, the TD just asked me if just entering this board as Non-played was correct. He told he was unable to ascertain facts (as reported) despite the fact his suspicion was against E-W pair. That is all I know. Laval Du Breuil From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Apr 6 23:23:58 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 08:23:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote: >>But if L16 is not intended to deal with card >>play advice that you would get from a book, >>how can we say that it does deal with card play >>advice that you get from a loudmouth dummy? I'm >>not convinced that we can. Ed Reppert replied: >Maybe not, although there *is* a difference - at >least, assuming you don't bring your books to the >table. Adam Beneschan continued: >>Anyway, it's not necessary, because Steve Willner >>pointed out a Law (45F) much better suited to >>accomplishing what we want. Although he still >>hasn't told me what happens if dummy tells you >>how to play before he puts his cards down . . . :) Okay, I will tell you an even more appropriate Law than Law 43A1b or Law 45F, the footnote to Law 40E2: "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. However, sponsoring organisations may designate unusual methods and allow written defences against opponents' unusual methods to be referred to at the table." Best wishes Richard= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 7 04:20:12 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 13:20:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) Message-ID: >What is described here is the most common type >of event used in Norway for any pair's tournament >where (preferably) all pairs meet. [snip] >The Norwegian championship for pairs is played >with 41 tables; I am today and tomorrow directing >our regional championship with 20 tables (playing >117 boards over 39 rounds). No problem! > >Sven The barometer Howell movement is suitable for Butler pairs also. Next weekend I will be playing in the ACT* Open Trials, six tables, 11 rounds of 14-board matches. It has been argued that there is a higher luck factor in Butler pairs than matchpoint pairs. In matchpoint pairs a top for each board is fixed, allowing easy recovery from one unlucky result. In Butler pairs a "top" (imp gain from the datum) is variable, so bad luck may be harder to recoup. Is the length of the ACT Open Trials - 154 boards - sufficient to render negligible the inherent randomness of the Butler format? Best wishes Richard *ACT = Australian Capital Territory = Canberra From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 7 04:31:27 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 13:31:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Dummy and card left face up Message-ID: Steve Willner asked: >I seem to recall some rule to the effect that >no one should lead while a card of the previous >trick is still face up. Could it be an ACBL >regulation, or is it in the Laws somewhere? I could only find the complementary Law, Law 45G: "No player should turn his card face down until all four players have played to the trick." Law 66A implies that one side may lead to a new trick while the other side still has a card face up from the previous trick. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 7 04:46:56 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 13:46:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights Message-ID: Sven wrote: >>>A fundamental rule in the laws is that no player >>>may object to the Director being summoned if >>>another player wants the Director to the table. Richard wrote: >>I cannot find any such Law. Ed wrote: >Perhaps it would have been better had Sven said >that "it is a fundamental principle of the laws >that when a director may be needed, no player may >object to another player calling him". Richard writes: There is a difference between, "when a director *may* be needed" and "when a director *is* needed". For other issues, it has been argued that actions are extraneous and possibly illegal when not specifically allowed by the Laws. One could argue that summoning the TD in circumstances extraneous to Law 9 or Law 16A, is automatically an etiquette infraction of Law 74A2. Furthermore, the Law 73A1 requirement for calls and plays to be the only communication between partners, could be infracted by an unnecessary TD call. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 7 08:22:34 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:22:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: Alain asked: >AG : how should one classify an action that is >irrational, and perceived by the player as such, >but was choosen for legitimate purposes ? >eg : at the beginning of a match, a player makes >a penalty double, to "show them they'd better be >wary". However, he knows from the bidding that >his side has some contract that will earn him a >better score. In another context (Law 15C), the WBF LC has ruled that making a call with no demonstrable bridge reason is an infraction of Law 74. Therefore, if the WBF LC wishes to be consistent, it would also rule that Alain's irrational penalty double was an infraction of Law 74. However, what about a partnership agreement to play an irrational system? A few years ago, a survey of top American experts revealed that they believed that the best bidding innovation of the last 50 years was the negative double. My irrational partnership agreement is to play a system which uses the obsolete penalty double of overcalls, in part to "show them they'd better be wary". Can my system be an infraction of Law 74? Best wishes Richard From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Apr 7 08:52:35 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 09:52:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: > > > > > What is involved here is that the LC as far as I know > > never has expressed an opinion which comes even > > close to an interpretation that a player only may ask > > about the meaning of a call if his choice to be made > > depends on the answer. And if an NBO or an AC > > applies L73F2 in that direction they make a mistake. > > > +=+ We must not be so arrogant as to tell the Appeals > Committee that its bridge judgements are mistaken. +=+ Using words as 'arrogant' mostly are used when the case itself isn't strong enough to bear its weight. > > > > 'unnecessary' is not in the laws, so should not be > > a consideration. 'Deceptive' is in the laws, but not > > in a statement as yours above. As you have noticed > > before I don't support this opinion. A question should > > not be asked if the purpose is to mislead opponents, > > because then there was no bridge technical reason > > and furthermore the player asking did do so hoping > > to get advantage. That is what L 73F2 is about. > > > +=+ It is for the Appeals Committee to judge what > may be considered capable of deceiving. That > question is not for the Laws Committee which should > confine itself to interpreting the meaning of the words > of the laws, not their application to cases. That dear Grattan is what I am trying to do without much enthusiasm from your side. I am talking about interpretation of the laws and my understanding is that nowhere in the laws an interpretation saying that a player may only ask for the meaning of a call when his action depends on the answer can be justified. On the contrary such interpretation is infringing the laws on more than one issue. Since 1991 > the minutes show that members of the WBFLC have > pointed several times to the requirement that we must > not trespass into the areas for which other bodies are > responsible. This is true but not relevant. I agree with it, though. > Your statement about Law 73F2 is inaccurate. We both know what L73F2 does say and we better repeat what is said there. > The question is not whether the purpose of the > question was to mislead opponent or to obtain > technical advantage; the judgement, which is a bridge > judgement ultimately in the hands of the Appeals > Committee not the Laws Committee, is whether a > false inference was drawn from a question for which > the enquirer had no demonstrable bridge reason. Over > many years WBF and EBL Appeals Committees have > ruled consistently that a question asked when the > enquirer has no interest in the answer at the time is a > question asked without demonstrable bridge reason, For that statement I would like to have more examples to support it. Your case appeal 7 in the CofP examples doesn't support your statement, it was kind of an advise and certainly not used to rule against the questioner. Furthermore it is my strong believe that AC do not have the authority to make such interpretation of the laws, because that is what they do. Or may be I should be more precise, because as more often, your statement is such that everybody can do with it what he wants. It is not unreasonable to say that a question where the enquirer has no interest in the answer is a question asked without demonstrable bridge reason. Kind of semantics that is. Such statement only gets a meaning when we succeed in defining 'no interest in the answer'. And the general approach in the laws is and should be that a participant is interested in such answer per definition. That is wat we have to discuss. For the moment, and call it arrogant if you want, my impression is that we have one of your hobby horses on the track. I offer you the possibility to extend its life till our next LC meeting, where we need to interpret our laws to get from AC's decisons within the framework we construct. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Apr 7 09:23:46 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 10:23:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: > In another context (Law 15C), the WBF LC has > ruled that making a call with no demonstrable > bridge reason is an infraction of Law 74. > > Therefore, if the WBF LC wishes to be consistent, > it would also rule that Alain's irrational penalty > double was an infraction of Law 74. I am not sure this to be a serious discussion. But there seems to be a misunderstanding I would like to draw your attention for. We distinct 'normal' from something else, which I do not call 'irrational' anymore. And when estimating whether something is 'normal' or not we distinct between the present and past at one side and the future at the other. Let us say that a player in 99% of the cases does normal things and in 1% exceeds this normal domain. So once in every 100 cases we notice a player doing something we would not have considered to be normal had we had the chance to predict the action. (if you want to make it once in thousand OK). In other words: the use of the word 'normal' does only make sense for predictions and not for things that already happened. When a player claims and doesn't announce a trump left with opponents, it is not good reasoning to say that such player forgets a trump only once in a hundred cases so of course he knew almost for sure there was still a trump out. No, this player might well have announced to have entered this one case in a hundred, keeping the statistics up. (I must be careful, I am not announcing to join the David Burn camp concerning claims) So I agree with the statement that a call once chosen should not be considered not normal or illogical. That consideration is not valid anymore, the call being made. We allow a player not to make an illogical call in the future, but we know that all of us have made illogical calls in the past. What the LC did in relation to L15C and L74 is the following, and now we enter the formally spoken non existing area of the law of coincidence. In L15C we are in a position where we might predict a call, covering 99,9% of the possibities. And 10 seconds later a call is made which belongs to the 0,01%. That is remarkable. Now we do not accept that the player considered this to be a normal choice. ton From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 7 08:41:44 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 08:41:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) References: Message-ID: <000001c2fce4$58d21060$b004893e@pc> As an experiment a couple of years ago, I re-scored a club 15 table arrow-switched mitchell, as butler, cross-imp and match points. Whilst a few of the placings did change, the overall results were very similar. lnb > It has been argued that there is a higher luck > factor in Butler pairs than matchpoint pairs. In > matchpoint pairs a top for each board is fixed, > allowing easy recovery from one unlucky result. > In Butler pairs a "top" (imp gain from the datum) > is variable, so bad luck may be harder to recoup. > > Is the length of the ACT Open Trials - 154 boards > - sufficient to render negligible the inherent > randomness of the Butler format? > > Best wishes > > Richard From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Mon Apr 7 10:31:39 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:31:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) References: Message-ID: <002601c2fce8$7fa7a2a0$15284451@Default> Richard: > It has been argued that there is a higher luck > factor in Butler pairs than matchpoint pairs. In > matchpoint pairs a top for each board is fixed, > allowing easy recovery from one unlucky result. > In Butler pairs a "top" (imp gain from the datum) > is variable, so bad luck may be harder to recoup. Leave out the 'argued'. Butler is the form of scoring where the luck factor is the most significant. Making a small partscore or going one down n.v. is about 4 imp. A vulnerable slam or game on a finesse or so tends to be around 20 imps or more (comparing the difference between making and going down). So butler gets decided on the big boards. You cannot win a butler without luck on the big boards (these include opps selecting you rather than someone else for their -800 or -670). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 5:20 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) > > >What is described here is the most common type > >of event used in Norway for any pair's tournament > >where (preferably) all pairs meet. > > [snip] > > >The Norwegian championship for pairs is played > >with 41 tables; I am today and tomorrow directing > >our regional championship with 20 tables (playing > >117 boards over 39 rounds). No problem! > > > >Sven > > The barometer Howell movement is suitable for > Butler pairs also. Next weekend I will be playing > in the ACT* Open Trials, six tables, 11 rounds of > 14-board matches. > > It has been argued that there is a higher luck > factor in Butler pairs than matchpoint pairs. In > matchpoint pairs a top for each board is fixed, > allowing easy recovery from one unlucky result. > In Butler pairs a "top" (imp gain from the datum) > is variable, so bad luck may be harder to recoup. > > Is the length of the ACT Open Trials - 154 boards > - sufficient to render negligible the inherent > randomness of the Butler format? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > *ACT = Australian Capital Territory = Canberra > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Apr 7 10:49:56 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 21:49:56 +1200 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c2fceb$0f8fed80$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Monday, 7 April 2003 3:20 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) > > > > >What is described here is the most common type > >of event used in Norway for any pair's tournament > >where (preferably) all pairs meet. > > [snip] > > >The Norwegian championship for pairs is played > >with 41 tables; I am today and tomorrow directing > >our regional championship with 20 tables (playing > >117 boards over 39 rounds). No problem! > > > >Sven > > The barometer Howell movement is suitable for > Butler pairs also. Next weekend I will be playing > in the ACT* Open Trials, six tables, 11 rounds of > 14-board matches. > > It has been argued that there is a higher luck > factor in Butler pairs than matchpoint pairs. In > matchpoint pairs a top for each board is fixed, > allowing easy recovery from one unlucky result. > In Butler pairs a "top" (imp gain from the datum) > is variable, so bad luck may be harder to recoup. > > Is the length of the ACT Open Trials - 154 boards > - sufficient to render negligible the inherent > randomness of the Butler format? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > *ACT = Australian Capital Territory = Canberra Sometime in the past I calculated by sample that the standard deviation of IMPs won (or lost) on a board was around 6 IMPs. I just repeated the calculation from the closest set of results I could find and on a sample of 64 boards the value was 5.86469038. I imagine this will be similar whether the scores are from head to head teams or butler. Assuming a value of six IMPs then the standard deviation over 154 boards would be sqrt(154*6^2) = 74.5 Whether 154 overcomes the inherent randomness depends on the relative ability of the players. I calculate that the better team would win with these probabilities based on the expected difference in skill measured in IMPs per board: 0.1 0.581927837 0.2 0.660436856 0.3 0.732530363 0.4 0.795969816 0.5 0.849464498 0.6 0.892691032 0.7 0.926162799 0.8 0.950999536 0.9 0.968659809 1 0.980693166 Therefore I think that 154 boards is not enough to determine with confidence the best team from two relatively evenly matched teams. I imagine the same is true of a butler pairs. Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Apr 7 12:27:54 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 13:27:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) References: <000a01c2fceb$0f8fed80$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <3E9160BA.9050407@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >>Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au >>Sent: Monday, 7 April 2003 3:20 p.m. >>To: blml@rtflb.org >>Subject: RE: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) >> >> >> >> >>>What is described here is the most common type >>>of event used in Norway for any pair's tournament >>>where (preferably) all pairs meet. >>> >>[snip] >> >> >>>The Norwegian championship for pairs is played >>>with 41 tables; I am today and tomorrow directing >>>our regional championship with 20 tables (playing >>>117 boards over 39 rounds). No problem! >>> >>>Sven >>> >>The barometer Howell movement is suitable for >>Butler pairs also. Next weekend I will be playing >>in the ACT* Open Trials, six tables, 11 rounds of >>14-board matches. >> >>It has been argued that there is a higher luck >>factor in Butler pairs than matchpoint pairs. In >>matchpoint pairs a top for each board is fixed, >>allowing easy recovery from one unlucky result. >>In Butler pairs a "top" (imp gain from the datum) >>is variable, so bad luck may be harder to recoup. >> >>Is the length of the ACT Open Trials - 154 boards >>- sufficient to render negligible the inherent >>randomness of the Butler format? >> >>Best wishes >> >>Richard >> >>*ACT = Australian Capital Territory = Canberra >> > > Sometime in the past I calculated by sample that the > standard deviation of IMPs won (or lost) on a board > was around 6 IMPs. I just repeated the calculation > from the closest set of results I could find and > on a sample of 64 boards the value was 5.86469038. > > I imagine this will be similar whether the scores are > from head to head teams or butler. > > Assuming a value of six IMPs then the standard deviation > over 154 boards would be sqrt(154*6^2) = 74.5 > there is something wrong with this formula. > Whether 154 overcomes the inherent randomness depends on > the relative ability of the players. > > I calculate that the better team would win with these > probabilities based on the expected difference in skill > measured in IMPs per board: > > 0.1 0.581927837 > 0.2 0.660436856 > 0.3 0.732530363 > 0.4 0.795969816 > 0.5 0.849464498 > 0.6 0.892691032 > 0.7 0.926162799 > 0.8 0.950999536 > 0.9 0.968659809 > 1 0.980693166 > > Therefore I think that 154 boards is not enough to > determine with confidence the best team from two > relatively evenly matched teams. > That depends on what you mean by "evenly matched". You should multiply the IMPs per board by 154 and then decide that: -if the difference is a mere 15 IMPs, the chance that the better team has won is 58.19% -if the difference is 154 IMPs, the chance that it was the better team that won is 98%. Then what we need is a reverse calculation, stating that for a team to have a, say, 95% of proving they were the better team, they should beat their opponents by 123 IMPs over 154 boards, and similar number of IMPs for other number of boards. Then you can say that if the difference is not enough, more boards need to be played. Shall we add a third week to the Bermuda Bowl in order for all the matches from the QF onwards to continue until it has been statistically proven that the better team has won? > I imagine the same is true of a butler pairs. > I don't. In order for us to be certain that the best pair has won, we need to be certain they outscored each and every other pair by a statistically significant margin. That would mean that the difference with the second pair needs to be of the order of magnitude cited above. I don't think this is feasible, ever. Not with a standard deviation of 6IMPs per board it's not. And there is nothing we can do about that one. > 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 agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 13:25:44 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 14:25:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030407142330.00aad810@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:46 7/04/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Sven wrote: > > >>>A fundamental rule in the laws is that no player > >>>may object to the Director being summoned if > >>>another player wants the Director to the table. > >Richard wrote: > > >>I cannot find any such Law. > >Ed wrote: > > >Perhaps it would have been better had Sven said > >that "it is a fundamental principle of the laws > >that when a director may be needed, no player may > >object to another player calling him". > >Richard writes: > >There is a difference between, "when a director >*may* be needed" and "when a director *is* needed". > >For other issues, it has been argued that actions >are extraneous and possibly illegal when not >specifically allowed by the Laws. One could argue >that summoning the TD in circumstances extraneous >to Law 9 or Law 16A, is automatically an etiquette >infraction of Law 74A2. AG : i don't like this. If I call the TD, without telling my tablemates why I do it, and ask him "would you please ask table X to keep quiet ?", I feel I don't breach anything. However, attention has not been drawn to anything (perhaps I'm the only one to be disturbed by the noise). From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 13:32:04 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 14:32:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030407142747.00aaac50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:23 7/04/2003 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > In another context (Law 15C), the WBF LC has > > ruled that making a call with no demonstrable > > bridge reason is an infraction of Law 74. > > > > Therefore, if the WBF LC wishes to be consistent, > > it would also rule that Alain's irrational penalty > > double was an infraction of Law 74. > > >I am not sure this to be a serious discussion. AG : while agreeing with your distinction hereunder, which is very instructive, I guarantee you I'm serious. I want to prove by way of "reasoning by pushing to the limits" (a classical way of checking scientific statements) that the laws that mention "no bridge reason" shouldn't be applied blindly. >But there seems to be a misunderstanding I would like to draw your attention >for. > >We distinct 'normal' from something else, which I do not call 'irrational' >anymore. >And when estimating whether something is 'normal' or not we distinct between >the present and past at one side and the future at the other. >Let us say that a player in 99% of the cases does normal things and in 1% >exceeds this normal domain. So once in every 100 cases we notice a player >doing something we would not have considered to be normal had we had the >chance to predict the action. (if you want to make it once in thousand OK). >In other words: the use of the word 'normal' does only make sense for >predictions and not for things that already happened. >When a player claims and doesn't announce a trump left with opponents, it is >not good reasoning to say that such player forgets a trump only once in a >hundred cases so of course he knew almost for sure there was still a trump >out. No, this player might well have announced to have entered this one case >in a hundred, keeping the statistics up. (I must be careful, I am not >announcing to join the David Burn camp concerning claims) > >So I agree with the statement that a call once chosen should not be >considered not normal or illogical. That consideration is not valid anymore, >the call being made. > >We allow a player not to make an illogical call in the future, but we know >that all of us have made illogical calls in the past. > > >What the LC did in relation to L15C and L74 is the following, and now we >enter the formally spoken non existing area of the law of coincidence. > >In L15C we are in a position where we might predict a call, covering 99,9% >of the possibities. And 10 seconds later a call is made which belongs to >the 0,01%. That is remarkable. Now we do not accept that the player >considered this to be a normal choice. > >ton > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Apr 7 13:33:47 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 14:33:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: AG: > > > In another context (Law 15C), the WBF LC has > > > ruled that making a call with no demonstrable > > > bridge reason is an infraction of Law 74. > > > > > > Therefore, if the WBF LC wishes to be consistent, > > > it would also rule that Alain's irrational penalty > > > double was an infraction of Law 74. > > ton: > >I am not sure this to be a serious discussion. > > AG : while agreeing with your distinction hereunder, which is very > instructive, I guarantee you I'm serious. I want to prove by way > of "reasoning by pushing to the limits" (a classical way of > checking > scientific statements) that the laws that mention "no bridge reason" > shouldn't be applied blindly. I resist the remark that blindly following something doesn't seem a good idea ever and is only possible if 'something' is making a lot of noise. So I admire your efforts and do hope Grattan is reading it also. ton From john@asimere.com Mon Apr 7 14:20:33 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:20:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Kooijman, A. writes > >> In another context (Law 15C), the WBF LC has >> ruled that making a call with no demonstrable >> bridge reason is an infraction of Law 74. >> >> Therefore, if the WBF LC wishes to be consistent, >> it would also rule that Alain's irrational penalty >> double was an infraction of Law 74. > > snip > >In L15C we are in a position where we might predict a call, covering 99,9% >of the possibities. And 10 seconds later a call is made which belongs to >the 0,01%. That is remarkable. Now we do not accept that the player >considered this to be a normal choice. > I find this explanation extremely clear. So we're saying that after: 1S (normal minimum opener), slow 3S (limit), we can rule 6S (when it makes) back. cheers john >ton > -- 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 Apr 7 14:28:44 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:28:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1qbsmGBM0Xk+EwUe@asimere.com> In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >>What is described here is the most common type >>of event used in Norway for any pair's tournament >>where (preferably) all pairs meet. > >[snip] > >>The Norwegian championship for pairs is played >>with 41 tables; I am today and tomorrow directing >>our regional championship with 20 tables (playing >>117 boards over 39 rounds). No problem! >> >>Sven > >The barometer Howell movement is suitable for >Butler pairs also. Next weekend I will be playing >in the ACT* Open Trials, six tables, 11 rounds of >14-board matches. > >It has been argued that there is a higher luck >factor in Butler pairs than matchpoint pairs. In >matchpoint pairs a top for each board is fixed, >allowing easy recovery from one unlucky result. >In Butler pairs a "top" (imp gain from the datum) >is variable, so bad luck may be harder to recoup. > >Is the length of the ACT Open Trials - 154 boards >- sufficient to render negligible the inherent >randomness of the Butler format? The only suggestions I have are to look for Manning's articles on the subject. You may recall that I've posted here before that, in practice, there is little difference between Butler and X-imps. Manning produced arguments which suggested frequency of win, by relative strength of team expressed in imps, for length of match. >From this data, when I was reading it, I formed an opinion that 24 board matches are chicken shoots, 32 board matches have some reliability, and 48 board matches normally run to form. I also think that it doesn't really matter if your 154 boards are played against one pair or 11 pairs, so my gut feel is that the result should have some, probably quite good, correlation with actual form. cheers john > >Best wishes > >Richard > >*ACT = Australian Capital Territory = Canberra > > >_______________________________________________ >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 agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 15:11:28 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:11:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030407161058.00ab14f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:33 7/04/2003 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: > >AG: > > > > In another context (Law 15C), the WBF LC has > > > > ruled that making a call with no demonstrable > > > > bridge reason is an infraction of Law 74. > > > > > > > > Therefore, if the WBF LC wishes to be consistent, > > > > it would also rule that Alain's irrational penalty > > > > double was an infraction of Law 74. > > > > >ton: > > > > >I am not sure this to be a serious discussion. > > > > > > > AG : while agreeing with your distinction hereunder, which is very > > instructive, I guarantee you I'm serious. I want to prove by way > > of "reasoning by pushing to the limits" (a classical way of > > checking > > scientific statements) that the laws that mention "no bridge reason" > > shouldn't be applied blindly. > > > >I resist the remark that blindly following something doesn't seem a good >idea ever and is only possible if 'something' is making a lot of noise. AG : like a piper, perhaps ? From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Apr 7 15:05:39 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:05:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active ethics Message-ID: > >> In another context (Law 15C), the WBF LC has > >> ruled that making a call with no demonstrable > >> bridge reason is an infraction of Law 74. > >> > >> Therefore, if the WBF LC wishes to be consistent, > >> it would also rule that Alain's irrational penalty > >> double was an infraction of Law 74. > > > > ton: > >In L15C we are in a position where we might predict a call, > covering 99,9% > >of the possibities. And 10 seconds later a call is made > which belongs to > >the 0,01%. That is remarkable. Now we do not accept that the player > >considered this to be a normal choice. > > > I find this explanation extremely clear. So we're saying no: You are saying that. I was talking about L 15C where a player took his cards from a wrong board and opponent made a call already. that after: > > 1S (normal minimum opener), slow 3S (limit), we can rule 6S (when it > makes) back. cheers john in this case we have to follow the laws as usual, asking was that call suggested and was there a logical alternative. it is not impossible that this leads to not allowing 6S but that is not obvious. ton From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Apr 7 16:25:44 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:25:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) Message-ID: <200304071525.LAA23344@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Wayne Burrows" > Sometime in the past I calculated by sample that the > standard deviation of IMPs won (or lost) on a board > was around 6 IMPs. I just repeated the calculation > from the closest set of results I could find and > on a sample of 64 boards the value was 5.86469038. Jeff Goldsmith got something very similar (square root of 35, if memory serves). > I imagine this will be similar whether the scores are > from head to head teams or butler. It should be similar for _each comparison_ of a cross-imp pairs. The standard deviation will be larger for Butler because scoring against a datum exaggerates the swings on bimodal boards. How to translate this to multiple pairs isn't entirely clear to me. There will be one component of luck that is irreduceable: you bid game on a finesse, and it either makes or doesn't. There will be another component from what happens at "the other table." This component will decrease as the square root of the number of comparisons. I suppose the simplest thing is to ascribe half of the variance to each component. (Maybe one of the real mathematicians can tell us whether this is correct.) In Richard's case, there are five comparisons, so the variance will be (17.5 + 17.5/5 = 21 IMP^2) or standard deviation about 4.6 IMP/board. If this is correct, the standard deviation over 154 boards should be around 57 IMPs. If pair A is 0.5 IMP/board better than pair B -- a substantial skill advantage -- after 154 boards there is about a 9% chance pair B will be ahead. If the skill avantage is a whole IMP -- about the difference between Flight A and Flight B -- pair B has only an 0.3% chance. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Apr 7 17:31:45 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:31:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) References: <000001c2fce4$58d21060$b004893e@pc> Message-ID: <000601c2fd23$2f9e9580$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Larry Bennett" > As an experiment a couple of years ago, I re-scored a club > 15 table arrow-switched mitchell, as butler, cross-imp and > match points. > Whilst a few of the placings did change, the overall results > were very similar. > But those who should have placed higher with the better IMP method (X-imps) would not consider the Butler results to be "similar." We have seen the same comment in regard to many fairness-related conditions of contest: across-the-field matchpointing, seeding in matchpoint pair events, arrow switching to balance Mitchell fields, 26 boards vs 28-36 boards in play, etc. None of them affects the overall ranking much, but all of them increase the fairness of a competition. Why not be as fair as possible? Butler throws out perfectly good scores, averages the rest as if the IMP-scale were linear, which it isn't, and compares each score with a datum that may or may not include that score. X-imps compare each score with the result at every other table, with no averaging and no discarding of scores. Butler is a relic of manual scoring days, and should be put in the dustbin if a computer program is available to do X-imps. The ACBL's national IMP-Pair championship is now scored by X-imps, while for some unknown reason Butler is still used for its regionally-rated events. It's hard to get people to change. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Pile little on little, and soon you will have a big pile (Ovid?) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 7 21:26:16 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:26:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Dummy and card left face up In-Reply-To: <200304050227.VAA15806@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 4/4/03, Steve Willner wrote: >I seem to recall some rule to the effect that no one should lead while >a card of the previous trick is still face up. Could it be an ACBL >regulation, or is it in the Laws somewhere? Not in the laws anywhere I can see, and I don't recall an ACBL regulation to that effect. > >On a side note: > >>However, I see nothing in L74 (or any other law) which allows redress >>for damage caused by infractions of L74 (have I missed something?) > >L12A1. Ah, of course. Thanks. From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Apr 7 20:41:36 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:41:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: [blml]Law 41D - was Law 13 In-Reply-To: <004b01c2fb47$a55d9a60$d031e150@endicott> References: <200304050254.VAA16122@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <009901c2fb22$e94b9620$973c23d9@pbncomputer> <004b01c2fb47$a55d9a60$d031e150@endicott> Message-ID: >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"A truant disposition" {'Hamlet'] >============================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Burn" >To: >Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 4:24 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Law 13 > > >> >> ...someone asked me this evening whether it was >> legal to put dummy down with the cards in suits, >> but with the highest card in a suit nearest declarer. >> Any views? >> >+=+ I think there is no law against it but that it >can be a subject of regulation. ~ G ~ +=+ Law 41D says "..., the cards in order of rank, ..." but does not say from top down or from bottom up. One of my frequent opponents does it with the higher cards on top of the lower cards and nearer declarer, (I suspect) to annoy everyone. (Or am I even more paranoid than usual here?) REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 8 07:36:51 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 07:36:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) References: Message-ID: <000b01c2fd99$6dc759c0$aaf8193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: ; "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 8:52 AM Subject: RE: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) > > > > > > +=+ It is for the Appeals Committee to judge what > > may be considered capable of deceiving. That > > question is not for the Laws Committee which should > > confine itself to interpreting the meaning of the words > > of the laws, not their application to cases. > > > That dear Grattan is what I am trying to do without > much enthusiasm from your side. I am talking about >interpretation of the laws and my understanding is > that nowhere in the laws an interpretation saying that a > player may only ask for the meaning of a call when > his action depends on the answer can be justified. On > the contrary such interpretation is infringing > the laws on more than one issue. > +=+ We must leave it there, but you fail to comment on the specific view of the WBF and EBL appeals committees that to ask a question when you have no demonstrable *bridge* reason for it, no interest in the answer, is capable of misleading an opponent who, if damaged by the inference he draws from the fact that the question is asked, is entitled to redress under Law 73F2. It is true, I think, that the WBFLC has not commented on this to my knowledge since 73F2 was written, but one may suppose that the committee has found no problem in it - and indeed as someone has said, Edgar in fact quoted an example where the situation would arise. Regards, ~ Grattan.~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 7 21:33:03 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:33:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: On 4/4/03, Steve Willner wrote: >They knew perfectly well they were headed for a >zero I hate assertions like this. First, it may or may not be true, second, it seems to imply that the pair acted in concert - which is a serious offense. I don't remember for certain, but I think EW were named "experienced players" or some such. OK, that increases the likelyhood they knew they were headed for a bottom. Aside from all that, it seems to me you're accusing *somebody* (E, W, or both) of deliberately cheating. Do you really have enough evidence to make that accusation? From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Mon Apr 7 22:22:01 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 23:22:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) References: <000001c2fce4$58d21060$b004893e@pc> <000601c2fd23$2f9e9580$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001101c2fd4b$c2626cc0$e4334451@Default> Marvin, > The ACBL's national IMP-Pair championship is now scored by X-imps, while for > some unknown reason Butler is still used for its regionally-rated events. > It's hard to get people to change. Of course you are right. From a fairness perspective it is ridiculous to play Butler rather than X-imps. Butler makes the expensive random luck boards (50% or so vulnerable games and slams) even more expensive and so even more decisive for the final results. X-imps is much better for these type of boards. Plus Butler produces lots of random 3-4 imp swings because the datum is very often a non existing score and those first couple of imps on the scale go very quickly. X-imps is much better on this as well because you only compare against real results. > None of them affects the overall ranking much, but all > of them increase the fairness of a competition. Why not be as fair as > possible? Of course you are right. Not a big surprise it doesn't affect the ranking much (if it would something would be very wrong) but it does affect the ranking. And so we should use the best method possible. > It's hard to get people to change. True. And you are still trying ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 6:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) > > From: "Larry Bennett" > > > As an experiment a couple of years ago, I re-scored a club > > 15 table arrow-switched mitchell, as butler, cross-imp and > > match points. > > Whilst a few of the placings did change, the overall results > > were very similar. > > > But those who should have placed higher with the better IMP method (X-imps) > would not consider the Butler results to be "similar." > > We have seen the same comment in regard to many fairness-related conditions > of contest: across-the-field matchpointing, seeding in matchpoint pair > events, arrow switching to balance Mitchell fields, 26 boards vs 28-36 > boards in play, etc. None of them affects the overall ranking much, but al l > of them increase the fairness of a competition. Why not be as fair as > possible? > > Butler throws out perfectly good scores, averages the rest as if the > IMP-scale were linear, which it isn't, and compares each score with a datum > that may or may not include that score. X-imps compare each score with the > result at every other table, with no averaging and no discarding of scores. > Butler is a relic of manual scoring days, and should be put in the dustbin > if a computer program is available to do X-imps. > > The ACBL's national IMP-Pair championship is now scored by X-imps, while for > some unknown reason Butler is still used for its regionally-rated events. > It's hard to get people to change. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > Pile little on little, and soon you will have a big pile (Ovid?) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Apr 8 00:13:45 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 00:13:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 13 References: Message-ID: <002c01c2fd5b$56f2d000$973c23d9@pbncomputer> > >....someone asked me this evening whether it was legal to put dummy > >down with the cards in suits, but with the highest card in a suit > >nearest declarer. Any views? > "Cards in order of rank" [L41D] doesn't specify top down or bottom up, > so it's legal - but it would confuse the hell out of most people. That > might make for a violation of L74A2. :-) Be careful. Law 1 says that the cards rank downwards from the ace to the two. It says nothing about how the cards might rank upwards. David Burn London, England From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 7 21:54:56 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:54:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Jeopardy of Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/7/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >One could argue that summoning the TD in circumstances extraneous to >Law 9 or Law 16A, is automatically an etiquette infraction of Law >74A2. 75D. There may be others. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 7 23:49:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 08:49:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) Message-ID: Marv wrote: [snip] >Why not be as fair as possible? > >Butler throws out perfectly good scores, averages >the rest as if the IMP-scale were linear, which it >isn't, and compares each score with a datum that >may or may not include that score. X-imps compare >each score with the result at every other table, >with no averaging and no discarding of scores. [snip] There are two issues here. Firstly, as John (MadDog) Probst's decades-long records show, Butler scoring (where the datum is struck from all scores) leads to remarkably similar results to cross-imps. Secondly, is throwing out extreme scores before striking a datum "unfair"? A contrary argument is that it is "fair" that a random result at one table should not hugely affect innocent bystanders sitting the wrong way at other tables. In one ABF 6-table event, a compromise scoring method is used; cross-imps, but comparisons only against the middle three scores (no comparisons against the best and worst of other results). Best wishes Richard From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 7 21:52:29 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:52:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/7/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >"A player is not entitled, during the auction and >play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation >or technique. However, sponsoring organisations may >designate unusual methods and allow written defences >against opponents' unusual methods to be referred to >at the table." It occurs to me that "A is not entitled to B" is not equivalent to "B is prohibited". Perhaps another entry for Grattan's notebook - which must be filled to bursting by now. :) From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Apr 8 08:24:31 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 09:24:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) Message-ID: > > > > > > > > +=+ It is for the Appeals Committee to judge what > > > may be considered capable of deceiving. That > > > question is not for the Laws Committee which should > > > confine itself to interpreting the meaning of the words > > > of the laws, not their application to cases. > > > > > > That dear Grattan is what I am trying to do without > > much enthusiasm from your side. I am talking about > >interpretation of the laws and my understanding is > > that nowhere in the laws an interpretation saying that a > > player may only ask for the meaning of a call when > > his action depends on the answer can be justified. On > > the contrary such interpretation is infringing > > the laws on more than one issue. > > > +=+ We must leave it there, but you fail to comment on > the specific view of the WBF and EBL appeals committees This really is going too far. I have expressed my doubts about the existence of such views. You gave me one example (appeal 7) which doesn't support your statement. I have said that a general statement saying that 'no demonstrable bridge reason' needs interpretation before we are able to understand it, since it is my view that trying to understand what is going on during the auction could be considered a demonstrable bridge reason, and is considered as such by myself. I could have said that 73F2 needs more than that, only if the player asking such question could have known etc..... that law is applicable. And to be honest I have never thought about the possibility to confuse opponents by asking about a call they made. They normally succeed in confusing me by the answer they give. And I have given the most convincing reply (in my opinion) by saying that such interpretation is infringing the laws because it creates UI transported in every question asked. You tell me that AC with great authority have given an interpretation that a question only may be asked if it creates UI. (they didn't use those words but this summary is logically inevitable). And how did you reply? Naming some famous people, repeating that this was really a general view, trying to say that the LC is not involved (sic), not giving real evidence, not reacting content wise on any of my arguments. It seems impossible to make any progress, but don't blame me for that. Monte Carlo it has to be. > - and indeed as > someone has said, Edgar in fact quoted an example where > the situation would arise. > Regards, ~ Grattan.~ +=+ Is this the example where declarer asks about a lead? That is a complete other story, and should not be used to support your view about the restriction in questioning calls during the auction. No bridge reason, an obvious could have known case, no UI (I said that before, but didn't get any reaction). Still waiting for real examples. A normal '13 in a dozen' question by somebody with 4 points (4 jacks; 4333), a declarer claiming to be misled by the question and an AC giving redress. No EBU case please. ton From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Apr 8 08:41:34 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 09:41:34 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC9511E2@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> > >....someone asked me this evening whether it was legal to put dummy > >down with the cards in suits, but with the highest card in a suit > >nearest declarer. Any views? > "Cards in order of rank" [L41D] doesn't specify top down or bottom up, > so it's legal - but it would confuse the hell out of most people. That > might make for a violation of L74A2. :-) Be careful. Law 1 says that the cards rank downwards from the ace to the two. It says nothing about how the cards might rank upwards. ------ In the norwegian law book, which to my knowledge is a very good translation from the english version, L41D is in fact wrongly translated. It says: "... the cards in descending order of rank...". I agree with David.=20 Harald Skjaeran Oslo, Norway ------ David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ 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 agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 8 09:20:42 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 10:20:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) In-Reply-To: <001101c2fd4b$c2626cc0$e4334451@Default> References: <000001c2fce4$58d21060$b004893e@pc> <000601c2fd23$2f9e9580$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030408101914.00ac13a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:22 7/04/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Marvin, > > > The ACBL's national IMP-Pair championship is now scored by X-imps, while >for > > some unknown reason Butler is still used for its regionally-rated events. > > It's hard to get people to change. > >Of course you are right. From a fairness perspective it is ridiculous to >play Butler rather than X-imps. Butler makes the expensive random luck >boards (50% or so vulnerable games and slams) even more expensive and so >even more decisive for the final results. X-imps is much better for these >type of boards. Plus Butler produces lots of random 3-4 imp swings because >the datum is very often a non existing score and those first couple of imps >on the scale go very quickly. X-imps is much better on this as well because >you only compare against real results. > > > None of them affects the overall ranking much, but all > > of them increase the fairness of a competition. Why not be as fair as > > possible? > >Of course you are right. Not a big surprise it doesn't affect the ranking >much (if it would something would be very wrong) but it does affect the >ranking. And so we should use the best method possible. > > > It's hard to get people to change. > >True. And you are still trying ? AG : the teacher's motto : "fais ce que dois, advienne que pourra" (do your duty and come what may) From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Apr 8 08:56:37 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 09:56:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: > > > >....someone asked me this evening whether it was legal to put dummy > > >down with the cards in suits, but with the highest card in a suit > > >nearest declarer. Any views? Be careful. Law 1 says that the cards rank downwards from the > ace to the > two. It says nothing about how the cards might rank upwards. > > ------ > In the norwegian law book, which to my knowledge is a very > good translation > from the english version, L41D is in fact wrongly translated. > It says: "... > the cards in descending order of rank...". > I agree with David On what? ton > Harald Skjaeran > Oslo, Norway > ------ > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no. > > 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 > ************************************************************** > ************ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Apr 8 09:12:46 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:12:46 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC9511F0@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> >=20 > > >....someone asked me this evening whether it was legal to put dummy > > >down with the cards in suits, but with the highest card in a suit > > >nearest declarer. Any views? Be careful. Law 1 says that the cards rank downwards from the=20 > ace to the > two. It says nothing about how the cards might rank upwards. >=20 > ------ > In the norwegian law book, which to my knowledge is a very=20 > good translation > from the english version, L41D is in fact wrongly translated.=20 > It says: "... > the cards in descending order of rank...". > I agree with David On what? ---- That the laws define how the cards in a suit ranks downwards. And that you = might argue that it's illegal to put down dummy the way you described in the original p= osting. (As it by accident? is in Norway.) Harald ---- ton =20 > Harald Skjaeran > Oslo, Norway > ------ >=20 > David Burn > London, England >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 > ********************************************************************** > This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. >=20 > Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports > ********************************************************************** >=20 >=20 >=20 > ************************************************************** > ************ > 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 >=20 > Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no >=20 > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been > swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. >=20 > Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports > ************************************************************** > ************ >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 ************************************************************************** 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 jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Tue Apr 8 09:13:49 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:13:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) References: Message-ID: <002701c2fda7$33663fe0$292b4451@Default> Richard: > There are two issues here. Firstly, as John > (MadDog) Probst's decades-long records show, Butler > scoring (where the datum is struck from all scores) > leads to remarkably similar results to cross-imps. This is a terrible argument. Of course if you win a Butler you are likely to win after a rescore on X-imps or the other way around. Big deal. But then you might not. So the form of scoring is important and the best should be used. > Secondly, is throwing out extreme scores before > striking a datum "unfair"? A contrary argument is > that it is "fair" that a random result at one table > should not hugely affect innocent bystanders sitting > the wrong way at other tables. Another terrible argument. First a random result at one table doesn't hugely affect other tables if there is more then a few tables in the tournament (and if not you don't throw out scores anyway). Second, very often a couple of big scores one way represent the reality that on this board a certain overcall or preempt or whatever might procuce such a result. If in teams I do or don't do a certain risky overcall or preempt I know afterwards if I might win or lose a lot of imps if the other table takes the other view. Playing Butler this changes to me always winning or losing some imps because the datum will always reflect whether it was right or wrong to go for it because there are always some others that do if I don't or the other way round. Anyway, if you really have hard feelings about those extremes you can also throw them out in X-imps. But you don't adress the real problem of Butler, all those random imps because the datum is very often a non existing score and given the structure of the imp-table this has terrible effects. And Butler amplifies the results on those big random luck boards like slams on a finesse and those don't average out over a session or tournament. In X-imps at least you still have a lot of ties so it leads to more realistic results. No the only argument in favor of a Butler is that it gives an easy datum which is easy to distribute. For X-imps you need frequencies to communicate with the participants and those take more paper to print. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 12:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) > > Marv wrote: > > [snip] > > >Why not be as fair as possible? > > > >Butler throws out perfectly good scores, averages > >the rest as if the IMP-scale were linear, which it > >isn't, and compares each score with a datum that > >may or may not include that score. X-imps compare > >each score with the result at every other table, > >with no averaging and no discarding of scores. > > [snip] > > There are two issues here. Firstly, as John > (MadDog) Probst's decades-long records show, Butler > scoring (where the datum is struck from all scores) > leads to remarkably similar results to cross-imps. > > Secondly, is throwing out extreme scores before > striking a datum "unfair"? A contrary argument is > that it is "fair" that a random result at one table > should not hugely affect innocent bystanders sitting > the wrong way at other tables. > > In one ABF 6-table event, a compromise scoring method > is used; cross-imps, but comparisons only against the > middle three scores (no comparisons against the best > and worst of other results). > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Tue Apr 8 09:24:30 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:24:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) References: Message-ID: <003401c2fda8$4a00e1a0$292b4451@Default> Richard: > There are two issues here. Firstly, as John > (MadDog) Probst's decades-long records show, Butler > scoring (where the datum is struck from all scores) > leads to remarkably similar results to cross-imps. This is a terrible argument. Of course if you win a Butler you are likely to win after a rescore on X-imps or the other way around. Big deal. But then you might not. So the form of scoring is important and the best should be used. > Secondly, is throwing out extreme scores before > striking a datum "unfair"? A contrary argument is > that it is "fair" that a random result at one table > should not hugely affect innocent bystanders sitting > the wrong way at other tables. Another terrible argument. First a random result at one table doesn't hugely affect other tables if there is more then a few tables in the tournament (and if not you don't throw out scores anyway). Second, very often a couple of big scores one way represent the reality that on this board a certain overcall or preempt or whatever might procuce such a result. If in teams I do or don't do a certain risky overcall or preempt I know afterwards if I might win or lose a lot of imps if the other table takes the other view. Playing Butler this changes to me always winning or losing some imps because the datum will always reflect whether it was right or wrong to go for it because there are always some others that do if I don't or the other way round. Anyway, if you really have hard feelings about those extremes you can also throw them out in X-imps as you suggest yourself. I am not sure this is fair. If one EW do something silly I understand the feeling to protect the other tables. But now suppose one NS are the only ones to bid a good slam. Now you protect those other pairs against their own mistake not to bid the slam. Now what is fair about that ? But you don't adress the real problem of Butler, all those random imps because the datum is very often a non existing score and given the structure of the imp-table this has terrible effects. And Butler amplifies the results on those big random luck boards like slams on a finesse and those don't average out over a session or tournament. In X-imps at least you still have a lot of ties so it leads to more realistic results. No the only argument in favor of a Butler is that it gives an easy datum which is easy to distribute. For X-imps you need frequencies to communicate with the participants and those take more paper to print. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 12:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) > > Marv wrote: > > [snip] > > >Why not be as fair as possible? > > > >Butler throws out perfectly good scores, averages > >the rest as if the IMP-scale were linear, which it > >isn't, and compares each score with a datum that > >may or may not include that score. X-imps compare > >each score with the result at every other table, > >with no averaging and no discarding of scores. > > [snip] > > There are two issues here. Firstly, as John > (MadDog) Probst's decades-long records show, Butler > scoring (where the datum is struck from all scores) > leads to remarkably similar results to cross-imps. > > Secondly, is throwing out extreme scores before > striking a datum "unfair"? A contrary argument is > that it is "fair" that a random result at one table > should not hugely affect innocent bystanders sitting > the wrong way at other tables. > > In one ABF 6-table event, a compromise scoring method > is used; cross-imps, but comparisons only against the > middle three scores (no comparisons against the best > and worst of other results). > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Apr 8 09:33:42 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 10:33:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: David: > > Be careful. Law 1 says that the cards rank downwards from the > > ace to the > > two. It says nothing about how the cards might rank upwards. > > > > ------ > > In the norwegian law book, which to my knowledge is a very > > good translation > > from the english version, L41D is in fact wrongly translated. > > It says: "... > > the cards in descending order of rank...". > > I agree with David > > > On what? > ---- > That the laws define how the cards in a suit ranks downwards. > And that you might argue > that it's illegal to put down dummy the way you described in > the original posting. I don't see that. By describing the order downwards and knowing the word upwards people are allowed to think and draw some conclusions. We apparently need more than just the word 'order' to describe a ranking: downwards, for example; which seems to say that there might be more than one order. After defining the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3 etc and telling that 1 + 1 equals 2 we leave it to those capable to find out what 17 + 29 is. The fact that this answer isn't given doesn't mean that is doesn't exist. ton (As it > by accident? is in Norway.) > > Harald > ---- > > ton > > > > > > > Harald Skjaeran > > Oslo, Norway > > ------ > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no. > > > > 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 > > ************************************************************** > > ************ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > ************************************************************** > ************ > 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 > please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no. > > 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 > ************************************************************** > ************ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From fox@appl.sci-nnov.ru Tue Apr 8 10:05:24 2003 From: fox@appl.sci-nnov.ru (Sergei Litvak) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:05:24 +0400 Subject: [blml] Claim Case References: <002c01c2fd5b$56f2d000$973c23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <002401c2fdad$ff4867e0$bbf07ac3@oemcomputer> Club tournament. Declarer plays spade contract. 6 cards left. Declares hand s xxx d Axx. One trump is still on the table and no more diamonds there One of the defenders has Jx in diamonds and no more spades. Other defender no has neither spades nor diamonds. Declarer (on lead) open his hand claiming the rest with no additional statement. Declarer is not an expert, but a high-level player. Would TD give him all the tricks? Sergei Litvak. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Apr 8 10:46:38 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:46:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim Case In-Reply-To: <002401c2fdad$ff4867e0$bbf07ac3@oemcomputer> Message-ID: On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 10:05 AM, Sergei Litvak wrote: > Club tournament. > Declarer plays spade contract. 6 cards left. > Declares hand s xxx d Axx. One trump is still on the table and no more > diamonds there > One of the defenders has Jx in diamonds and no more spades. Other > defender > no has neither spades nor diamonds. > Declarer (on lead) open his hand claiming the rest with no additional > statement. > Declarer is not an expert, but a high-level player. > Would TD give him all the tricks? > > Sergei Litvak. > I would. There are three ways to make fewer than six tricks: to trump the DA; to duck a round of diamonds when it could be trumped in hand or before cashing the DA; to draw an extra round of trumps. None of these seems to be a normal play as currently understood. The hand really plays itself once we know that declarer has made no suggestion that there might be trumps outstanding. If someone who hadn't even been at the table until this moment were to try to make all the rest of the tricks they would get it right. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Apr 8 11:39:24 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:39:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Claim Case Message-ID: <6669520.1049798364252.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Sergei wrote: >Club tournament. >Declarer plays spade contract. 6 cards left. >Declarer's hand s xxx d Axx. One trump is still on the table and no more diamonds there. >One of the defenders has Jx in diamonds and no more spades. Other defender has neither spades nor diamonds. >Declarer (on lead) open his hand claiming the rest with no additional statement. >Declarer is not an expert, but a high-level player. >Would TD give him all the tricks? Of course he would. All the tricks, an extra sixty matchpoints for speeding up the game to the inestimable benefit of mankind, and his daughter's hand in marriage. But if declarer has said nothing, why should he know that he has to ruff a diamond? Why should he not believe that all his diamonds are winners? Even Herman might not give him all the tricks in this position: x xxx None xx None AK Jx AK xxx None Axx None because the play of DA and another, discarding from dummy, is careless but not in the least irrational (if you believe that all the diamonds are good). If West had the diamonds, though, Herman would allow declarer to play ace and a diamond, see the jack, and ruff it, thus making all the tricks after all. Under proper rules, of course, declarer loses the last two tricks by ruffing the ace of diamonds, ruffing a card back to hand, cashing his spades and playing a diamond (and if declarer thinks that the diamonds are good, this is entirely rational play - people do it all the time to show off). Once this declarer has lost two tricks in this position a couple of times, he will learn to murmur "I will ruff a low diamond in dummy, ruff a heart, and lay down DA" the next time he claims. What would it cost him to do this, after all? Or, as Eric thinks, he will give up the game, which would be a great deal better off without him in any case. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 8 12:40:07 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 13:40:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case In-Reply-To: References: <002401c2fdad$ff4867e0$bbf07ac3@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030408133453.00ac32b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:46 8/04/2003 +0100, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 10:05 AM, Sergei Litvak wrote: > >>Club tournament. >>Declarer plays spade contract. 6 cards left. >>Declares hand s xxx d Axx. One trump is still on the table and no more >>diamonds there >>One of the defenders has Jx in diamonds and no more spades. Other defender >>no has neither spades nor diamonds. >>Declarer (on lead) open his hand claiming the rest with no additional >>statement. >>Declarer is not an expert, but a high-level player. >>Would TD give him all the tricks? >> >>Sergei Litvak. > >I would. There are three ways to make fewer than six tricks: to trump the >DA; to duck a round of diamonds when it could be trumped in hand or before >cashing the DA; to draw an extra round of trumps. None of these seems to >be a normal play as currently understood. > >The hand really plays itself once we know that declarer has made no >suggestion that there might be trumps outstanding. If someone who hadn't >even been at the table until this moment were to try to make all the rest >of the tricks they would get it right. AG : I would distinguish 2 cases : a) LHO has Jx of diamonds. Then, on seeing the Jack appear at the second round of the suit, declarer would obviously trump it. To do otherwise would be irrational. b) RHO has Jx in diamonds. Then, declarer could have miscounted them and believe there is no need to trump the second round. This is especially true if declarer's are A65 and RHO's J8. Then RHO plays the Jack on the 1st round, and declarer could think the 6 is good. This would be negligent, but not irrational (thousands of experts have miscounted hands before). Allow 1 trick to RHO. All this assumes that declarer won't play one more round of trump. I'm not sure this assumption should be made, but former posts have mentionned that one may not pull more trumps if not specified. This should cut both ways. Best regards, Alain. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Apr 8 12:39:15 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 13:39:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case Message-ID: > > AG : I would distinguish 2 cases : > > a) LHO has Jx of diamonds. Then, on seeing the Jack appear at > the second > round of the suit, declarer would obviously trump it. To do > otherwise would > be irrational. > b) RHO has Jx in diamonds. Then, declarer could have > miscounted them and > believe there is no need to trump the second round. This is > especially true > if declarer's are A65 and RHO's J8. Then RHO plays the Jack > on the 1st > round, and declarer could think the 6 is good. This would be > negligent, but > not irrational (thousands of experts have miscounted hands > before). Allow 1 > trick to RHO. > > All this assumes that declarer won't play one more round of > trump. I'm not > sure this assumption should be made, but former posts have > mentionned that > one may not pull more trumps if not specified. This should > cut both ways. What a pityful remark, it can't be more wrong. One may not if doing it is helpful and one has to if not doing so is helpful. And then the exceptions arrive. The other remarks I feel easier to support. It all leads to the conclusion that no non-David solution can be given without knowing how the play went up untill the moment of the claim and without the exact holding in the four hands. ton > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Apr 8 13:16:05 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 08:16:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Claim Case In-Reply-To: <002401c2fdad$ff4867e0$bbf07ac3@oemcomputer> References: <002c01c2fd5b$56f2d000$973c23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030408080422.02c22bd0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:05 AM 4/8/03, Sergei wrote: >Club tournament. >Declarer plays spade contract. 6 cards left. >Declares hand s xxx d Axx. One trump is still on the table and no more >diamonds there >One of the defenders has Jx in diamonds and no more spades. Other defender >no has neither spades nor diamonds. >Declarer (on lead) open his hand claiming the rest with no additional >statement. >Declarer is not an expert, but a high-level player. >Would TD give him all the tricks? It depends. Declarer might get four, five or six tricks. (a) Have both opponents shown out of S? (b) If not, is dummy's S x higher than any of the S x's in declarer's hand? (c) If (a), is the D Jx in front of dummy rather than behind it? Only if (a) and (c) does declarer get all the tricks. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Apr 8 13:20:31 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 14:20:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) References: <002701c2fda7$33663fe0$292b4451@Default> Message-ID: <3E92BE8F.6080304@skynet.be> It seems to me that I owe it to Jaap to also write when he is completely right: Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Richard: > >>There are two issues here. Firstly, as John >>(MadDog) Probst's decades-long records show, Butler >>scoring (where the datum is struck from all scores) >>leads to remarkably similar results to cross-imps. >> > > This is a terrible argument. Of course if you win a Butler you are likely to > win after a rescore on X-imps or the other way around. Big deal. But then > you might not. So the form of scoring is important and the best should be > used. > Exactly. Even if the difference between two methods is only important in rare cases, we owe it to those rare cases to pick the best method. Unless there is some other cost that is too high to warrant the rare occurence of it becoming important. > >>Secondly, is throwing out extreme scores before >>striking a datum "unfair"? A contrary argument is >>that it is "fair" that a random result at one table >>should not hugely affect innocent bystanders sitting >>the wrong way at other tables. >> > > Another terrible argument. First a random result at one table doesn't hugely > affect other tables if there is more then a few tables in the tournament > (and if not you don't throw out scores anyway). Second, very often a couple > of big scores one way represent the reality that on this board a certain > overcall or preempt or whatever might procuce such a result. If in teams I > do or don't do a certain risky overcall or preempt I know afterwards if I > might win or lose a lot of imps if the other table takes the other view. > Playing Butler this changes to me always winning or losing some imps because > the datum will always reflect whether it was right or wrong to go for it > because there are always some others that do if I don't or the other way > round. Anyway, if you really have hard feelings about those extremes you can > also throw them out in X-imps. > Exactly. The fact that they happen means that they could have happened. By throwing them out you are not rewarding people when they don't actually happen. Play more tables if you need to, but don't throw out results. (BTW I _do_ throw out results in my version of Butler - force of habit and tradition there). > But you don't adress the real problem of Butler, all those random imps > because the datum is very often a non existing score and given the structure > of the imp-table this has terrible effects. And Butler amplifies the results > on those big random luck boards like slams on a finesse and those don't > average out over a session or tournament. In X-imps at least you still have > a lot of ties so it leads to more realistic results. > This argument is false, Jaap. We can deal with non-existant scores. But you are right that Butler introduces an extra element of randomness. If 7 tables score +430 and 6 tables score +400 then the +430 get 0 and the +400 get -1. Change one 430 to 400 and now the 430's get +1 and the 400's 0. The difference between them stays, but the difference between the NS and EW changes from 2 units to zero and back. You all know the solution: Bastille. (see my pages) > No the only argument in favor of a Butler is that it gives an easy datum > which is easy to distribute. For X-imps you need frequencies to communicate > with the participants and those take more paper to print. > Exactly. Butler is well-known and that is not to be thrown away. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Apr 8 13:27:08 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 14:27:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case References: <6669520.1049798364252.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3E92C01C.9030104@skynet.be> David demonstrates once again that he has a good grasp of the claims laws. He does not agree with them, but he does know how they currently work. dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Sergei wrote: > > >>Club tournament. >>Declarer plays spade contract. 6 cards left. >>Declarer's hand s xxx d Axx. One trump is still on the table and no more diamonds there. >>One of the defenders has Jx in diamonds and no more spades. Other defender has neither spades nor diamonds. >>Declarer (on lead) open his hand claiming the rest with no additional statement. >>Declarer is not an expert, but a high-level player. >>Would TD give him all the tricks? >> > > Of course he would. All the tricks, an extra sixty matchpoints for speeding up the game to the inestimable benefit of mankind, and his daughter's hand in marriage. > > But if declarer has said nothing, why should he know that he has to ruff a diamond? Why should he not believe that all his diamonds are winners? > Of course. We don't know if he knows the DJ is out. Can he convince the TD that he does know? Despite what David might think, I am very sceptical about this. > Even Herman might not give him all the tricks in this position: > > x > xxx > None > xx > None > AK > Jx > AK > xxx > None > Axx > None > of course I would not give those tricks. > because the play of DA and another, discarding from dummy, is careless but not in the least irrational (if you believe that all the diamonds are good). If West had the diamonds, though, Herman would allow declarer to play ace and a diamond, see the jack, and ruff it, thus making all the tricks after all. > Exactly. > Under proper rules, of course, declarer loses the last two tricks by ruffing the ace of diamonds, ruffing a card back to hand, cashing his spades and playing a diamond (and if declarer thinks that the diamonds are good, this is entirely rational play - people do it all the time to show off). We agree to disgree that these would be proper rules. > > Once this declarer has lost two tricks in this position a couple of times, he will learn to murmur "I will ruff a low diamond in dummy, ruff a heart, and lay down DA" the next time he claims. What would it cost him to do this, after all? Or, as Eric thinks, he will give up the game, which would be a great deal better off without him in any case. > Well David, what are you trying to achieve? I agree that this declarer shall lose a trick (when the jack is off-side) because we don't accept that he knew the diamonds had not all gone. That alone should suffice him to state that he will ruff a first diamond. What more do you want? Why do you insist on wanting to punish a player for a minor mistake by awarding to his opponents tricks they would never, ever have made if play had proceeded normally? > David Burn > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Apr 8 13:56:33 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:56:33 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Claim Case Message-ID: <5843772.1049806593832.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: >Under proper rules, of course, declarer loses the last two tricks Harald has pointed out to me that declarer should in fact lose three tricks, by cashing his spades (on which East discards a diamond) and then leading a low diamond. Quite right. >Well David, what are you trying to achieve? I am trying to achieve a state of affairs in which players stand or fall by their own efforts, and do not have hands played for them by directors and committees. >Why do you insist on wanting to punish a player for a minor mistake by awarding to his opponents tricks they would never, ever have made if play had proceeded normally? Oh, nonsense. If you do not think there are any more diamonds out, then you do not think there are any more diamonds out, and you will not always see a diamond when an opponent plays one. There have been many thousands of cases in which players have, for example, led towards dummy's AQ and played the queen under LHO's king. There have been thousands more in which players have "cashed" a trick and led to the next trick, only to be told that the previous trick had been ruffed, or taken by an opponent's higher card. I have done these things myself, and so have you. Now, you and I and these other people are not mad. They are not acting "irrationally". They are being, in the literal sense of the word, "careless". Because their picture of the world is wrong, they do not see the world in the same way as someone with a correct picture of the world. It is not a question of "punishment". The rules require you to state what tricks you will make and how you will make them. If you do not make any statement, the implication is that you do not care in what order you play your cards, for they will all make tricks anyway. If this is not the case, because you have a false picture of the world, then you will lose some tricks. And at least what I am trying to achieve is a state of affairs in which the number of tricks you lose does not depend on someone else's talents as bridge player and psychoanalyst, in neither of which categories most tournament directors are particularly highly rated. David Burn London, England From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Tue Apr 8 14:52:09 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:52:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case Message-ID: dalburn@btopenworld.com Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 08/04/03 14:56 =20 Pour : blml@rtflb.org cc :=20 Objet : Re: [blml] Claim Case Herman wrote: >Under proper rules, of course, declarer loses the last two tricks Harald has pointed out to me that declarer should in fact lose three=20 tricks, by cashing his spades (on which East discards a diamond) and then=20 leading a low diamond. Quite right. >Well David, what are you trying to achieve? I am trying to achieve a state of affairs in which players stand or fall=20 by their own efforts, and do not have hands played for them by directors=20 and committees. >Why do you insist on wanting to punish a player for a minor mistake by=20 awarding to his opponents tricks they would never, ever have made if play=20 had proceeded normally? Oh, nonsense. If you do not think there are any more diamonds out, then=20 you do not think there are any more diamonds out, and you will not always=20 see a diamond when an opponent plays one. There have been many thousands of cases in which players have, for=20 example, led towards dummy's AQ and played the queen under LHO's king.=20 There have been thousands more in which players have "cashed" a trick and=20 led to the next trick, only to be told that the previous trick had been=20 ruffed, or taken by an opponent's higher card. I have done these things=20 myself, and so have you.=20 Now, you and I and these other people are not mad. They are not acting=20 "irrationally". They are being, in the literal sense of the word,=20 "careless". Because their picture of the world is wrong, they do not see=20 the world in the same way as someone with a correct picture of the world. It is not a question of "punishment". The rules require you to state what=20 tricks you will make and how you will make them. If you do not make any=20 statement, the implication is that you do not care in what order you play=20 your cards, for they will all make tricks anyway. If this is not the case, = because you have a false picture of the world, then you will lose some=20 tricks. And at least what I am trying to achieve is a state of affairs in=20 which the number of tricks you lose does not depend on someone else's=20 talents as bridge player and psychoanalyst, in neither of which categories = most tournament directors are particularly highly rated. *** not so perfect as it happens it may depend on whether the director is=20 david or harald. jpr *** David Burn London, England =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 8 15:12:29 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 16:12:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030408160356.00aae720@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:39 8/04/2003 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > AG : I would distinguish 2 cases : > > > > a) LHO has Jx of diamonds. Then, on seeing the Jack appear at > > the second > > round of the suit, declarer would obviously trump it. To do > > otherwise would > > be irrational. > > b) RHO has Jx in diamonds. Then, declarer could have > > miscounted them and > > believe there is no need to trump the second round. This is > > especially true > > if declarer's are A65 and RHO's J8. Then RHO plays the Jack > > on the 1st > > round, and declarer could think the 6 is good. This would be > > negligent, but > > not irrational (thousands of experts have miscounted hands > > before). Allow 1 > > trick to RHO. > > > > All this assumes that declarer won't play one more round of > > trump. I'm not > > sure this assumption should be made, but former posts have > > mentionned that > > one may not pull more trumps if not specified. This should > > cut both ways. > > >What a pityful remark, it can't be more wrong. One may not if doing it is >helpful and one has to if not doing so is helpful. And then the exceptions >arrive. AG : you didn't understand my statement, and as often in such a case you didn't bother to be polite. Let me state it once again in detail. It has been said that, when it is of some importance, declarer is deemed not to pull trumps if he didn't state it. a) When it harms him, he has no reprieve and loses as many tricks as he would when he doesn't pull trumps, even if he afterwards states he intended tu pull them. b) But when it helps him not to pull trumps, he should be deemed not to do it, and awarded the benefits of it, and this is one of those (admittedly unfrequent) cases. Opponents would not be allowed the benefit of any line from declarer which includes pulling trumps. That's why it cuts both ways. If you dont allow for b), *then only* one would create exceptional cases . But with the rule I mentioned (never pull trumps unless specified) all "trump cases" will be settled at once : both a) and b). What can be wrong with this ? Still "pityful" ??? From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Apr 8 15:36:35 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 16:36:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case Message-ID: > > > but former posts have > > > mentionned that > > > one may not pull more trumps if not specified. This should > > > cut both ways. > > ton: > >What a pityful remark, it can't be more wrong. One may not > if doing it is > >helpful and one has to if not doing so is helpful. And then > the exceptions > >arrive. > > AG : you didn't understand my statement, and as often in such > a case you > didn't bother to be polite. I agree, but do you read something unpolite in it? > Let me state it once again in detail. > > It has been said That is not a very convincing statement, all is said in blml after all these years. that, when it is of some importance, > declarer is deemed > not to pull trumps if he didn't state it. > a) When it harms him, he has no reprieve and loses as many > tricks as he > would when he doesn't pull trumps, even if he afterwards > states he intended > tu pull them. > b) But when it helps him not to pull trumps, he should be > deemed not to do > it, This still sounds not as good as I would like to have seen it, but let me not forget that there is a possibility that I do not understand what you mean and that the main explanation for such misunderstanding is at my side. I would have expected to read (regardless of what is said before): but when it helps him not to pull trumps, he should be deemed to pull and opponents do benefit. (I am not talking about the deuce of trumps here, normally that card will not be played) and awarded the benefits of it, and this is one of those > (admittedly > unfrequent) cases. Opponents would not be allowed the benefit > of any line > from declarer which includes pulling trumps. That's why it > cuts both ways. > If you dont allow for b), *then only* one would create > exceptional cases . > But with the rule I mentioned (never pull trumps unless > specified) all > "trump cases" will be settled at once : both a) and b). > What can be wrong with this ? Still "pityful" ??? To be honest: I don't understand it, which is pityful, so 'yes' on the last question. ton > > > From kaima13@hotmail.com Tue Apr 8 16:30:35 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 08:30:35 -0700 Subject: [blml] Claim Case References: <002c01c2fd5b$56f2d000$973c23d9@pbncomputer> <002401c2fdad$ff4867e0$bbf07ac3@oemcomputer> Message-ID: > Club tournament. > Declarer plays spade contract. 6 cards left. > Declares hand s xxx d Axx. One trump is still on the table and no more > diamonds there > One of the defenders has Jx in diamonds and no more spades. Other defender > no has neither spades nor diamonds. > Declarer (on lead) open his hand claiming the rest with no additional > statement. > Declarer is not an expert, but a high-level player. > Would TD give him all the tricks? > > Sergei Litvak. K: Declarer needed to say say "I'll ruff the small diamond" to be awarded all tricks. Without any statement, he should be losing one trick, since diamonds weren't running and he shouldn't be allowed to concoct a plan after claim is contested. All tricks should not be awarded here is, IMO, because there is a line of play that can lose one. Best regards, Kaima aka D R Davis From adam@irvine.com Tue Apr 8 17:06:37 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 09:06:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] Claim Case In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Apr 2003 10:46:38 BST." Message-ID: <200304081606.JAA29732@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon wrote: > On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 10:05 AM, Sergei Litvak wrote: > > > Club tournament. > > Declarer plays spade contract. 6 cards left. > > Declares hand s xxx d Axx. One trump is still on the table and no more > > diamonds there > > One of the defenders has Jx in diamonds and no more spades. Other > > defender > > no has neither spades nor diamonds. > > Declarer (on lead) open his hand claiming the rest with no additional > > statement. > > Declarer is not an expert, but a high-level player. > > Would TD give him all the tricks? > > > > Sergei Litvak. > > > > I would. There are three ways to make fewer than six tricks: to trump > the DA; to duck a round of diamonds when it could be trumped in hand or > before cashing the DA; to draw an extra round of trumps. I can think of a fourth way: cash the DA, play another diamond and then ruff when seeing the DJ on the left, then lead a heart or club from dummy and discard a diamond from hand, thinking dummy's card is good when it's not. However, I suppose this is impossible since the original poster assumed it was unnecessary to give us any information about the hearts and clubs. -- Adam From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Apr 8 17:35:15 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 12:35:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Claim Case Message-ID: <200304081635.MAA29406@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > but when > it helps him not to pull trumps, he should be deemed to pull and opponents > do benefit. (I am not talking about the deuce of trumps here, normally that > card will not be played) Many rules are possible. It would be nice to have a simple and universal one. Alain's rule, "trumps always last," is pretty simple. David's rule, "whatever is worst for declarer," is not quite so simple but not too hard to apply. Ton's rule, "trumps always last unless it's the deuce," seems a little more complicated. I'm sure we could all manage it, though, as long as there aren't more exceptions. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Apr 8 17:43:14 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 12:43:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: <200304081643.MAA29414@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> SW> They knew perfectly well they were headed for a zero > From: Ed Reppert > I hate assertions like this. First, it may or may not be true, Oh, come on, Ed. When you let through a doubled contract, even a beginner knows what score to expect. And in any case, L72B1 doesn't say "did know," it says "could have known." Probably I should have been a little more careful in my phrasing, but in real life, it's almost certain that the pair knew how bad their result was. > second, > it seems to imply that the pair acted in concert - which is a serious > offense. Why does it imply that? How many players does it take to move a card from one pocket to the other? In any case, you have to give a score, and in this case, there's no need for the TD to concern himself with intent. The only issue is what the factual circumstances were. > Aside from all that, it seems to me you're accusing *somebody* (E, W, or > both) of deliberately cheating. Do you really have enough evidence to > make that accusation? Certainly there's not enough evidence, and I'm not making any such accusation. However, now that you mention it, it would be a good idea to report this incident to the Recorder. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Apr 8 18:42:09 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 19:42:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030408160356.00aae720@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E9309F1.3080809@skynet.be> No Alain, this is not the correct answer. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> What a pityful remark, it can't be more wrong. One may not if doing it is >> helpful and one has to if not doing so is helpful. And then the >> exceptions >> arrive. > > > AG : you didn't understand my statement, and as often in such a case you > didn't bother to be polite. > Let me state it once again in detail. > > It has been said that, when it is of some importance, declarer is deemed > not to pull trumps if he didn't state it. > a) When it harms him, he has no reprieve and loses as many tricks as he > would when he doesn't pull trumps, even if he afterwards states he > intended tu pull them. > b) But when it helps him not to pull trumps, he should be deemed not to > do it, and awarded the benefits of it, and this is one of those > (admittedly unfrequent) cases. Opponents would not be allowed the > benefit of any line from declarer which includes pulling trumps. That's > why it cuts both ways. > If you dont allow for b), *then only* one would create exceptional > cases . But with the rule I mentioned (never pull trumps unless > specified) all "trump cases" will be settled at once : both a) and b). > What can be wrong with this ? Still "pityful" ??? > Don't forget Alain, that the laws describe "normal" plays. For a player who does not know there is a trump out, it is "normal" to not play trumps first. That is not the same as saying that it is not normal to play trumps first. Ergo, your suggestion that the player is not allowed to play trumps when that is bad for him is incorrect. Both lines could well be deemed normal. However, the Tenerife AC has ruled that for a player who "knows" all trumps are out, it is not normal to play trumps. Rather, these are held to ruff the final tricks. That is the true answer (whether one believes it or not). Your answer was not correct, and Ton was right to call it pityful. Saying that one line is normal is not the same as saying that an alternate line is abnormal. Both lines can be normal and the least successful of them needs to be chosen. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john@asimere.com Tue Apr 8 18:48:01 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 18:48:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: <002c01c2fd5b$56f2d000$973c23d9@pbncomputer> References: <002c01c2fd5b$56f2d000$973c23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <2dscbvARtwk+EwGo@asimere.com> In article <002c01c2fd5b$56f2d000$973c23d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >> >....someone asked me this evening whether it was legal to put dummy >> >down with the cards in suits, but with the highest card in a suit >> >nearest declarer. Any views? > >> "Cards in order of rank" [L41D] doesn't specify top down or bottom up, >> so it's legal - but it would confuse the hell out of most people. That >> might make for a violation of L74A2. :-) > >Be careful. Law 1 says that the cards rank downwards from the ace to the >two. It says nothing about how the cards might rank upwards. > Oh No, not again. it is an axiom (or damned close to it) that if A > B > C then C < B < A. On such shaky foundations are balanced such proofs that A^n + B^n = C^n is true only for non-negative values of n < 3. >David Burn >London, England > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Tue Apr 8 19:23:15 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 20:23:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) References: <002701c2fda7$33663fe0$292b4451@Default> <3E92BE8F.6080304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001b01c2fdfb$efc244a0$c1394451@Default> Dear Herman, Thanks for supporting me for a change. But there remains some disagreement. Herman: > This argument is false, Jaap. We can deal with non-existant scores. > But you are right that Butler introduces an extra element of > randomness. If 7 tables score +430 and 6 tables score +400 then the > +430 get 0 and the +400 get -1. Change one 430 to 400 and now the > 430's get +1 and the 400's 0. The difference between them stays, but > the difference between the NS and EW changes from 2 units to zero and > back. > You all know the solution: Bastille. (see my pages) This kind of 1 imp roundings is also a problem but not the problem I was referring to. The problem of non-existing datums on bigger boards is that it always causes rather big random swings because those first 4 or 5 imps are so cheap. Or in other words (Marv said already so) the Butler computing assumes the scale is linear while it is a far cry from being linear. Take a slam on a finesse (a vuln game is almost as expensive) and half the field bids it. If you play X-imps then you tie half the field and you win or lose 13 to the other half. So this means that the finesse being right or wrong cost you 13 imps. If you play Butler the datum will always be in the middle. So I win 10 or lose 10 or so (rather than 13 and 0). Which means the 13 of X-imps gets inflated to 20. The imp-scale simply doesn't make any sense for such average scores on non partscore deals. Or in other words, playing teams you can compensate a big board with 3 good partials (which carries over to X-imps because it is multiple teams scoring). In Butler you need at least five. In real life that means that Butler gets decided on the big boards and very often on the luck on those big boards. I have played quite some serious Butler and I also know this to be true in reality. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) > It seems to me that I owe it to Jaap to also write when he is > completely right: > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Richard: > > > >>There are two issues here. Firstly, as John > >>(MadDog) Probst's decades-long records show, Butler > >>scoring (where the datum is struck from all scores) > >>leads to remarkably similar results to cross-imps. > >> > > > > This is a terrible argument. Of course if you win a Butler you are likely to > > win after a rescore on X-imps or the other way around. Big deal. But then > > you might not. So the form of scoring is important and the best should be > > used. > > > > > Exactly. Even if the difference between two methods is only important > in rare cases, we owe it to those rare cases to pick the best method. > Unless there is some other cost that is too high to warrant the rare > occurence of it becoming important. > > > > > >>Secondly, is throwing out extreme scores before > >>striking a datum "unfair"? A contrary argument is > >>that it is "fair" that a random result at one table > >>should not hugely affect innocent bystanders sitting > >>the wrong way at other tables. > >> > > > > Another terrible argument. First a random result at one table doesn't hugely > > affect other tables if there is more then a few tables in the tournament > > (and if not you don't throw out scores anyway). Second, very often a couple > > of big scores one way represent the reality that on this board a certain > > overcall or preempt or whatever might procuce such a result. If in teams I > > do or don't do a certain risky overcall or preempt I know afterwards if I > > might win or lose a lot of imps if the other table takes the other view. > > Playing Butler this changes to me always winning or losing some imps because > > the datum will always reflect whether it was right or wrong to go for it > > because there are always some others that do if I don't or the other way > > round. Anyway, if you really have hard feelings about those extremes you can > > also throw them out in X-imps. > > > > > Exactly. The fact that they happen means that they could have > happened. By throwing them out you are not rewarding people when they > don't actually happen. Play more tables if you need to, but don't > throw out results. > (BTW I _do_ throw out results in my version of Butler - force of habit > and tradition there). > > > > But you don't adress the real problem of Butler, all those random imps > > because the datum is very often a non existing score and given the structure > > of the imp-table this has terrible effects. And Butler amplifies the results > > on those big random luck boards like slams on a finesse and those don't > > average out over a session or tournament. In X-imps at least you still have > > a lot of ties so it leads to more realistic results. > > > > > This argument is false, Jaap. We can deal with non-existant scores. > But you are right that Butler introduces an extra element of > randomness. If 7 tables score +430 and 6 tables score +400 then the > +430 get 0 and the +400 get -1. Change one 430 to 400 and now the > 430's get +1 and the 400's 0. The difference between them stays, but > the difference between the NS and EW changes from 2 units to zero and > back. > You all know the solution: Bastille. (see my pages) > > > > No the only argument in favor of a Butler is that it gives an easy datum > > which is easy to distribute. For X-imps you need frequencies to communicate > > with the participants and those take more paper to print. > > > > > Exactly. Butler is well-known and that is not to be thrown away. > > > > > > > -- > 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 jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Tue Apr 8 19:49:05 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 20:49:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case References: <002c01c2fd5b$56f2d000$973c23d9@pbncomputer> <002401c2fdad$ff4867e0$bbf07ac3@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <008a01c2fdff$8da0ab00$c1394451@Default> I read all post so far and it seems to be the usual stuff. I don't agree often with Ton but here he has a point. This kind of claim is difficult to judge on just this info. Let's put it like this. At top level bridge we claim often like this if the problem of the hand has just been resolved (like the previous trick declarer cashed DK and could see the suit was not breaking worse than whatever), and the line of play (establishing diamonds by ruffing) is clear/obvious from the early play. But then those claims rarely get contested when they are logically correct. But although Ton is right he has a tendency himself to give endings without context and I have critized him a lot about that in the past. This one is like turning the tables. What about a new 'rule' on BLML. Claim problems should be presented with 52 cards, the bidding, the early play and a serious indication of the level of all 4 players. Some might not agree about that last piece of info but claiming reality is so different between low-level and high-level that you simply cannot ignore it. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 11:05 AM Subject: [blml] Claim Case > Club tournament. > Declarer plays spade contract. 6 cards left. > Declares hand s xxx d Axx. One trump is still on the table and no more > diamonds there > One of the defenders has Jx in diamonds and no more spades. Other defender > no has neither spades nor diamonds. > Declarer (on lead) open his hand claiming the rest with no additional > statement. > Declarer is not an expert, but a high-level player. > Would TD give him all the tricks? > > Sergei Litvak. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Apr 8 21:03:32 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:03:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) References: <003401c2fda8$4a00e1a0$292b4451@Default> Message-ID: <000a01c2fe09$f0b8d140$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Jaap van der Neut" > Anyway, if you really have hard feelings about those extremes you can > also throw them out in X-imps as you suggest yourself. I am not sure this is > fair. If one EW do something silly I understand the feeling to protect the > other tables. But now suppose one NS are the only ones to bid a good slam. > Now you protect those other pairs against their own mistake not to bid the > slam. Now what is fair about that ? > And no one would suggest throwing out a few top scores in a big matchpoint game, and/or matchpointing everyone against a "datum." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 8 21:23:54 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 22:23:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 13 In-Reply-To: <2dscbvARtwk+EwGo@asimere.com> Message-ID: <000801c2fe0c$c6a21990$6900a8c0@WINXP> > John (MadDog) Probst .......... > Oh No, not again. it is an axiom (or damned close to it) that if A > B > > C then C < B < A. On such shaky foundations are balanced such proofs > that A^n + B^n = C^n is true only for non-negative values of n < 3. And that isn't even a correct statement! However: Had you just included in the statement the condition that A, B, C and N all are integers different from zero . . . . . . . . . . Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Apr 8 21:24:07 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:24:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) References: <000001c2fce4$58d21060$b004893e@pc> <000601c2fd23$2f9e9580$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030408101914.00ac13a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001201c2fe0c$cff381a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >Marvin, > > > > > The ACBL's national IMP-Pair championship is now scored by X-imps, while > > > for some unknown reason Butler is still used for its regionally-rated events. > > > It's hard to get people to change. > >True. And you are still trying ? > Oh yes. I had success in my campaign to get X-imp scoring for the annual NABC+ IIMP-Pair championship, and in getting the ACBL to resurrect the Web movement, which does away with the need for bad Mitchells (e.g., 35 top, 26 boards in play, instead of 25 top, 36 boards in play, for two 18-table sections). One step at a time, John Probst advised me. But the steps have been very slow. Future campaigns:: -- X-imp scoring for all ACBL IMP-Pair events -- Matchpointing across at least two sections in all regionally-rated pair events at NABCs. Not done now -- At the very minimum, switch the direction of only half the pairs in a two-session Mitchell. Arrow switching is not understood here. -- Neuberging of multi-site events and two-session games when there are different tops. Currently done only for boards in a single-site game that have different tops. -- No crossovers due to reseeding in the second day of a six-session event. Keep the two fields separate when you have carryovers. -- Qualify separately pairs from groups that are matchpointed separately. E.g., two five-section fields, qualify half from each field. -- Get a Swiss Pair event into an NABC. Does anyone have comments on these, or suggestions for other campaigns? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Apr 8 21:37:25 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:37:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b References: Message-ID: <002901c2fe0e$ab695740$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard HIlls wrote: > >"A player is not entitled, during the auction and > >play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation > >or technique. However, sponsoring organisations may > >designate unusual methods and allow written defences > >against opponents' unusual methods to be referred to > >at the table." > Yes, only strong players are permitted to have memory aids for defending against actions that may confuse them. Weak players are not allowed to have aids for that purpose.. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Apr 8 21:41:00 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:41:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] Claim Case References: <002c01c2fd5b$56f2d000$973c23d9@pbncomputer> <002401c2fdad$ff4867e0$bbf07ac3@oemcomputer> <008a01c2fdff$8da0ab00$c1394451@Default> Message-ID: <003101c2fe0f$2bacbaa0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Jaap van der Neut" > > What about a new 'rule' on BLML. Claim problems should be presented with 52 > cards, the bidding, the early play and a serious indication of the level of > all 4 players. Some might not agree about that last piece of info but > claiming reality is so different between low-level and high-level that you > simply cannot ignore it. I would change that to "serious indication of the level of the event," avoiding judgments that may be too subjective. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 8 21:55:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 22:55:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b In-Reply-To: <002901c2fe0e$ab695740$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000901c2fe11$30c85650$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French > Richard HIlls wrote: >=20 >=20 > > >"A player is not entitled, during the auction and > > >play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation > > >or technique. However, sponsoring organisations may > > >designate unusual methods and allow written defences > > >against opponents' unusual methods to be referred to > > >at the table." > > > Yes, only strong players are permitted to have memory aids for = defending > against actions that may confuse them. >=20 > Weak players are not allowed to have aids for that purpose.. What on earth is this supposed to mean? Is there any SO in the world that has issued such a regulation that the = aide is available to strong players only? The regulation in Norway is that any pair using HUM must have an = approved defense system against their methods available for their opponents who = may consult this defense system at any time during the auction and play. Our regulations say nothing about the opponents being strong or weak. Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 8 08:15:02 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 08:15:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics References: Message-ID: <014c01c2fe14$c5b6fca0$3af8193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Active ethics > , Kooijman, A. writes > > snip > > > >In L15C we are in a position where we might predict a call, covering 99,9% > >of the possibities. And 10 seconds later a call is made which belongs to > >the 0,01%. That is remarkable. Now we do not accept that the player > >considered this to be a normal choice. > > > I find this explanation extremely clear. So we're saying that after: > > 1S (normal minimum opener), slow 3S (limit), we can rule 6S (when it > makes) back. cheers john > +=+ Are we referring here to the October 2001 view that when a player is introduced to a table in place of a wrongly seated player (Law 15C) it is not appropriate for him to make a call designed, by its excess, to ensure that the board shall be cancelled? The committee said that there should be no attempt to judge the intent of the player but that on the basis simply that he judges there is no demonstrable bridge reason for the call the Director may resort to Law 74A2. It is for the Director (and the Appeals Committee) to make the bridge judgement whether the circumstances are such in the case that you propose, Law 15C having been applied, but the WBFLC did not extend its decision to non-15C situations. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 8 22:19:30 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 22:19:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) References: Message-ID: <014d01c2fe14$c6913000$3af8193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "'grandeval'" ; "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 8:24 AM Subject: RE: [blml] EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2) > > > > +=+ We must leave it there, but you fail to comment on > > the specific view of the WBF and EBL appeals committees > > > This really is going too far. > I have expressed my doubts about the existence of such views. > ton > +=+ Very politely written. In reply the courtesy of silence. +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 9 05:38:13 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:38:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 1 Message-ID: David Burn: >>Be careful. Law 1 says that the cards rank downwards >>from the ace to the two. It says nothing about how >>the cards might rank upwards. John (MadDog) Probst: >Oh No, not again. it is an axiom (or damned close to >it) that if A > B > C then C < B < A. On such shaky >foundations are balanced such proofs that A^n + B^n = >C^n is true only for non-negative values of n < 3. Richard Hills: So if Team A beats Team B, and Team B beats Team C, it is illegal for Team C to beat Team A? Therefore, I prefer to use a dictionary definition of "rank" in determining how cards rank upwards; I would rule that the cards should be arranged from the least rancid to the most rancid. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 9 07:15:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 16:15:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Footnote to Law 40E2 Message-ID: >From the "Law 43A1b" thread, Law 40E2 footnote quoted: >>>...However, sponsoring organisations may >>>designate unusual methods and allow written >>>defences against opponents' unusual methods >>>to be referred to at the table. Marv commented: >>Yes, only strong players are permitted to >>have memory aids for defending against actions >>that may confuse them. >> >>Weak players are not allowed to have aids for >>that purpose.. Sven asked >What on earth is this supposed to mean? > >Is there any SO in the world that has issued >such a regulation that the aide is available to >strong players only? I think what Marv is saying, is that as a practical matter only strong players bother to create written defences. The ACBL tried to help weaker players by offering semi-official defences on its website. The ACBL provided printouts of those defences at at least one ACBL event. However, at that ACBL event some years ago, the semi-official ACBL defences caused problems, because a) the recommended defences were not optimum; and b) the printouts provided by the ACBL had defective formatting. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 9 07:26:18 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 08:26:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b References: <000901c2fe11$30c85650$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E93BD0A.2030702@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Yes, only strong players are permitted to have memory aids for defending >>against actions that may confuse them. >> >>Weak players are not allowed to have aids for that purpose.. >> > > What on earth is this supposed to mean? > > Is there any SO in the world that has issued such a regulation that the aide > is available to strong players only? > > The regulation in Norway is that any pair using HUM must have an approved > defense system against their methods available for their opponents who may > consult this defense system at any time during the auction and play. Our > regulations say nothing about the opponents being strong or weak. > What Marv was alluding to was that only at high level tournaments opponents are able to use HUM's, so this regulation is only available to world class players. A beginner who enters his first club tournament is faced with systems that are far stranger to him than HUMs to an international, yet no regulations are ever formulated to cope with that inequality. Not agreeing or disagreeing here, just paraphrasing Marv. And agreeing, actually. > 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Apr 9 07:34:21 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 07:34:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 1 - mephitic order References: Message-ID: <001401c2fe62$86b42c00$cd5b87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 5:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 1 > > Therefore, I prefer to use a dictionary definition of > "rank" in determining how cards rank upwards; I would > rule that the cards should be arranged from the least > rancid to the most rancid. > +=+" O! My offence is rank, it smells to heaven." +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 9 07:50:32 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 08:50:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) References: <002701c2fda7$33663fe0$292b4451@Default> <3E92BE8F.6080304@skynet.be> <001b01c2fdfb$efc244a0$c1394451@Default> Message-ID: <3E93C2B8.8000608@skynet.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Dear Herman, > > Thanks for supporting me for a change. Jaap, you must know I have nothing against you personally, just against some of your views. I'm sure we'll be on the same side of some fences (and quite lonely) on some other arguments. But there remains some disagreement. > Not really disagreement - what you write below is not what I understood in your previous post. Let's see: > Herman: > >>This argument is false, Jaap. We can deal with non-existant scores. >>But you are right that Butler introduces an extra element of >>randomness. If 7 tables score +430 and 6 tables score +400 then the >>+430 get 0 and the +400 get -1. Change one 430 to 400 and now the >>430's get +1 and the 400's 0. The difference between them stays, but >>the difference between the NS and EW changes from 2 units to zero and >>back. >>You all know the solution: Bastille. (see my pages) >> > > > This kind of 1 imp roundings is also a problem but not the problem I was > referring to. The problem of non-existing datums on bigger boards is that it > always causes rather big random swings because those first 4 or 5 imps are > so cheap. Or in other words (Marv said already so) the Butler computing > assumes the scale is linear while it is a far cry from being linear. Take a > slam on a finesse (a vuln game is almost as expensive) and half the field > bids it. If you play X-imps then you tie half the field and you win or lose > 13 to the other half. So this means that the finesse being right or wrong > cost you 13 imps. If you play Butler the datum will always be in the middle. > So I win 10 or lose 10 or so (rather than 13 and 0). Which means the 13 of > X-imps > gets inflated to 20. The imp-scale simply doesn't make any sense for such > average scores on non partscore deals. Or in other words, playing teams you > can compensate a big board with 3 good partials (which carries over to > X-imps because it is multiple teams scoring). In Butler you need at least > five. In real life that means that Butler gets decided on the big boards and > very often on the luck on those big boards. I have played quite some serious > Butler and I also know this to be true in reality. > Indeed a small problem with Butler. A vulnerable slam swing of 750 (13 IMPs) gets translated by Butler into two swings, of total also 750. Depending on how these are distributed, the total IMPs become: 375 (9) + 375 (9) = 18 360 (8) + 390 (9) = 17 320 (8) + 430 (10) = 18 310 (7) + 440 (10) = 17 260 (6) + 490 (10) = 16 250 (6) + 500 (11) = 17 210 (5) + 540 (11) = 16 160 (4) + 590 (11) = 15 150 (4) + 600 (12) = 16 120 (3) + 630 (12) = 15 80 (2) + 670 (12) = 14 40 (1) + 710 (12) = 13 10 (0) + 740 (12) = 12 0 (0) + 750 (13) = 13 -20 (-1) + 770 (13) = 12 even on to -140 (-4) + 890 (13) = 9 On average indeed a bit more than the 13 expected. Which means that when we use Butler to try and figure out which of the pairs contributed most to the team result, we should find that the sum of their contributions exceeds their team result. True. So? The real test for Butler comes when we see whether or not the decisions made at the table differ according to the scoring method. In Butler, is it slightly more interesting to go for an overtrick than in teams? Say you are playing 4Sp. Should you risk going down in order to make an overtrick? Depends on the chances. At teams, there are two possibilities: Either your opponents are also in 4Sp. If you go for the overtrick (and they don't), you score +1 if it makes and -10 (nvul) if it does not. So you need a 91% certainty before attempting the overtrick. Or they are not in 4Sp (but in 3Sp). If you go for the overtrick you score +7 or -5, if you don't, it's +7 or +6 (more or less). Here too, you need a 91% certainty before going for the overtrick pays off. At Butler, all depends from the average: If the average is around +420, the overtrick brings +1 or costs -10. If the average is around -50, the same applies If the average is around +180, then the overtrick usually brings +1, but going down swings you around from +6 to -6. That last bit is the important one. With Butler calculation, players should be even more prudent. Now on the whole I don't think the differences are very big. They are certainly a lot smaller than between Teams and Pairs. Which brings me to the same conclusion - don't change Butler into XImps when doing so would cost you in player's questions and incertitude. Keep them with something they know. > Jaap > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Apr 9 07:55:43 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 08:55:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case Message-ID: > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > but when > > it helps him not to pull trumps, he should be deemed to > pull and opponents > > do benefit. (I am not talking about the deuce of trumps > here, normally that > > card will not be played) > > Many rules are possible. It would be nice to have a simple and > universal one. > > Alain's rule, "trumps always last," is pretty simple. > > David's rule, "whatever is worst for declarer," is not quite so simple > but not too hard to apply. > > Ton's rule, "trumps always last unless it's the deuce," seems a little > more complicated. I'm sure we could all manage it, though, as long as > there aren't more exceptions. > no, no, no, that isn't my rule. My rule is that we have to assume declarer doing the worst within the range of normal. (and mentioning the deuce was to show an example of not normal play) Therewith I follow the laws, not only abiding them but also because my ideas about the laws are more positive than most of you think about them. ton From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Apr 9 08:10:39 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 00:10:39 -0700 Subject: [blml] Footnote to Law 40E2 References: Message-ID: <006c01c2fe67$219821a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > From the "Law 43A1b" thread, Law 40E2 footnote > quoted: > > >>>...However, sponsoring organisations may > >>>designate unusual methods and allow written > >>>defences against opponents' unusual methods > >>>to be referred to at the table. > > Marv commented: > > >>Yes, only strong players are permitted to > >>have memory aids for defending against actions > >>that may confuse them. > >> > >>Weak players are not allowed to have aids for > >>that purpose.. > > Sven asked > > >What on earth is this supposed to mean? > > > >Is there any SO in the world that has issued > >such a regulation that the aide is available to > >strong players only? > > I think what Marv is saying, is that as a > practical matter only strong players bother to > create written defences. > > The ACBL tried to help weaker players by offering > semi-official defences on its website. The ACBL > provided printouts of those defences at at least > one ACBL event. However, at that ACBL event some > years ago, the semi-official ACBL defences caused > problems, because > > a) the recommended defences were not optimum; and > > b) the printouts provided by the ACBL had > defective formatting. > Well, what I really meant, tongue in cheek, is that less experienced players for whom non-standard bidding systems are HUMs are not allowed to consult written defenses against them. They can't even seek help from their own convention card! Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Apr 9 08:12:48 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 09:12:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case Message-ID: > > > However, the Tenerife AC has ruled that for a player who "knows" all > trumps are out, it is not normal to play trumps. Rather, these are > held to ruff the final tricks. I have a well meant advise for AC's. Let me start saying that for many years, up till in the '90 in the conditions of contest for European Championships we could read the sentence that the AC in Oslo (David knows what year that must have been, somewhere in the '60 I assume) had decided so and so. Something quite obscure or irrelevant or the only reasonable interpretation of the laws, whatever. We apparently needed to be aware of that 30 years later. Such approach doesn't help to keep AC's modest, what is more exciting than to be mentioned even 30 years later. Try to resist the challenge, that is my advise. Concentrate on the case itself and then for example say that drawing trumps in that case can't be considered to be normal play, etc. etc. The advantage is that it prevents AC's from making less accurate remarks by generalising. Even I once or twice in my bridgelife have continued to play trumps knowing that all outstanding trumps were gone. Pressure, squeezes, signals, all of them stupid reasons of course and I shouldn't have done it, but out of the range of normal? ton From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 9 08:35:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 09:35:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Footnote to Law 40E2 In-Reply-To: <006c01c2fe67$219821a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c2fe6a$99234850$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French=20 > Richard Hills wrote: > > Marv commented: > > >>Yes, only strong players are permitted to > > >>have memory aids for defending against actions > > >>that may confuse them. > > >> > > >>Weak players are not allowed to have aids for > > >>that purpose.. > > > > Sven asked > > > > >What on earth is this supposed to mean? > > > > > >Is there any SO in the world that has issued > > >such a regulation that the aide is available to > > >strong players only? > > > > I think what Marv is saying, is that as a > > practical matter only strong players bother to > > create written defences. > > > > The ACBL tried to help weaker players by offering > > semi-official defences on its website. The ACBL > > provided printouts of those defences at at least > > one ACBL event. However, at that ACBL event some > > years ago, the semi-official ACBL defences caused > > problems, because > > > > a) the recommended defences were not optimum; and > > > > b) the printouts provided by the ACBL had > > defective formatting. > > > Well, what I really meant, tongue in cheek, is that less experienced > players for whom non-standard bidding systems are HUMs are not allowed = to > consult written defenses against them. They can't even seek help from > their own convention card! I feel confused! 1: HUM is HUM - with very specific criteria. (There is no such thing as = "HUM just for less experienced players". If you argue that less experienced players may not make use of aids against NON-HUM systems with which they = are unfamiliar that is of course correct. But you should not mix the term = HUM into that discussion) 2: "ACBL tried to" ??????? Are we so special in Norway? The Norwegian federation has not "tried to = do" any such thing, it has simply established a requirement for anybody = wanting to use HUM: *They* must provide a defense system, this defense system = must be approved and it shall be available to opponents at all times during auction and play. (There are other limitations enforced upon HUM pairs = as well, but those are of little interest in this thread). Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Apr 9 08:27:22 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 09:27:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 1 Message-ID: > John (MadDog) Probst: > > >Oh No, not again. it is an axiom (or damned close to > >it) that if A > B > C then C < B < A. On such shaky > >foundations are balanced such proofs that A^n + B^n = > >C^n is true only for non-negative values of n < 3. within a complete non-issue you refer to a very interesting mathematical problem, which was marvellously solved by a countryman of yours some years ago after centuries of trying. But I think that the proof was given that there is no n > 2 for which this is true. Take for example a=6, b=3, c=2 and n= -1. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Apr 9 08:31:13 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 09:31:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: > > > John (MadDog) Probst > .......... > > Oh No, not again. it is an axiom (or damned close to it) > that if A > B > > > C then C < B < A. On such shaky foundations are balanced such proofs > > that A^n + B^n = C^n is true only for non-negative values of n < 3. > > And that isn't even a correct statement! > > However: Had you just included in the statement the condition > that A, B, C > and N all are integers different from zero . . . . . . . . . . and even that isn't a correct statement ! Nice example of how difficult it is to make correct statements. anxiously waiting for the message that my previous one isn't either. ton From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 9 08:54:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 09:54:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1b In-Reply-To: <3E93BD0A.2030702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c2fe6d$504e14e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > >>Yes, only strong players are permitted to have memory aids for = defending > >>against actions that may confuse them. > >> > >>Weak players are not allowed to have aids for that purpose.. > >> > > > > What on earth is this supposed to mean? > > > > Is there any SO in the world that has issued such a regulation that = the > aide > > is available to strong players only? ......... > What Marv was alluding to was that only at high level tournaments > opponents are able to use HUM's, so this regulation is only available > to world class players. If you had said that this regulation is only applicable to tournaments = where HUM is permitted then I would have agreed wholeheartedly! (That are of course the only tournaments where anybody may face HUM) But that is not what you say, nor what Marv said. And I do not enjoy the mind reading qualities needed to know what either of you meant, sorry. > A beginner who enters his first club tournament is faced with systems > that are far stranger to him than HUMs to an international, yet no > regulations are ever formulated to cope with that inequality. Are you sure? Do you know this? May I inform you that our "beginners" in Norway receive a special = convention card when they attend an authorized beginners' course, this card is = dated and signed and is valid for one year (or two years - I don't exactly remember which and I don't bother to look it up - the exact period is irrelevant here). During that period the beginner is permitted to consult his CC at any = time during auction and play, exactly as if his opponents had been using HUM. = On the standard course convention card the beginners find defenses against quite a few non-HUM conventions. Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 9 09:10:44 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 10:10:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c2fe6f$84d0da20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Kooijman, A.=20 > > John (MadDog) Probst: > > > > >Oh No, not again. it is an axiom (or damned close to > > >it) that if A > B > C then C < B < A. On such shaky > > >foundations are balanced such proofs that A^n + B^n =3D > > >C^n is true only for non-negative values of n < 3. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > within a complete non-issue you refer to a very interesting = mathematical > problem, which was marvellously solved by a countryman of yours some = years > ago after centuries of trying. >=20 > But I think that the proof was given that there is no n > 2 for which = this > is true. It pays to be exact when dealing with mathematical statements: Fermat's last theorem stated that there are no non-trivial solutions to = the equation a^n + b^n =3D c^n where a, b and c are integers and n is a = positive integer greater that 2. ("Trivial" solutions would of course include all cases with a, b or c equal to zero). The proof was finally completed on October 25th 1994 Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 9 10:10:32 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 11:10:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case References: Message-ID: <3E93E388.7010602@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: >> >>However, the Tenerife AC has ruled that for a player who "knows" all >>trumps are out, it is not normal to play trumps. Rather, these are >>held to ruff the final tricks. >> > > > > I have a well meant advise for AC's. > > Let me start saying that for many years, up till in the '90 in the > conditions of contest for European Championships we could read the sentence > that the AC in Oslo (David knows what year that must have been, somewhere in > the '60 I assume) had decided so and so. Something quite obscure or > irrelevant or the only reasonable interpretation of the laws, whatever. We > apparently needed to be aware of that 30 years later. > Such approach doesn't help to keep AC's modest, what is more exciting than > to be mentioned even 30 years later. Try to resist the challenge, that is my > advise. Point well taken. I don't know if I'd talk as much about Tenerife if I hadn't been there. Probably not. But you have to admit that it is a case where there can be said a lot about ruling in either direction. It is a borderline case. And I do agree with posters that say that more guidance is required. As such, Tenerife is a piece of guidance. And of course it is worth only that. People need to read Tenerife, form an opinion as to the circumstances there, and apply similar judgment on the different circumstances that they shall meet in their own back yard. > Concentrate on the case itself and then for example say that drawing trumps > in that case can't be considered to be normal play, etc. etc. > In that case, it could not. > The advantage is that it prevents AC's from making less accurate remarks by > generalising. Even I once or twice in my bridgelife have continued to play > trumps knowing that all outstanding trumps were gone. Pressure, squeezes, > signals, all of them stupid reasons of course and I shouldn't have done it, > but out of the range of normal? > Exactly. Judge every case on its merits. But read other cases in order for the general line to be consistant. > > ton > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 9 10:29:51 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 11:29:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030409112402.02cc3720@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:38 9/04/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >Oh No, not again. it is an axiom (or damned close to > >it) that if A > B > C then C < B < A. On such shaky > >foundations are balanced such proofs that A^n + B^n = > >C^n is true only for non-negative values of n < 3. > >Richard Hills: > >So if Team A beats Team B, and Team B beats Team C, it >is illegal for Team C to beat Team A? AG : irrelevant. JMD mentioned the fact that when there exists an order relation, such as the one that ranks the cards from A to 2, there automatically exists a dual order relation. If you are able to say that A > B > C, then you are automatically able to say that C > B > A. If my text is longer than yours, then yours is shorter than mine. If an Ace is stronger than a King, then a King is weaker than an Ace. But you are now treating something completely different : the relation "has beaten" between teams. This relation is simply not an order relation, because, as you mention it, it is not transitive (from "A beats B" and "B beats C", one may not be sure that "A beats C"). It is not quite honest to have an attempt at falsifying the properties of order relations by taking as an example a relation that isn't one. It is like gainsaying the fact that "all horses are mammals" by saying "look at this stone ; it isn't a mammal". Best regards, Alain. >Therefore, I prefer to use a dictionary definition of >"rank" in determining how cards rank upwards; I would >rule that the cards should be arranged from the least >rancid to the most rancid. > >Best wishes > >Richard > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Wed Apr 9 10:33:20 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 10:33:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] trick one Message-ID: <000701c2fe8b$edf104a0$2bfb883e@pc> Is there any documented guidance, EBU or elsewhere, regarding third player having a think at trick one with a singleton, after declarer has played almost instantaneously from dummy? e.g. putting his card face down on the table, or making a statement that he is not thinking about this trick. lnb From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 9 12:59:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:59:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000701c2fe8b$edf104a0$2bfb883e@pc> Message-ID: <000301c2fe8f$6acd8ef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > LarryBennett=20 > Is there any documented guidance, EBU or elsewhere, > regarding third player having a think at trick one with a > singleton, after declarer has played almost instantaneously > from dummy? > e.g. putting his card face down on the table, or making a > statement that he is not thinking about this trick. I cannot off-hand point to any documentation but I am very much = accustomed to the rule that when dummy faces his hand then declarer is supposed to = take a pause planning his play before even playing the first card from dummy. This pause is also for the benefit of the third hand to plan his = defense, and if declarer in spite of the above rule plays immediately from dummy = then third hand is still entitled to his pause for thought, not for = considering his play to the first trick but for planning his entire defense. As a Director I shall never hold it against third hand that he hesitated before playing a singleton to the first trick after declarer's immediate play from dummy when his reason for hesitation could be that he was considering the board as a whole. Regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 9 13:10:36 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 14:10:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030408160356.00aae720@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030409113742.00abd430@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E940DBC.9050709@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> That is the true answer (whether one believes it or not). Your answer >> was not correct, and Ton was right to call it pityful. > > > AG : I doubt it. It's seldom right to speak coarsely. Perhaps he could > have said I was badly wrong. > I agree. But I also agree that your argument was badly wrong. > We endeavour to get a set of rules for deciding claims. > > One that is widely accepted is "declarer shall not be deemed to do > anything he didn't mention". No, please add "when there is something else, less successful, that is also normal". > Another, which you defend here, is (a) "declarer is deemed to do, within > lines compatible with his statement, what harms him most", eg pulling > trumps when it is wrong, not doing it when he should. True. > I would prefer to have (b) general rules for the order of suits, the > order of cards in a suit etc., like trumps last, high to low, etc. > Such as "spades before hearts" ? > What strikes me is that you have occasionally defended (b) against > several contributors, and now you seem closer to (a). > > Any reason ? > Don't ascribe me positions when both have only part truth in them. I have always defended the real law position : (a) "declarer is deemed to do, within lines compatible with his statement _and within normal lines_ , what harms him most", The discussion I have with David is mostly about David trying to change that law, including many more than _normal_ lines, or redefining the word "normal" far greater than the laws currently do. With many other blmlists, I have frequent discussions about what is normal and what not. I don't believe I am extremely lenient on this issue, but there are some here who are extremely harsh. Which makes me into the over-do-gooder sometimes. But I digress. So if you conclude that my position entails "eg pulling trumps when it is wrong, not doing it when he should.", that is true. That is indeed your position (a), modified. As to your position (b), that is also true. I would like to see general principles adopted. One such is "a player who thinks all trumps are gone does not play trumps first". See the posts with Ton on the scope of that statement, and the Tenerife appeal as one example to illustrate the precise cases where this should apply. So indeed Alain, we arrive at the same conclusion in the case that we were discussing 27 posts previously. But not by the same way. My argument is that it is "not normal to play trumps first". I cite Tenerife as a precedent. The argument which sparked Ton's exclamation of pityful was: "it is normal to play trumps last, therefor it is not normal to play them first". That argument is manifestly false. You of all people should realize the logic of such. OK? > Yours, > > Alain. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 9 14:00:11 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 15:00:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000701c2fe8b$edf104a0$2bfb883e@pc> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030409145053.00ab1190@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:33 9/04/2003 +0100, LarryBennett wrote: >Is there any documented guidance, EBU or elsewhere, >regarding third player having a think at trick one with a >singleton, after declarer has played almost instantaneously >from dummy? >e.g. putting his card face down on the table, or making a >statement that he is not thinking about this trick. > >lnb AG : one may not ask n=B03 to do either of these ; he would be sending UI to= =20 his partner, and declarer would get info he was not entitled to. I don't know about specific guidance or rules, but the answer seems quite=20 easy : n=B03 is allowed to take some time, for whichever reason, or even no= =20 reason at all. Declarer's infraction (in the sense of Chapter 1) may not=20 benefit him. Only tempi beyond a "reasonable amount of time" can be deemed= =20 incorrect. And this seems a good rule. A similar case : my partner, usually a fairly slow player, took about 10-12= =20 sec to decide he would not put his Ace on my lead and declarer's quick play= =20 from dummy, instead playing an encouraging 3-spot. When I played the same=20 suit on trick 4, declarer called the TD, and was told he was the culprit.=20 End of the problem. Best regards, Alain. From gester@lineone.net Wed Apr 9 14:05:13 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:05:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] trick one References: <000701c2fe8b$edf104a0$2bfb883e@pc> Message-ID: <001a01c2fe98$c88d9040$48242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 10:33 AM Subject: [blml] trick one > Is there any documented guidance, EBU or elsewhere, > regarding third player having a think at trick one with a > singleton, after declarer has played almost instantaneously > from dummy? > e.g. putting his card face down on the table, or making a > statement that he is not thinking about this trick. > +=+ There is, of course, Law 73A2. +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 9 14:26:38 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 15:26:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case In-Reply-To: <3E940DBC.9050709@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030408160356.00aae720@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030409113742.00abd430@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030409151217.00ac92b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:10 9/04/2003 +0200, you wrote: (I take permission to copy mail to Herman) >>AG : We endeavour to get a set of rules for deciding claims. >>One that is widely accepted is "declarer shall not be deemed to do >>anything he didn't mention". > > >HDW : No, please add "when there is something else, less successful, that >is also normal". AG : agreed. >>AG : Another [principle], which you defend here, is (a) "declarer is >>deemed to do, within lines compatible with his statement, what harms him >>most", eg pulling trumps when it is wrong, not doing it when he should. > > >HDW : True. > > >>AG : I would prefer to have (b) general rules for the order of suits, the >>order of cards in a suit etc., like trumps last, high to low, etc. > > >HDW : Such as "spades before hearts" ? AG : such as "plain suits and trumps from top to bottom, ruffing from bottom to top". Main case : if declarer says "three plum tricks", he is deemed to play three top cards in the suit, not three low cards. Some would like to take him to the letter and have him play low cards. >>AG : What strikes me is that you have occasionally defended (b) against >>several contributors, and now you seem closer to (a). >> >>Any reason ? > > >HDW : Don't ascribe me positions when both have only part truth in them. >I have always defended the real law position : >(a) "declarer is deemed to do, within lines compatible with his statement >_and within normal lines_ , what harms him most", > >The discussion I have with David is mostly about David trying to change >that law, including many more than _normal_ lines, or redefining the word >"normal" far greater than the laws currently do. AG : but isn't my (b) an attempt at defining what will be considered "normal" ? >HDW : That is indeed your position (a), modified. >As to your position (b), that is also true. >I would like to see general principles adopted. >One such is "a player who thinks all trumps are gone does not play trumps >first". >See the posts with Ton on the scope of that statement, and the Tenerife >appeal as one example to illustrate the precise cases where this should apply. AG : it does indeed illustrate this principle. Some posters have said that they often play trumps after opponents are out of trumps, to get discards and the like, but this doesn't, by definition, apply to claim cases, because claims should be 'sure cases', not cases where you want to see the discards. Also, playing trump after trump could be, in extreme cases, considered contrary to L74B4. >HDW : So indeed Alain, we arrive at the same conclusion in the case that >we were discussing 27 posts previously. >But not by the same way. > >My argument is that it is "not normal to play trumps first". I cite >Tenerife as a precedent. >The argument which sparked Ton's exclamation of pityful was: "it is normal >to play trumps last, therefor it is not normal to play them first". >That argument is manifestly false. >You of all people should realize the logic of such. > >OK? AG : right. But it is not that argument that I have meant. My position is : - that playing trumps last is the _only_ normal way to play when a) you know, or believe, that opponents are out of trumps (and claimer is deemed to be in this state of mind unless stated otherwise) b) you know how many tricks you will make (eg you don't need making opppnents guess their discards, counting another suit etc) - and that, if this position is granted, it should not only be used when it penalizes claimer, but also when it helps him. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 9 14:31:18 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 15:31:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <001a01c2fe98$c88d9040$48242850@pacific> References: <000701c2fe8b$edf104a0$2bfb883e@pc> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030409153048.00acbc10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:05 9/04/2003 +0100, gester@lineone.net wrote: >Grattan Endicott^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >"With the ancient is wisdom and in >length of days understanding." > [Job ch 12. v 12] >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "LarryBennett" >To: "blml" >Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 10:33 AM >Subject: [blml] trick one > > > > Is there any documented guidance, EBU or elsewhere, > > regarding third player having a think at trick one with a > > singleton, after declarer has played almost instantaneously > > from dummy? > > e.g. putting his card face down on the table, or making a > > statement that he is not thinking about this trick. > > >+=+ There is, of course, Law 73A2. +=+ > >AG : and 74C7. From gillp@bigpond.com Wed Apr 9 14:40:54 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 23:40:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] trick one Message-ID: <000e01c2fe9d$a59dd4a0$48c38b90@gillp.bigpond.com> Larry Bennett wrote: >Is there any documented guidance, EBU or elsewhere, >regarding third player having a think at trick one with a >singleton, after declarer has played almost instantaneously >from dummy? >e.g. putting his card face down on the table, or making a >statement that he is not thinking about this trick. The only documented guidance that I know of is in the Conditions of Contest for the Cavendish in Las Vegas (ref www.thecavendish.com Regulation 2). Not that it tells you much, just that it legitimises the right to think in that position without fear of punishment in that particular tournament. Peter Gill Australia. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 9 15:30:57 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 16:30:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030408160356.00aae720@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030409113742.00abd430@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030409151217.00ac92b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E942EA1.1020505@skynet.be> Hello Alain, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 14:10 9/04/2003 +0200, you wrote: > >> >> The discussion I have with David is mostly about David trying to >> change that law, including many more than _normal_ lines, or >> redefining the word "normal" far greater than the laws currently do. > > > AG : but isn't my (b) an attempt at defining what will be considered > "normal" ? > Yes, and in that sense I also want some part of (b). But as Ton has said, that is not easy. Even Tenerife applies only in situations that another AC deems to be the same as those present at Tenerife. > >> HDW : That is indeed your position (a), modified. >> As to your position (b), that is also true. >> I would like to see general principles adopted. >> One such is "a player who thinks all trumps are gone does not play >> trumps first". >> See the posts with Ton on the scope of that statement, and the >> Tenerife appeal as one example to illustrate the precise cases where >> this should apply. > > > AG : it does indeed illustrate this principle. Some posters have said > that they often play trumps after opponents are out of trumps, to get > discards and the like, but this doesn't, by definition, apply to claim > cases, because claims should be 'sure cases', not cases where you want > to see the discards. Also, playing trump after trump could be, in > extreme cases, considered contrary to L74B4. > That is indeed what Tenerife has stated. While it is often done for no good reason, it is not deemed "normal". At the same time, I want to add that when there is a good reason for it, it becomes normal again. > > > > AG : right. But it is not that argument that I have meant. My position is : > - that playing trumps last is the _only_ normal way to play when > a) you know, or believe, that opponents are out of trumps (and claimer > is deemed to be in this state of mind unless stated otherwise) > b) you know how many tricks you will make (eg you don't need making > opppnents guess their discards, counting another suit etc) > - and that, if this position is granted, it should not only be used when > it penalizes claimer, but also when it helps him. > Well, all that you are stating is that if the conditions apply for it not to be normal, then it shall not be deemed normal. That is of course a true statement. But when you first said it you sounded as if only one of the two "trumps first" or "trumps last" could be considered normal. That is a totally different statement, which you will agree to be false. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From kaima13@hotmail.com Wed Apr 9 16:22:22 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 08:22:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] Thank you - Law 43A1b References: <000101c2fe6d$504e14e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: SNIP Sven wrote: "beginners" in Norway receive a special convention card when they attend an authorized beginners' course, this card is dated and signed and is valid for one year (or two years - I don't exactly remember which and I don't bother to look it up - the exact period is irrelevant here). During that period the beginner is permitted to consult his CC at any time during auction and play, exactly as if his opponents had been using HUM. K: What a GREAT idea you Norwegians have here!!! Takes away some of the anxiety beginners feel when starting to attend club or tournament games. It is interesting to read these posts on the blml. I met Marvin at the table in a tournament in December, we discussed a point of law after the round and he told me of this list. I have so far enjoyed listening in (and ventured to give my opinion even...) Never know what one will learn. Thank you all! Kaima aka D R Davis From john@asimere.com Wed Apr 9 16:22:52 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 16:22:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) In-Reply-To: <001201c2fe0c$cff381a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000001c2fce4$58d21060$b004893e@pc> <000601c2fd23$2f9e9580$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030408101914.00ac13a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001201c2fe0c$cff381a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <001201c2fe0c$cff381a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com>, Marvin French writes >> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >> >Marvin, >> > >> > > The ACBL's national IMP-Pair championship is now scored by X-imps, >while >> > > for some unknown reason Butler is still used for its regionally-rated >events. >> > > It's hard to get people to change. > >> >True. And you are still trying ? >> >Oh yes. I had success in my campaign to get X-imp scoring for the annual >NABC+ IIMP-Pair championship, and in getting the ACBL to resurrect the Web >movement, which does away with the need for bad Mitchells (e.g., 35 top, 26 >boards in play, instead of 25 top, 36 boards in play, for two 18-table >sections). > >One step at a time, John Probst advised me. But the steps have been very >slow. Thank you for those kind words. It's still one step at a time. I don't necessarily agree that all the steps are necessary, but as a wish list it looks pretty good to me. Illegitime non carborundum. > >Future campaigns:: > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Wed Apr 9 16:27:47 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 16:27:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Active ethics In-Reply-To: <014c01c2fe14$c5b6fca0$3af8193e@4nrw70j> References: <014c01c2fe14$c5b6fca0$3af8193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: In article <014c01c2fe14$c5b6fca0$3af8193e@4nrw70j>, grandeval writes >> > >> I find this explanation extremely clear. So we're saying that after: >> >> 1S (normal minimum opener), slow 3S (limit), we can rule 6S (when it >> makes) back. cheers john >> >+=+ Are we referring here to the October 2001 view that when a >player is introduced to a table in place of a wrongly seated player >(Law 15C) it is not appropriate for him to make a call designed, by its >excess, to ensure that the board shall be cancelled? The committee >said that there should be no attempt to judge the intent of the player >but that on the basis simply that he judges there is no demonstrable >bridge reason for the call the Director may resort to Law 74A2. > It is for the Director (and the Appeals Committee) to make the >bridge judgement whether the circumstances are such in the case >that you propose, Law 15C having been applied, but the WBFLC >did not extend its decision to non-15C situations. ~ G ~ +=+ > Nope, I'd misunderstood the context of the thread, although the question still stands for me. Has the player gained from the use of UI by bidding 6S when the LA's were pass and 4S, and where I would routinely have ruled back to 3S after the hesitation, on the occasions 4S were bid and made? > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Apr 9 16:29:58 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 16:29:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000301c2fe8f$6acd8ef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c2fe8b$edf104a0$2bfb883e@pc> <000301c2fe8f$6acd8ef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000301c2fe8f$6acd8ef0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> LarryBennett >> Is there any documented guidance, EBU or elsewhere, >> regarding third player having a think at trick one with a >> singleton, after declarer has played almost instantaneously >> from dummy? >> e.g. putting his card face down on the table, or making a >> statement that he is not thinking about this trick. > >I cannot off-hand point to any documentation but I am very much accustomed >to the rule that when dummy faces his hand then declarer is supposed to take >a pause planning his play before even playing the first card from dummy. > >This pause is also for the benefit of the third hand to plan his defense, >and if declarer in spite of the above rule plays immediately from dummy then >third hand is still entitled to his pause for thought, not for considering >his play to the first trick but for planning his entire defense. > >As a Director I shall never hold it against third hand that he hesitated >before playing a singleton to the first trick after declarer's immediate >play from dummy when his reason for hesitation could be that he was >considering the board as a whole. > >Regards Sven > EBU TD's are so instructed as well. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Apr 9 20:30:23 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 20:30:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim Case References: Message-ID: <009f01c2fece$a8eeb710$d687403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'Herman De Wael'" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 8:12 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Claim Case > Let me start saying that for many years, [**]up till in the '90 > in the conditions of contest for European Championships > we could read the sentence that the AC in Oslo (David > knows what year that must have been, somewhere in the > '60 I assume) had decided so and so. Something quite > obscure or irrelevant or the only reasonable interpretation > of the laws, whatever. We apparently needed to be aware > of that 30 years later. > +=+ [**]Up to and including, so far, the Championships in Salsomaggiore, June 2002. +=+ From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 9 22:05:42 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:05:42 +1200 Subject: [blml] Law 1 In-Reply-To: <000201c2fe6f$84d0da20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001401c2fedb$cba4e6f0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Wednesday, 9 April 2003 8:11 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Law 1 > > > > Kooijman, A. > > > John (MadDog) Probst: > > > > > > >Oh No, not again. it is an axiom (or damned close to > > > >it) that if A > B > C then C < B < A. On such shaky > > > >foundations are balanced such proofs that A^n + B^n = > > > >C^n is true only for non-negative values of n < 3. > > > > > > > > > > within a complete non-issue you refer to a very interesting > mathematical > > problem, which was marvellously solved by a countryman of > yours some years > > ago after centuries of trying. > > > > But I think that the proof was given that there is no n > 2 > for which this > > is true. > > It pays to be exact when dealing with mathematical statements: There is precedence for writing sketchy inexact proofs in the margin ;-) Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 9 22:13:50 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:13:50 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030409145053.00ab1190@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001501c2fedc$ee163c10$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2003 1:00 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one > > A similar case : my partner, usually a fairly slow player, > took about 10-12 > sec to decide he would not put his Ace on my lead and > declarer's quick play > from dummy, instead playing an encouraging 3-spot. When I > played the same > suit on trick 4, declarer called the TD, and was told he was > the culprit. I don't see what law declarer has infracted so that declarer becomes the culprit. Wayne From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Apr 9 22:14:30 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 17:14:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Claim Case In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030409151217.00ac92b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3E940DBC.9050709@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030408160356.00aae720@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030409113742.00abd430@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030409165942.02f1c510@pop.starpower.net> At 09:26 AM 4/9/03, Alain wrote: >AG : right. But it is not that argument that I have meant. My position >is : >- that playing trumps last is the _only_ normal way to play when >a) you know, or believe, that opponents are out of trumps (and claimer >is deemed to be in this state of mind unless stated otherwise) I agree with the above up to the parenthetical, but disagree with that. It is normal to abandon trumps when you believe they're all gone, but it is also "normal" ("careless or inferior") to lose count of the trumps. >b) you know how many tricks you will make (eg you don't need making >opppnents guess their discards, counting another suit etc) >- and that, if this position is granted, it should not only be used >when it penalizes claimer, but also when it helps him. The general principle of adjudicating claims should be to assign the "benefit of the doubt" against the player making an incorrect or incomplete claim. To me, this should mean that, if declarer says nothing to indicate what he will do with his remaining trumps: (a) If it would gain to play (more) trumps, declarer shall be presumed not to do so (this is how we currently apply L70C when there are still trumps outstanding), and (b) If it would gain to hold onto his trumps, declarer shall be presumed to continue trumps until both opponents have shown out (unless they have already done so), but may retain any remaining trumps to the end once they have done so. Of course, declarer need not go to the Burnian extreme of specifying exactly what cards he will play in what order. If he has said, for example, something like "trumps are gone", or "you'll get your trump", (b) would not apply. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 9 22:18:07 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:18:07 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001601c2fedd$897ca4f0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2003 3:30 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one > > >As a Director I shall never hold it against third hand that > he hesitated > >before playing a singleton to the first trick after > declarer's immediate > >play from dummy when his reason for hesitation could be that he was > >considering the board as a whole. > > > >Regards Sven > > > > EBU TD's are so instructed as well. Given that L73A2 allows for a sponsoring organization to mandate a pause on the first round of the auction then it seems to me that that would be a better course of action rather than an instruction to the TD. Unless of course such an instruction is a regulation. Wayne From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 9 22:39:51 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 23:39:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <001601c2fedd$897ca4f0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <000401c2fee0$8d3d4f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows ........... > > >As a Director I shall never hold it against third hand that > > he hesitated > > >before playing a singleton to the first trick after > > declarer's immediate > > >play from dummy when his reason for hesitation could be that he was > > >considering the board as a whole. > > > > > >Regards Sven > > > > > > > EBU TD's are so instructed as well. > > Given that L73A2 allows for a sponsoring organization to mandate a pause > on the first round of the auction then it seems to me that that would > be a better course of action rather than an instruction to the TD. > > Unless of course such an instruction is a regulation. I don't need any regulation for the practice I have indicated above. Sven From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 9 23:08:58 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:08:58 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000401c2fee0$8d3d4f10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c2fee4$aaea5e00$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2003 9:40 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > > Wayne Burrows > ........... > > > >As a Director I shall never hold it against third hand that > > > he hesitated > > > >before playing a singleton to the first trick after > > > declarer's immediate > > > >play from dummy when his reason for hesitation could be > that he was > > > >considering the board as a whole. > > > > > > > >Regards Sven > > > > > > > > > > EBU TD's are so instructed as well. > > > > Given that L73A2 allows for a sponsoring organization to > mandate a pause > > on the first round of the auction then it seems to me that > that would > > be a better course of action rather than an instruction to the TD. > > > > Unless of course such an instruction is a regulation. > > I don't need any regulation for the practice I have indicated above. I do not agree. If the player gave UI to partner by a slow play to trick one or if that player misled declarer then you are bound to rule according to the appropriate law. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 9 23:28:23 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:28:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000801c2fee4$aaea5e00$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c2fee7$550b7570$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows > > Sven Pran > > ........... > > > > >As a Director I shall never hold it against third hand that > > > > he hesitated > > > > >before playing a singleton to the first trick after > > > > declarer's immediate > > > > >play from dummy when his reason for hesitation could be > > that he was > > > > >considering the board as a whole. > > > > > > > > > >Regards Sven > > > > > > > > > > > > > EBU TD's are so instructed as well. > > > > > > Given that L73A2 allows for a sponsoring organization to > > mandate a pause > > > on the first round of the auction then it seems to me that > > that would > > > be a better course of action rather than an instruction to the TD. > > > > > > Unless of course such an instruction is a regulation. > > > > I don't need any regulation for the practice I have indicated above. >=20 > I do not agree. >=20 > If the player gave UI to partner by a slow play to trick one or if > that player misled declarer then you are bound to rule according to > the appropriate law. >=20 > Wayne Before bothering more with this discussion I shall appreciate some = example on how a pause for thought before playing to trick 1 can imply any UI to partner or any deception of declarer when "everybody" knows this is the = time for all players to study the cards in dummy and plan their play. Just stating IF UI is given or IF declarer is misled (by the hesitation) simply does not make sense as long as such pause is the recommended behavior. (As for my claim that this is the recommended behavior just = look up almost any textbook on bridge for beginners) On the contrary I would claim that failing to take that pause is a = violation of Law 74B1! (And very often as such indeed passing UI to partner). Sven From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 10 00:25:16 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:25:16 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000001c2fee7$550b7570$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000d01c2feef$4aaa7880$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2003 10:28 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > > Wayne Burrows > > > Sven Pran > > > ........... > > > > > >As a Director I shall never hold it against third hand that > > > > > he hesitated > > > > > >before playing a singleton to the first trick after > > > > > declarer's immediate > > > > > >play from dummy when his reason for hesitation could be > > > that he was > > > > > >considering the board as a whole. > > > > > > > > > > > >Regards Sven > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EBU TD's are so instructed as well. > > > > > > > > Given that L73A2 allows for a sponsoring organization to > > > mandate a pause > > > > on the first round of the auction then it seems to me that > > > that would > > > > be a better course of action rather than an instruction > to the TD. > > > > > > > > Unless of course such an instruction is a regulation. > > > > > > I don't need any regulation for the practice I have > indicated above. > > > > I do not agree. > > > > If the player gave UI to partner by a slow play to trick one or if > > that player misled declarer then you are bound to rule according to > > the appropriate law. > > > > Wayne > > Before bothering more with this discussion I shall appreciate > some example > on how a pause for thought before playing to trick 1 can > imply any UI to > partner or any deception of declarer when "everybody" knows > this is the time > for all players to study the cards in dummy and plan their play. With a singleton or other situation in which I have no choice of play to trick one I can put my card on the table in tempo at trick one and still plan the play. If I do not do that then I risk giving information to partner or deceiving declarer. Neither of these things will necessarily occur but I can avoid the problem by playing in tempo as far as possible. L73D1 "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. ..." While it may not be required to play in tempo I believe that you can cause unnecessary problems by not doing so even at trick one. > > Just stating IF UI is given or IF declarer is misled (by the > hesitation) > simply does not make sense as long as such pause is the recommended > behavior. (As for my claim that this is the recommended > behavior just look > up almost any textbook on bridge for beginners) Just because something is recommended by some writer or other or even many writers does not give immunity from transmitting illegal information or deceiving declarer. > > On the contrary I would claim that failing to take that pause > is a violation > of Law 74B1! (And very often as such indeed passing UI to partner). That is a crazy assertion - playing my card in tempo is playing insufficient attention to the game. I think not. At best this is a very distortion of L74B1. I doubt that this or anything like it was ever the intention of L74B1. I say put your forced cards on the table in tempo, not with haste but in tempo, and do your thinking at some other time. Or, as we all have to do sometimes, break the tempo and do you thinking but accept the consequences of any problems that you have caused. Inadvertently caused, hopefully. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam@irvine.com Thu Apr 10 00:48:42 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 16:48:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:25:16 +1200." <000d01c2feef$4aaa7880$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <200304092348.QAA17848@mailhub.irvine.com> Wayne Burrows wrote: > With a singleton or other situation in which I have no choice of > play to trick one I can put my card on the table in tempo at trick > one and still plan the play. > > If I do not do that then I risk giving information to partner or > deceiving declarer. Neither of these things will necessarily occur > but I can avoid the problem by playing in tempo as far as possible. > > L73D1 > "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain > steady tempo and unvarying manner. ..." > > While it may not be required to play in tempo I believe that you > can cause unnecessary problems by not doing so even at trick one. I'm starting to get confused. You seem to be suggesting that if you play slowly to trick 1 (without putting your card on the table) when you have a singleton, and play slowly to trick 1 (without putting your card on the table) when you have nothing to think about regarding the play to the first trick, and play slowly to trick 1 (without putting your card on the table) when you do have something to think about, that is somehow not "maintaining steady tempo". Do I have your position correct, or am I hopelessly lost? -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 10 02:29:27 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:29:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] trick one Message-ID: Sven wrote: >>>As a Director I shall never hold it against third hand that >>>he hesitated before playing a singleton to the first trick >>>after declarer's immediate play from dummy when his reason >>>for hesitation could be that he was considering the board >>>as a whole. Wayne Burrows proposed: >>Given that L73A2 allows for a sponsoring organization to >>mandate a pause on the first round of the auction then it >>seems to me that that would be a better course of action >>rather than an instruction to the TD. >> >>Unless of course such an instruction is a regulation. Sven replied: >I don't need any regulation for the practice I have indicated >above. If Sven had been directing at the 1989 Venice Cup in Perth (Australia), he would have seen the need for such a regulation. An ACBL player hesitated with a singleton as third hand at trick one. A European opponent called the TD, and received an adjusted score due to the infraction of Law 73D2. On appeal, the AC cancelled the adjusted score (because subsequent play demonstrably suggested that the ACBL player had a singleton), but still imposed a 6 imp PP upon the ACBL team. The reason that the ACBL player hesitated at trick one was because that the ACBL had used its regulatory power under Law 73A2 to make a first trick pause mandatory in ACBL-land. Unfortunately, a parallel WBF regulation did not exist in 1989. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 10 05:14:19 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:14:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] New lamps for old Message-ID: Last night, I was TD at my local club's walk-in pairs. The opening leader selected the jack of diamonds as their opening lead, and correctly placed the card face down in front of them. Before facing the opening lead, the opening leader remembered that they did not underlead honours with their current partner. Therefore, the opening leader put the unfaced lead back in their hand, tried a replacement lead of the queen of diamonds, and placed the queen of diamonds face up. At this stage the non-offending side summoned me to the table. Since Law 41A states "...The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity...", I ruled that the original face down opening lead of the jack of diamonds had to be reinstated, and the replacement face up lead of the queen of diamonds became a major penalty card. Was my ruling too draconianly unfair to the offending side, given that the jack of diamonds did not become visible until I ordered it to become visible? Should I instead have made the milder ruling that the queen of diamonds was now the legal opening lead, but with the interchange of cards being UI to the opening leader's partner, and AI to the non-offending side? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 10 07:31:25 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:31:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Footnote to Law 40E2 Message-ID: Sven wrote: [snip] >Are we so special in Norway? The Norwegian federation has not >"tried to do" any such thing, it has simply established a >requirement for anybody wanting to use HUM: *They* must >provide a defense system, this defense system must be >approved and it shall be available to opponents at all times >during auction and play. * * * 1) Does Norway permit opponents of a HUM system to create their own personalised defence to the HUM, and refer to the personalised defence at the table? 2) Apart from requiring the HUMmers' antidote provision to their system to be approved, does the Norwegian federation have any compliance benchmarks for antidotes? It seems that ethical HUMmers, who specifically highlight their HUM systemic weak spots; are disadvantaged vis-a-vis less ethical HUMmers, who provide a superficial antidote which has *minimum* legal compliance. 3) Is the antidote approver (or approving body) versed in advanced bidding theory? After all, even ethical HUMmers may inadvertently provide a second-best defence to their HUM system. Best wishes Richard From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 10 08:00:54 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:00:54 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <200304092348.QAA17848@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000701c2ff2e$f2e61a60$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2003 11:49 a.m. > To: 'blml' > Cc: adam@irvine.com > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one > > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > With a singleton or other situation in which I have no choice of > > play to trick one I can put my card on the table in tempo at trick > > one and still plan the play. > > > > If I do not do that then I risk giving information to partner or > > deceiving declarer. Neither of these things will necessarily occur > > but I can avoid the problem by playing in tempo as far as possible. > > > > L73D1 > > "It is desirable, though not always required, for players > to maintain > > steady tempo and unvarying manner. ..." > > > > While it may not be required to play in tempo I believe that you > > can cause unnecessary problems by not doing so even at trick one. > > I'm starting to get confused. You seem to be suggesting that if you > play slowly to trick 1 (without putting your card on the table) when > you have a singleton, and play slowly to trick 1 (without putting your > card on the table) when you have nothing to think about regarding the > play to the first trick, and play slowly to trick 1 (without putting > your card on the table) when you do have something to think about, > that is somehow not "maintaining steady tempo". Do I have your > position correct, or am I hopelessly lost? That is exactly my position. The fact that the laws specifically allow for a requirement for a mandatory pause at trick one suggests that 'steady tempo' is relative to the play of an entire hand and not allowing a player to vary the tempo within a hand if the tempo remains the same from one hand to the next. I don't think that if I regularly pause at trick one and not at trick two or three or twelve that I can claim 'unvarying manner'. L73D1 It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. L73A2 "Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick)." Also the fact that L73A2 specifically mentions undue hesitation and haste and allows sponsoring organizations the right to prescribe a regulation indicates that if that SO does not prescribe such a regulation then any undue hesitation or haste is contrary to the correct procedure prescribed in the laws. Wayne > > -- Adam > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 10 08:02:23 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:02:23 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030409145053.00ab1190@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000801c2ff2f$237ebf10$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2003 1:00 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one >=20 >=20 > At 10:33 9/04/2003 +0100, LarryBennett wrote: > >Is there any documented guidance, EBU or elsewhere, > >regarding third player having a think at trick one with a > >singleton, after declarer has played almost instantaneously > >from dummy? > >e.g. putting his card face down on the table, or making a > >statement that he is not thinking about this trick. > > > >lnb >=20 > AG : one may not ask n=B03 to do either of these ; he would be=20 > sending UI to=20 > his partner, and declarer would get info he was not entitled to. >=20 > I don't know about specific guidance or rules, but the answer=20 > seems quite=20 > easy : n=B03 is allowed to take some time, for whichever=20 > reason, or even no=20 > reason at all. Declarer's infraction (in the sense of Chapter=20 > 1) may not=20 > benefit him. Only tempi beyond a "reasonable amount of time"=20 > can be deemed=20 > incorrect. And this seems a good rule. >=20 > A similar case : my partner, usually a fairly slow player,=20 > took about 10-12=20 > sec to decide he would not put his Ace on my lead and=20 > declarer's quick play=20 > from dummy, instead playing an encouraging 3-spot. When I=20 > played the same=20 > suit on trick 4, declarer called the TD, and was told he was=20 > the culprit.=20 > End of the problem. This is directly contrary to L73E L73E "... It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner." Wayne >=20 > Best regards, >=20 > Alain. >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Apr 10 08:15:22 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:15:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim Case References: <3E940DBC.9050709@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030408160356.00aae720@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030409113742.00abd430@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20030409165942.02f1c510@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3E951A0A.2010807@skynet.be> I can live with the principles Eric proposes, but let me rephrase some of them: Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:26 AM 4/9/03, Alain wrote: > >> - that playing trumps last is the _only_ normal way to play when >> a) you know, or believe, that opponents are out of trumps (and claimer >> is deemed to be in this state of mind unless stated otherwise) > > > I agree with the above up to the parenthetical, but disagree with that. > It is normal to abandon trumps when you believe they're all gone, but it > is also "normal" ("careless or inferior") to lose count of the trumps. > how is that disagreeing with the parenthical? Declarer is deemed to believe there are no trumps out when he says nothing about them. Seems a perfectly valid principle to me. I would add, unless it is obvious that he knows there are many out. I would never complain about a claimer who says nothing about trumps when claiming after dummy opens. It is obvious he knows there are trumps out. Apart from that, I agree with Eric in that it is merely careless to play a round of trumps too many. >> b) you know how many tricks you will make (eg you don't need making >> opppnents guess their discards, counting another suit etc) >> - and that, if this position is granted, it should not only be used >> when it penalizes claimer, but also when it helps him. > > > The general principle of adjudicating claims should be to assign the > "benefit of the doubt" against the player making an incorrect or > incomplete claim. To me, this should mean that, if declarer says > nothing to indicate what he will do with his remaining trumps: > > (a) If it would gain to play (more) trumps, declarer shall be presumed > not to do so (this is how we currently apply L70C when there are still > trumps outstanding), and > > (b) If it would gain to hold onto his trumps, declarer shall be presumed > to continue trumps until both opponents have shown out (unless they have > already done so), but may retain any remaining trumps to the end once > they have done so. > I can live with that in claims where declarer has not stated how many trumps he needs to pull, but has stated that he will pull all. I do not believe it is a sound principle in cases where claimer either "knows" all trumps have already gone, or in cases where he explicitely states the number of trumps he shall pull. I also don't believe it is a good principle in cases where the claim is made at the beginning of the hand, when we can be certain claimer still has a perfect count of the trump suit. But presuming that a claimer has lost count (or may believe he does) when he says nothing about the number of remaining cards in a suit is a good principle. It would be too easy to claim otherwise. "I'll draw your trumps" is not good enough, unless one can draw one too many. > Of course, declarer need not go to the Burnian extreme of specifying > exactly what cards he will play in what order. If he has said, for > example, something like "trumps are gone", or "you'll get your trump", > (b) would not apply. > I presume you interpret "trump" as just the one. These are cases in which claimer has told you his count of the trump suit. No need to assume anything else then. Can I phrase the principle: "a claimer who has failed to state a particular count in a suit shall be deemed to be uncertain of that count and it is normal for him to play an extra round of that suit in order to check whether all have gone. This includes the trump suit and applies also to the other suits." One could substitute the word "state" by "show that he has". > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 10 08:34:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:34:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000d01c2feef$4aaa7880$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c2ff33$93cce950$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows ............ > > Before bothering more with this discussion I shall appreciate > > some example > > on how a pause for thought before playing to trick 1 can > > imply any UI to > > partner or any deception of declarer when "everybody" knows > > this is the time > > for all players to study the cards in dummy and plan their play. >=20 > With a singleton or other situation in which I have no choice of > play to trick one I can put my card on the table in tempo at trick > one and still plan the play. To me "playing in tempo" from dummy or third hand to trick one includes allowing for the traditional pause for thought during which planning the play and defense respectively is assumed to take place. So playing without hesitation to trick one is clearly an indication that = the player has nothing to consider when indeed he ought to have. THIS IS UI! A player who always takes his (little?) pause for thought before playing = to trick one does not give away any information on whether his play to = trick one is forced, is obvious or needed some consideration.=20 >=20 > If I do not do that then I risk giving information to partner or > deceiving declarer. Neither of these things will necessarily occur > but I can avoid the problem by playing in tempo as far as possible. What information? What deception? "In tempo" means "unvarying tempo" = (from board to board when we discuss the first trick), it does not mean that = you are supposed to play immediately with a forced play and after an allowed pause for thought when you have something to consider. The players are supposed to plan their play during trick one so that = they can play their cards to the remaining tricks without much hesitation = unless unforeseen situations develop. >=20 > L73D1 > "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain > steady tempo and unvarying manner. ..." >=20 > While it may not be required to play in tempo I believe that you > can cause unnecessary problems by not doing so even at trick one. Exactly! And "in tempo" at trick one is . . . . . ? >=20 > > > > Just stating IF UI is given or IF declarer is misled (by the > > hesitation) > > simply does not make sense as long as such pause is the recommended > > behavior. (As for my claim that this is the recommended > > behavior just look > > up almost any textbook on bridge for beginners) >=20 > Just because something is recommended by some writer or other or even > many writers does not give immunity from transmitting illegal > information or deceiving declarer. What information is transmitted when you play "in tempo"? >=20 >=20 > > > > On the contrary I would claim that failing to take that pause > > is a violation > > of Law 74B1! (And very often as such indeed passing UI to partner). >=20 > That is a crazy assertion - playing my card in tempo is playing > insufficient attention to the game. I think not. You are not playing your card to trick one "in tempo" when you play = without first spending any time to plan your defense (preferably the time = imposed upon you by declarer's pause before playing from dummy). You demonstrate that you either: Have nothing to consider on that board Or Do not bother to consider your defense on that board. THAT is either transmitting the illegal information that you do not = believe you have any influence on the play; or it demonstrates a clear violation = of Law 74B1 by not paying attention to the game. Have your own choice! >=20 > At best this is a very distortion of L74B1. I doubt that this or > anything like it was ever the intention of L74B1. I have no idea if this explicit situation was ever the intention for = L74B1. That law is very general and I just pointed out that demonstrating = little interest in planning the defense when dummy is faced can make L74B1 applicable. >=20 > I say put your forced cards on the table in tempo, not with haste > but in tempo, and do your thinking at some other time. So that you show you have nothing to consider for your defense? UI! Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 10 08:39:48 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:39:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] New lamps for old In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2ff34$5d1fe9b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> IMO you made the correct ruling. You could have considered a more lenient ruling with inexperienced players who should receive training rather than the brute force of the laws; it doesn't appear to me that this was the case here? Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: 10. april 2003 06:14 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] New lamps for old > > > Last night, I was TD at my local club's walk-in pairs. > The opening leader selected the jack of diamonds as > their opening lead, and correctly placed the card face > down in front of them. > > Before facing the opening lead, the opening leader > remembered that they did not underlead honours with > their current partner. Therefore, the opening leader > put the unfaced lead back in their hand, tried a > replacement lead of the queen of diamonds, and placed > the queen of diamonds face up. > > At this stage the non-offending side summoned me to > the table. > > Since Law 41A states "...The face-down lead may be > withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after > an irregularity...", I ruled that the original face > down opening lead of the jack of diamonds had to be > reinstated, and the replacement face up lead of the > queen of diamonds became a major penalty card. > > Was my ruling too draconianly unfair to the offending > side, given that the jack of diamonds did not become > visible until I ordered it to become visible? Should > I instead have made the milder ruling that the queen of > diamonds was now the legal opening lead, but with the > interchange of cards being UI to the opening leader's > partner, and AI to the non-offending side? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 10 08:48:44 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:48:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Footnote to Law 40E2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c2ff35$9d000910$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au=20 > Sven wrote: >=20 > [snip] >=20 > >Are we so special in Norway? The Norwegian federation has not > >"tried to do" any such thing, it has simply established a > >requirement for anybody wanting to use HUM: *They* must > >provide a defense system, this defense system must be > >approved and it shall be available to opponents at all times > >during auction and play. >=20 > * * * >=20 > 1) Does Norway permit opponents of a HUM system to create their > own personalised defence to the HUM, and refer to the > personalised defence at the table? Yes >=20 > 2) Apart from requiring the HUMmers' antidote provision to > their system to be approved, does the Norwegian federation have > any compliance benchmarks for antidotes? It seems that ethical > HUMmers, who specifically highlight their HUM systemic weak > spots; are disadvantaged vis-a-vis less ethical HUMmers, who > provide a superficial antidote which has *minimum* legal > compliance. I don't know. But we do have some competent players in Norway whom the federation might consult if they feel they need it. (If Harald S. reads = this he might fill me in). >=20 > 3) Is the antidote approver (or approving body) versed in > advanced bidding theory? After all, even ethical HUMmers may > inadvertently provide a second-best defence to their HUM > system. See my response above. Regards Sven From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Apr 10 09:51:46 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:51:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 16A Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951376@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> This is a case som might remember, but I hope most of you don't. Teams E/W vul. Dealer East South hand: S Q J 9 7 4 H J 8 D J 9 8 7 C T Bidding: West North East South - - 1H 1S 2C 4S 5C Pass 6C ..Pass Pass ? There are two LA's; pass and 6S (unless you play negative slam doubles, whi= ch you don't). What action, if any, is demonstrably suggested by partner's hesitation? What bid should south be deemed to make? ************************************************************************** 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 10 09:47:39 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 04:47:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 13 Message-ID: On 4/8/03, David Burn wrote: >Be careful. Law 1 says that the cards rank downwards from the ace to >the two. It says nothing about how the cards might rank upwards. Erm. "Down" is toward the center of the earth. That direction is perpendicular to the surface of the table. So neither way of arranging the dummy's cards is either downwards *or* upwards. From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Thu Apr 10 09:56:28 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:56:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one References: <000001c2ff33$93cce950$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003f01c2ff3f$19f98280$2e294451@Default> In a way it is surprising this needs so much discussion. 1. A lot of arguments so far are TD's arguments and not players arguments. I consider declarer playing fast to the first trick (in a serious context) impolite and it should be an infraction. If declarer does play fast then RHO in my view can take whatever time he wants (well I would say up to 20-30 secs). Whether or not he has something to think about this trick, whether or not he has something to think about at all. He can take his 20-30 secs or so just to protect his partner who might well need some time to plan the play (or who might face an early decision). Of course you might complain if declarer plays too fast (another way to get that pause). Of course LHO can protect himself also by simply leaving his card open but well this becomes not a game I want to play. Come on boys, we play bridge, not speedcard and not a law game. 2. But Richard is right that it needs some kind of formal rule or regulation, whithout there will be different habits and different rulings around the globe (see his example). So the lawmakers should do better than the usual 'sponsoring organisations might' which translates to everybody can make up his own rules. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 9:34 AM Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > Wayne Burrows ............ > > Before bothering more with this discussion I shall appreciate > > some example > > on how a pause for thought before playing to trick 1 can > > imply any UI to > > partner or any deception of declarer when "everybody" knows > > this is the time > > for all players to study the cards in dummy and plan their play. > > With a singleton or other situation in which I have no choice of > play to trick one I can put my card on the table in tempo at trick > one and still plan the play. To me "playing in tempo" from dummy or third hand to trick one includes allowing for the traditional pause for thought during which planning the play and defense respectively is assumed to take place. So playing without hesitation to trick one is clearly an indication that the player has nothing to consider when indeed he ought to have. THIS IS UI! A player who always takes his (little?) pause for thought before playing to trick one does not give away any information on whether his play to trick one is forced, is obvious or needed some consideration. > > If I do not do that then I risk giving information to partner or > deceiving declarer. Neither of these things will necessarily occur > but I can avoid the problem by playing in tempo as far as possible. What information? What deception? "In tempo" means "unvarying tempo" (from board to board when we discuss the first trick), it does not mean that you are supposed to play immediately with a forced play and after an allowed pause for thought when you have something to consider. The players are supposed to plan their play during trick one so that they can play their cards to the remaining tricks without much hesitation unless unforeseen situations develop. > > L73D1 > "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain > steady tempo and unvarying manner. ..." > > While it may not be required to play in tempo I believe that you > can cause unnecessary problems by not doing so even at trick one. Exactly! And "in tempo" at trick one is . . . . . ? > > > > > Just stating IF UI is given or IF declarer is misled (by the > > hesitation) > > simply does not make sense as long as such pause is the recommended > > behavior. (As for my claim that this is the recommended > > behavior just look > > up almost any textbook on bridge for beginners) > > Just because something is recommended by some writer or other or even > many writers does not give immunity from transmitting illegal > information or deceiving declarer. What information is transmitted when you play "in tempo"? > > > > > > On the contrary I would claim that failing to take that pause > > is a violation > > of Law 74B1! (And very often as such indeed passing UI to partner). > > That is a crazy assertion - playing my card in tempo is playing > insufficient attention to the game. I think not. You are not playing your card to trick one "in tempo" when you play without first spending any time to plan your defense (preferably the time imposed upon you by declarer's pause before playing from dummy). You demonstrate that you either: Have nothing to consider on that board Or Do not bother to consider your defense on that board. THAT is either transmitting the illegal information that you do not believe you have any influence on the play; or it demonstrates a clear violation of Law 74B1 by not paying attention to the game. Have your own choice! > > At best this is a very distortion of L74B1. I doubt that this or > anything like it was ever the intention of L74B1. I have no idea if this explicit situation was ever the intention for L74B1. That law is very general and I just pointed out that demonstrating little interest in planning the defense when dummy is faced can make L74B1 applicable. > > I say put your forced cards on the table in tempo, not with haste > but in tempo, and do your thinking at some other time. So that you show you have nothing to consider for your defense? UI! Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Apr 10 11:15:51 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:15:51 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Law 16A Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC95138A@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> This is a case som might remember, but I hope most of you don't. Teams E/W vul. Dealer East South hand: S Q J 9 7 4 H J 8 D J 9 8 7 C T 3 Bidding: West North East South - - 1H 1S 2C 4S 5C Pass 6C ..Pass Pass ? There are two LA's; pass and 6S (unless you play negative slam doubles, whi= ch you don't). What action, if any, is demonstrably suggested by partner's hesitation? What bid should south be deemed to make? ---- Corrected hand, now with 13 cards. Sorry, Harald S. ************************************************************************** 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 ************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ 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 con.holzscherer@philips.com Thu Apr 10 11:09:42 2003 From: con.holzscherer@philips.com (con.holzscherer@philips.com) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:09:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Before bothering more with this discussion I shall appreciate > some example on how a pause for thought before playing to > trick 1 can imply any UI to partner... I might have such an example from a moderately high-level pairs competition in the Netherlands, a few years ago. I should be able to find the complete distribution if necessary, but this is the essential part of what happened. East was on lead against a contract of 4 spades, where -- NS had made a slam try but stopped in game without showing a lack of control and -- Dummy had bid clubs. East had AQxxx of clubs and (probably thinking that the best chance of making two or even three tricks in defense was a club ruff with partner) lead the Ace of clubs. Dummy came down with KJxxx of clubs. Declarer politely thanked his partner and without much thought (nor undue haste) played small in dummy. West now took about 30 seconds to play the 9 of clubs, declarer played the 10. East switched to a heart, which held declarer to 11 tricks (a club at trick two would have enabled declarer to make 12 tricks). NS called the TD. Your decision please! Regards, Con Holzscherer From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Apr 10 12:00:46 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:00:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Correction of Inadvertent Designation Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951398@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> I've got a question from a player playing in a local club on the following. Playing with in spades, declarer is in the following end position, not havi= ng drawn trumps earlier: Q9xx - T - ATx - Ax - Declarer plays the ace of spades, the king falling from east. Then he plays a small spade to the nine, which holds the trick, east showin= g out. Now declarer asks for a spade from dummy, correcting this to the spade quee= n in the same second. East followed with a heart immedeately after the call for a spade, just pri= or to the change of designation. IMO this is a situaation covered by Law 45C4b, and the corretion should be = allowed. The local TD did not allow declarer to change his designation. Am I correct, or are this law for some other purpose? Regards, Harald Skjaeran Consultant Nowegian Bridge Federation ----------------------------------- Tlf.: +47-22 08 17 83 Fax: +47-22 08 17 85 E-mail: harald.skjaran@bridgefederation.no ************************************************************************** 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 agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 10 13:00:17 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:00:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <001501c2fedc$ee163c10$0100a8c0@Desktop> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030409145053.00ab1190@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030410135746.00ac9c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:13 10/04/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > > Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2003 1:00 a.m. > > To: blml > > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one > > > > > A similar case : my partner, usually a fairly slow player, > > took about 10-12 > > sec to decide he would not put his Ace on my lead and > > declarer's quick play > > from dummy, instead playing an encouraging 3-spot. When I > > played the same > > suit on trick 4, declarer called the TD, and was told he was > > the culprit. > >I don't see what law declarer has infracted so that declarer >becomes the culprit. AG : at least L74C7. And perhaps 73A2 too. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 10 12:58:36 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:58:36 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000001c2ff33$93cce950$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000c01c2ff58$884e6840$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2003 7:34 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > > Wayne Burrows > ............ > > > Before bothering more with this discussion I shall appreciate > > > some example > > > on how a pause for thought before playing to trick 1 can > > > imply any UI to > > > partner or any deception of declarer when "everybody" knows > > > this is the time > > > for all players to study the cards in dummy and plan their play. > > > > With a singleton or other situation in which I have no choice of > > play to trick one I can put my card on the table in tempo at trick > > one and still plan the play. > > To me "playing in tempo" from dummy or third hand to trick > one includes > allowing for the traditional pause for thought during which > planning the > play and defense respectively is assumed to take place. Exactly! You say "To me.." There is no law that allows this free of conveying UI or potential deception to declarer. The laws give the sponsoring organization power to enforce a mandatory pause. The sponsoring organization have either exercised their power or they have not. It is not a matter for your judgement. It is not a matter for my judgement. It is not a matter for the table director nor the chief director nor the appeal committtee. The sponsoring organization have either decreed that one should pause or one is obliged to endevour to play in an unvarying tempo or risk the UI and deceptive consequences of a slow play. > > So playing without hesitation to trick one is clearly an > indication that the > player has nothing to consider when indeed he ought to have. > THIS IS UI! > > A player who always takes his (little?) pause for thought > before playing to > trick one does not give away any information on whether his > play to trick > one is forced, is obvious or needed some consideration. > I do not agree. This is potentially deceptive and that player could have known that at the time. While on the other hand declarer may have no way of knowing the habits of RHO at trick one and ought to be able to deduce that the slow play at trick one was not because RHO held a stiff!!! > > > > If I do not do that then I risk giving information to partner or > > deceiving declarer. Neither of these things will necessarily occur > > but I can avoid the problem by playing in tempo as far as possible. > > What information? What deception? "In tempo" means "unvarying > tempo" (from > board to board when we discuss the first trick), it does not > mean that you > are supposed to play immediately with a forced play and after > an allowed > pause for thought when you have something to consider. I agree you endevour to play in tempo whether you have a stiff, only one reasonable option or something to consider. If you break the tempo then you risk giving UI or illegally deceiving declarer. > > The players are supposed to plan their play during trick one > so that they > can play their cards to the remaining tricks without much > hesitation unless > unforeseen situations develop. There is no law that states this. There is an allowance for a SO to mandate a pause for thought at trick one. Absent such a mandate one must endevour to play in tempo. > > > > > L73D1 > > "It is desirable, though not always required, for players > to maintain > > steady tempo and unvarying manner. ..." > > > > While it may not be required to play in tempo I believe that you > > can cause unnecessary problems by not doing so even at trick one. > > Exactly! And "in tempo" at trick one is . . . . . ? The same as in tempo at trick two or three or twelve. If not there is a break in tempo or a change in tempo from trick one to trick two etc... > > > > > > > > > Just stating IF UI is given or IF declarer is misled (by the > > > hesitation) > > > simply does not make sense as long as such pause is the > recommended > > > behavior. (As for my claim that this is the recommended > > > behavior just look > > > up almost any textbook on bridge for beginners) > > > > Just because something is recommended by some writer or > other or even > > many writers does not give immunity from transmitting illegal > > information or deceiving declarer. > > What information is transmitted when you play "in tempo"? > > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary I would claim that failing to take that pause > > > is a violation > > > of Law 74B1! (And very often as such indeed passing UI to > partner). > > > > That is a crazy assertion - playing my card in tempo is playing > > insufficient attention to the game. I think not. > > You are not playing your card to trick one "in tempo" when > you play without > first spending any time to plan your defense (preferably the > time imposed > upon you by declarer's pause before playing from dummy). You > demonstrate > that you either: > > Have nothing to consider on that board > > Or > > Do not bother to consider your defense on that board. > > THAT is either transmitting the illegal information that you > do not believe > you have any influence on the play; or it demonstrates a > clear violation of > Law 74B1 by not paying attention to the game. Have your own choice! There is a third option. It simply means I am playing my card in tempo. I find I can think about the play of the hand at many opportunities without deliberately playing slowly with a singleton. > > > > > At best this is a very distortion of L74B1. I doubt that this or > > anything like it was ever the intention of L74B1. > > I have no idea if this explicit situation was ever the > intention for L74B1. > That law is very general and I just pointed out that > demonstrating little > interest in planning the defense when dummy is faced can make L74B1 > applicable. Playing 'in tempo' does not show little interest. It merely shows a desire not to deceive declarer nor to give partner UI problems. > > > > > I say put your forced cards on the table in tempo, not with haste > > but in tempo, and do your thinking at some other time. > > So that you show you have nothing to consider for your defense? UI! If the SO wanted players to sit there and think when they have nothing to think about then the SO can mandate a pause - the laws specifically allow that. Therefore if the SO does not so mandate then any pause should be considered for what it is an unmistakable hesitation which may provide UI to partner or may deceive declarer. Wayne > > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 10 13:04:16 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 00:04:16 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030410135746.00ac9c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000d01c2ff59$5277f280$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] > Sent: Friday, 11 April 2003 12:00 a.m. > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; 'blml' > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > At 09:13 10/04/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > > > Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2003 1:00 a.m. > > > To: blml > > > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one > > > > > > > > A similar case : my partner, usually a fairly slow player, > > > took about 10-12 > > > sec to decide he would not put his Ace on my lead and > > > declarer's quick play > > > from dummy, instead playing an encouraging 3-spot. When I > > > played the same > > > suit on trick 4, declarer called the TD, and was told he was > > > the culprit. > > > >I don't see what law declarer has infracted so that declarer > >becomes the culprit. > > AG : at least L74C7. And perhaps 73A2 too. 74C7 requires that the variation is done for the purpose of disconcerting and opponent. Declarer may simply have considered the options and played accordingly. 73A2 backs up my assertion that a mandate from the SO is required for any mandatory pause at trick one. Wayne > > From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Apr 10 13:08:03 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:08:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000001c2fee7$550b7570$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c2fee4$aaea5e00$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030410075502.01ffb110@pop.starpower.net> At 06:28 PM 4/9/03, Sven wrote: > > Wayne Burrows > > > Sven Pran > > > ........... > > > > Given that L73A2 allows for a sponsoring organization to > > > mandate a pause > > > > on the first round of the auction then it seems to me that > > > that would > > > > be a better course of action rather than an instruction to the TD. > > > > > > > > Unless of course such an instruction is a regulation. > > > > > > I don't need any regulation for the practice I have indicated above. > > > > I do not agree. > > > > If the player gave UI to partner by a slow play to trick one or if > > that player misled declarer then you are bound to rule according to > > the appropriate law. > > > > Wayne > >Before bothering more with this discussion I shall appreciate some example >on how a pause for thought before playing to trick 1 can imply any UI to >partner or any deception of declarer when "everybody" knows this is >the time >for all players to study the cards in dummy and plan their play. > >Just stating IF UI is given or IF declarer is misled (by the hesitation) >simply does not make sense as long as such pause is the recommended >behavior. (As for my claim that this is the recommended behavior just look >up almost any textbook on bridge for beginners) > >On the contrary I would claim that failing to take that pause is a >violation >of Law 74B1! (And very often as such indeed passing UI to partner). I think Sven is entirely justified in his practice under current law. The textbooks tell us that there is *always* a valid "bridge reason" for taking a bit of time to consider the entire hand at trick 1, so L73F2 would never apply. And while there might be some possibility of UI, this could only occur if the player who takes his time playing to the first trick habitually does not do so, so that his partner could infer that he has a problem playing to trick 1 specifically; I would expect this to be very rare. Of course, this only applies when declarer has not taken enough time at trick 1 to cover third hand's "thinking time". But 10-15 seconds between the time dummy hits and the time third hand plays should be considered normal, whether the time is taken by declarer or his RHO. 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 Apr 10 13:31:21 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:31:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] New lamps for old In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030410141952.00acfb60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:14 10/04/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Last night, I was TD at my local club's walk-in pairs. >The opening leader selected the jack of diamonds as >their opening lead, and correctly placed the card face >down in front of them. > >Before facing the opening lead, the opening leader >remembered that they did not underlead honours with >their current partner. Therefore, the opening leader >put the unfaced lead back in their hand, tried a >replacement lead of the queen of diamonds, and placed >the queen of diamonds face up. > >At this stage the non-offending side summoned me to >the table. > >Since Law 41A states "...The face-down lead may be >withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after >an irregularity...", I ruled that the original face >down opening lead of the jack of diamonds had to be >reinstated, and the replacement face up lead of the >queen of diamonds became a major penalty card. > >Was my ruling too draconianly unfair to the offending >side, given that the jack of diamonds did not become >visible until I ordered it to become visible? Should >I instead have made the milder ruling that the queen of >diamonds was now the legal opening lead, but with the >interchange of cards being UI to the opening leader's >partner, and AI to the non-offending side? AG : L41A tells us that the defender committed an irregularity. The use of indicative 'leads' means that there will usually be no penalty (see prolegomena). Another mild infraction is that he in fact led face up. This doesn't lead to specific penalties either. But (as we have often mentioned) L16B comes into action even after non-penalizable infractions. For those reasons, I would have followed the alternative suggestion. Here, UI could be that he indeed led from a sequence, not from Qx. Also, if you ask the player to repeat his former lead, how can you ensure he will do ? Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Apr 10 13:27:07 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:27:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Correction of Inadvertent Designation In-Reply-To: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951398@nifexch.idrettsforb undet.no> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030410082230.02d4dd30@pop.starpower.net> At 07:00 AM 4/10/03, Skjaran wrote: >Playing with in spades, declarer is in the following end position, not >having drawn trumps earlier: > >Q9xx >- >T >- > >ATx >- >Ax >- > >Declarer plays the ace of spades, the king falling from east. >Then he plays a small spade to the nine, which holds the trick, east >showing out. >Now declarer asks for a spade from dummy, correcting this to the spade >queen in the same second. >East followed with a heart immedeately after the call for a spade, >just prior to the change of designation. > >IMO this is a situaation covered by Law 45C4b, and the corretion >should be allowed. >The local TD did not allow declarer to change his designation. > >Am I correct, or are this law for some other purpose? For L45C4b to apply, declarer's original designation must have been "inadvertent", and the attempted correction must be made "without pause for thought". These are both points of fact, subject to the TD's "on the spot" determination. On the bare facts above, it sounds reasonable for the TD to have gone either way. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Apr 10 13:34:39 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:34:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000c01c2ff58$884e6840$0100a8c0@Desktop> References: <000001c2ff33$93cce950$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030410083006.02d4a830@pop.starpower.net> At 07:58 AM 4/10/03, wayne wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Sven Pran > > > > To me "playing in tempo" from dummy or third hand to trick > > one includes > > allowing for the traditional pause for thought during which > > planning the > > play and defense respectively is assumed to take place. > >Exactly! You say "To me.." > >There is no law that allows this free of conveying UI or potential >deception to declarer. > >The laws give the sponsoring organization power to enforce a >mandatory pause. > >The sponsoring organization have either exercised their power >or they have not. > >It is not a matter for your judgement. > >It is not a matter for my judgement. > >It is not a matter for the table director nor the chief director >nor the appeal committtee. > >The sponsoring organization have either decreed that one should >pause or one is obliged to endevour to play in an unvarying tempo >or risk the UI and deceptive consequences of a slow play. > > > So playing without hesitation to trick one is clearly an > > indication that the > > player has nothing to consider when indeed he ought to have. > > THIS IS UI! > > > A player who always takes his (little?) pause for thought > > before playing to > > trick one does not give away any information on whether his > > play to trick > > one is forced, is obvious or needed some consideration. > >I do not agree. This is potentially deceptive and that player >could have known that at the time. While on the other hand >declarer may have no way of knowing the habits of RHO at trick >one and ought to be able to deduce that the slow play at trick >one was not because RHO held a stiff!!! > > > What information? What deception? "In tempo" means "unvarying > > tempo" (from > > board to board when we discuss the first trick), it does not > > mean that you > > are supposed to play immediately with a forced play and after > > an allowed > > pause for thought when you have something to consider. > >I agree you endevour to play in tempo whether you have a stiff, only >one reasonable option or something to consider. If you break the >tempo then you risk giving UI or illegally deceiving declarer. > > > The players are supposed to plan their play during trick one > > so that they > > can play their cards to the remaining tricks without much > > hesitation unless > > unforeseen situations develop. > >There is no law that states this. > >There is an allowance for a SO to mandate a pause for thought >at trick one. > >Absent such a mandate one must endevour to play in tempo. > > > Exactly! And "in tempo" at trick one is . . . . . ? > >The same as in tempo at trick two or three or twelve. > >If not there is a break in tempo or a change in tempo from trick one >to trick two etc... > > > You are not playing your card to trick one "in tempo" when > > you play without > > first spending any time to plan your defense (preferably the > > time imposed > > upon you by declarer's pause before playing from dummy). You > > demonstrate > > that you either: > > > > Have nothing to consider on that board > > > > Or > > > > Do not bother to consider your defense on that board. > > > > THAT is either transmitting the illegal information that you > > do not believe > > you have any influence on the play; or it demonstrates a > > clear violation of > > Law 74B1 by not paying attention to the game. Have your own choice! > >There is a third option. It simply means I am playing my card in tempo. > >I find I can think about the play of the hand at many opportunities >without deliberately playing slowly with a singleton. > > > I have no idea if this explicit situation was ever the > > intention for L74B1. > > That law is very general and I just pointed out that > > demonstrating little > > interest in planning the defense when dummy is faced can make L74B1 > > applicable. > >Playing 'in tempo' does not show little interest. It merely shows >a desire not to deceive declarer nor to give partner UI problems. > > > So that you show you have nothing to consider for your defense? UI! > >If the SO wanted players to sit there and think when they have nothing >to think about then the SO can mandate a pause - the laws specifically >allow that. > >Therefore if the SO does not so mandate then any pause should be >considered for what it is an unmistakable hesitation which may provide >UI to partner or may deceive declarer. Wayne seems to overlook the fact that something may be permitted without being mandatory. 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 Apr 10 16:31:25 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:31:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000d01c2ff59$5277f280$0100a8c0@Desktop> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030410135746.00ac9c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030410173020.0246ad00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:04 11/04/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] > > Sent: Friday, 11 April 2003 12:00 a.m. > > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; 'blml' > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > > > > At 09:13 10/04/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > > > > Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2003 1:00 a.m. > > > > To: blml > > > > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one > > > > > > > > > > > A similar case : my partner, usually a fairly slow player, > > > > took about 10-12 > > > > sec to decide he would not put his Ace on my lead and > > > > declarer's quick play > > > > from dummy, instead playing an encouraging 3-spot. When I > > > > played the same > > > > suit on trick 4, declarer called the TD, and was told he was > > > > the culprit. > > > > > >I don't see what law declarer has infracted so that declarer > > >becomes the culprit. > > > > AG : at least L74C7. And perhaps 73A2 too. > >74C7 requires that the variation is done for the purpose of >disconcerting >and opponent. > >Declarer may simply have considered the options and played accordingly. AG : no. A declarer who plays the first card at flashing speed didn't consider anything. From john@asimere.com Thu Apr 10 16:30:34 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:30:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correction of Inadvertent Designation In-Reply-To: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951398@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951398@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: In article <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951398@nifexch.idrettsforbun det.no>, Skjaran, Harald writes >I've got a question from a player playing in a local club on the following. > >Playing with in spades, declarer is in the following end position, not having >drawn trumps earlier: > >Q9xx >- >T >- > > > >ATx >- >Ax >- > >Declarer plays the ace of spades, the king falling from east. >Then he plays a small spade to the nine, which holds the trick, east showing >out. >Now declarer asks for a spade from dummy, correcting this to the spade queen in >the same second. >East followed with a heart immedeately after the call for a spade, just prior to >the change of designation. If the designation is inadvertent and it is in time then it can be changed. Why not ask the player? .. or is that too difficult? He's probably in time for the correction, but did he intend to call the Queen? The whole question in the current law about whether a card is played is pretty complex, most so for dummy, and you need to wear three different hats to get close to ruling them correctly, (dummy, declarer, defender). For declarer and defender I always get the player to replay the action, and once the opponents agree, or I've got as close as I can, then I'll make a ruling. For a card from dummy we replay the words, decide on whether it's in time, and then we must still decide on intent. 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 HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Apr 10 18:08:40 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:08:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 16A In-Reply-To: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951376@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951376@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: >This is a case som might remember, but I hope most of you don't. > >Teams >E/W vul. Dealer East > >South hand: >S Q J 9 7 4 >H J 8 >D J 9 8 7 >C T > >Bidding: >West North East South >- - 1H 1S >2C 4S 5C Pass >6C ..Pass Pass ? > >There are two LA's; pass and 6S (unless you play negative slam >doubles, which you don't). > >What action, if any, is demonstrably suggested by partner's hesitation? > >What bid should south be deemed to make? First we need to know what south did. Then we can rule against him if it worked well. -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Apr 10 18:16:58 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 18:16:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 16A References: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951376@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <00b701c2ff85$01a32ec0$601d27d9@pbncomputer> Robert wrote: > >This is a case som might remember, but I hope most of you don't. > > > >Teams > >E/W vul. Dealer East > > > >South hand: > >S Q J 9 7 4 > >H J 8 > >D J 9 8 7 > >C T > > > >Bidding: > >West North East South > >- - 1H 1S > >2C 4S 5C Pass > >6C ..Pass Pass ? > > > >There are two LA's; pass and 6S (unless you play negative slam > >doubles, which you don't). > > > >What action, if any, is demonstrably suggested by partner's hesitation? > > > >What bid should south be deemed to make? > > > First we need to know what south did. Then we can rule against him > if it worked well. First, we need to know what South's thirteenth card was. David Burn London, England From adam@tameware.com Thu Apr 10 17:51:51 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:51:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - 2005 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 4:02 PM +1000 4/4/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >I suggest that the WBF consider a total rewrite >from the ground up of the Bridge Laws in 2005, >similar to the total rewrite from the ground up >of the French legal system brought about by the >Code Napoleon. I don't think that would be a good idea. The laws strike a careful balance, and I think the process of incremental change has served us well. If each set of laws is an improvement over the last then over a long enough span we'll end up with an excellent set. Another reason not to rewrite the laws from the ground up is that I do not believe there is sufficient agreement on the best philosophy for the laws at present. Until there is a complete rewrite would be difficult to accomplish and it would have difficulty finding political acceptance. I do think there is room for a substantial reorganization of the lawbook along with a simplification of its language. Borrowing a term from software development, it could be "refactored". By that I mean changing the form without changing the meaning. This could perhaps be accomplished between major revisions. I do think it would be important to make a rewrite without a change in meaning a separate step. That way the only decisions that need be taken would concern organization, clarity of meaning, and ease of use. Combining a change in form with a change in meaning would be a substantially more difficult task, not least because changes in meaning are more controversial. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Apr 10 20:08:44 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:08:44 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] History Message-ID: Considering how long and loudly we can debate over the smallest changes to the laws, things that have only a rare and small impact on how the game is played... I am curious whether there was a longer and louder debate, possibly for years, before really big changes that fundamentally altered the strategy of the game -- changing the non-vulnerable undertricks from 1-3-5-7-9 to 1-3-5-8-11, for instance. That was before my time. It has seemed to me that almost all the discussion now is about preserving the existing game with just minor technical improvements, not tampering with the basic operation of things. I wonder if we will see any more big changes made. (See the ACBL attacks on L40E, and some unLawful things being done online that may or may not become codified later...) GRB From svenpran@online.no Thu Apr 10 21:03:14 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:03:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c2ff9c$39000980$6900a8c0@WINXP> > con.holzscherer: > Sven wrote: >=20 > > Before bothering more with this discussion I shall appreciate > > some example on how a pause for thought before playing to > > trick 1 can imply any UI to partner... >=20 > I might have such an example from a moderately high-level pairs > competition in the Netherlands, a few years ago. I should be able > to find the complete distribution if necessary, but this is the > essential part of what happened. >=20 > East was on lead against a contract of 4 spades, where > -- NS had made a slam try but stopped in game without > showing a lack of control and > -- Dummy had bid clubs. >=20 > East had AQxxx of clubs and (probably thinking that the best chance > of making two or even three tricks in defense was a club ruff with > partner) lead the Ace of clubs. >=20 > Dummy came down with KJxxx of clubs. Declarer politely thanked his > partner and without much thought (nor undue haste) played small in > dummy. >=20 > West now took about 30 seconds to play the 9 of clubs, declarer > played the 10. East switched to a heart, which held declarer to 11 = tricks > (a club at trick two would have enabled declarer to make 12 tricks). >=20 > NS called the TD. Your decision please! No real problem: Although I consider 30 seconds deliberation time a bit = much I don't believe the difference between 15 seconds (which undoubtedly = would be acceptable) and 30 seconds means the difference between UI not being given and UI being given. (Not considering the possibility that = "everybody" felt the hesitation to have lasted 30 seconds while on a stopwatch it = would have been only 15) And West is entitled the time to plan his defense even if he needs no = time to plan his play to trick one so I would sustain the result. Sven=20 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 10 21:38:50 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:38:50 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030410083006.02d4a830@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000801c2ffa1$36163dc0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Eric Landau > Sent: Friday, 11 April 2003 12:35 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > > >Therefore if the SO does not so mandate then any pause should be > >considered for what it is an unmistakable hesitation which > may provide > >UI to partner or may deceive declarer. > > Wayne seems to overlook the fact that something may be permitted > without being mandatory. I understand perfectly well. You seem to overlook the fact that if the SO does not mandate a pause then it is not required and the default position that "...calls should be made without ...undue hesitation..." L73A2 And "undue hesitation" is defined in a context in which the SO was permitted to allow a mandatory pause and the SO for its own reasons chose not to so mandate. The SO may force me to pause. The SO do not force me to pause. Therefore I am not forced to pause. And further if I do pause my partner is not permitted to use any information garnered from that action and I may deceive declarer and I could have known that I could deceive declarer. Very straight forward. Eric, Sven et al you are forcing players to do something that the SO has not enforced. Wayne > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 10 21:40:45 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:40:45 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030410173020.0246ad00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000901c2ffa1$76605f00$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Friday, 11 April 2003 3:31 a.m. > To: 'blml' > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > At 00:04 11/04/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > > >I don't see what law declarer has infracted so that declarer > > > >becomes the culprit. > > > > > > AG : at least L74C7. And perhaps 73A2 too. > > > >74C7 requires that the variation is done for the purpose of > >disconcerting > >and opponent. > > > >Declarer may simply have considered the options and played > accordingly. > > AG : no. A declarer who plays the first card at flashing speed didn't > consider anything. We are not talking about flashing speed we are talking about an in tempo play made in the context of the SO not mandating a compulsory pause at trick one. Wayne > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 10 21:51:37 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:51:37 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c2ffa2$ff3c6c50$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of con.holzscherer@philips.com > Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2003 10:10 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > > Sven wrote: > > > Before bothering more with this discussion I shall appreciate > > some example on how a pause for thought before playing to > > trick 1 can imply any UI to partner... > > I might have such an example from a moderately high-level pairs > competition in the Netherlands, a few years ago. I should be able > to find the complete distribution if necessary, but this is the > essential part of what happened. > > East was on lead against a contract of 4 spades, where > -- NS had made a slam try but stopped in game without > showing a lack of control and > -- Dummy had bid clubs. > > East had AQxxx of clubs and (probably thinking that the best chance > of making two or even three tricks in defense was a club ruff with > partner) lead the Ace of clubs. > > Dummy came down with KJxxx of clubs. Declarer politely thanked his > partner and without much thought (nor undue haste) played small in > dummy. > > West now took about 30 seconds to play the 9 of clubs, declarer > played the 10. East switched to a heart, which held declarer > to 11 tricks > (a club at trick two would have enabled declarer to make 12 tricks). > > NS called the TD. Your decision please! > > Regards, > > Con Holzscherer > This is definitely a player with a choice of plays at trick one. There is no bridge reason for playing slowing with a singleton club. This information (that partner has 2+ clubs) is UI to the opening leader. In situations similar to this I frequently automatically play a club to trick two and will later quietly tell my partner to play in tempo please. When I have this UI I may not choose another alternative. IMO Anyone who rules in favour of this pair are simply allowing Coffeehousing. Wayne > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Apr 10 22:15:56 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:15:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] trick one Message-ID: <200304102115.RAA11863@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Wayne Burrows" > You seem to overlook the fact that if the SO does not mandate a > pause then it is not required and the default position that > "...calls should be made without ...undue hesitation..." L73A2 The question is which hesitations are "undue." While I don't believe we have any official regulation in the ACBL, there is a very strong consensus that normal tempo depends on both the player concerned and the situation at the table. One example is a jump bid, where we do have a regulation, but in any high-level competitive auction, no one can be expected to (or should!) act instantly. On the other hand, we do expect players to act very promptly when they hear a response to their Blackwood bid. Trick one is similar. The question is what is normal tempo for the player concerned _at trick one_. This may very well differ from the player's normal tempo at other tricks. If a player always pauses at trick one, it is hard for me to see why the pause should be "undue." There is some unofficial guidance in a recent Ruling the Game column in the ACBL Bulletin. (I don't have the Bulletin in front of me, but it might have been February or March. In practice, TD's who care about this sort of thing are likely to take the article as official.) From adam@irvine.com Thu Apr 10 22:17:25 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:17:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:38:50 +1200." <000801c2ffa1$36163dc0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <200304102117.OAA31019@mailhub.irvine.com> Wayne wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Eric Landau > > Sent: Friday, 11 April 2003 12:35 a.m. > > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > > > > > >Therefore if the SO does not so mandate then any pause should be > > >considered for what it is an unmistakable hesitation which > > may provide > > >UI to partner or may deceive declarer. > > > > Wayne seems to overlook the fact that something may be permitted > > without being mandatory. > > I understand perfectly well. I doubt it---see below. > You seem to overlook the fact that if the SO does not mandate a > pause then it is not required and the default position that > "...calls should be made without ...undue hesitation..." L73A2 > > And "undue hesitation" is defined in a context in which the > SO was permitted to allow a mandatory pause and the SO for its > own reasons chose not to so mandate. What you're overlooking is that the context in which "undue hesitation" also varies depending on the particular players involved. Just as a three-second pause before a bid may be a hesitation for one player but "normal tempo" for another, then in the absence of an SO policy forcing players to pause at the first trick, a pause at the first trick may be an undue hesitation for players that do not routinely pause at the first trick, but "steady tempo and unvarying manner" for players who do. That's what I think Eric meant by "something may be permitted without being mandatory"; just because the SO does not mandate a trick-one hesitation for everyone does *not* prevent individual players or partnerships from adopting their own *policy* of always hesitating at trick one. (If you think Eric meant simply "players are permitted to hesitate at tricke one", you will get yourself confused; you need to realize that he meant "players are permitted to adopt a personal policy of consistently hesitating at trick one", which is different.) -- Adam From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Apr 10 23:28:03 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 18:28:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SV: [blml] Law 16A Message-ID: <200304102228.SAA12025@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Skjaran, Harald" > Teams > E/W vul. Dealer East > > South hand: > S Q J 9 7 4 > H J 8 > D J 9 8 7 > C T 3 > > Bidding: > West North East South > - - 1H 1S > 2C 4S 5C Pass > 6C ..Pass Pass ? > > There are two LA's; pass and 6S (unless you play negative slam > doubles, which you don't). > > What action, if any, is demonstrably suggested by partner's hesitation? How long was the hesitation? If it was only a few seconds, I think it could mean anything. Maybe North was wondering why the opponents were volunteering for down 3 until he remembered what South's overcalls look like. :-) Anyway, if the pause was short, in my opinion South can do what he likes. And a save must always be a consideration at this vulnerability, regardless of what North's hand looks like. I think, in fact, that an ultra-fast action here would restrict South's options. (See the "trick one" thread.) If it was a substantial think, it looks to me as though North must have been thinking of saving. That would make 6S illegal. If North has C-AK, I'm suspicious of a L73B1 violation. That could be a 3-second problem (maybe 6H is making) but not a 15-s problem. However, whether or not to save could easily be a 15-s or even 60-s problem. A save might be a phantom or might go for too much, especially if South habitually overcalls on hands such as the one above. I don't claim to be a high level player, so maybe there's something I'm missing. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 11 00:53:59 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:53:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] New lamps for old Message-ID: >too draconian by a street. > >Regardless of event I don't think I'd ever tell a >player to expose a card. cheers john >-- >John (MadDog) Probst The Interpretation of the Laws state that: "...Prior to the 1987 Laws words such as may, should, shall and must were used without much discrimination. In 1987 they were rationalised, and the practice is continued in the current Laws. [snip] Note that "may" becomes very strong in the negative: "may not" is a stronger injunction than "shall not", just short of "must not"..." The relevant phrase of Law 41A states that: "...The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity..." A problem here is that this Law 41A phrase seems to have escaped rationalisation in the 1987 or 1997 Laws. If I was tasked with rewriting this Law 41A phrase, so that what (in my opinion) is its current meaning is also formatted consistently with the Interpretation, then I word reword thusly: "The face-down lead may not be withdrawn. Exception: After an irregularity, the Director may instruct that the face-down lead be withdrawn." On the other hand, I agree with MadDog that the literal meaning of this Law 41A phrase is too Draco Malfoy by a street. For the 2005 Laws, I suggest that the current meaning of the phrase be changed, so that the 2005 Law 41A phrase reads something like: "Before the face-down lead is faced, it may be freely replaced with a different face-down card. However, the fact that a face-down lead has been replaced is unauthorised information to the leader's partner. See: Law 16" Grattan, another item for your notebook? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 11 01:10:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:10:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] New lamps for old Message-ID: >IMO you made the correct ruling. > >You could have considered a more lenient ruling >with inexperienced players who should receive >training rather than the brute force of the >laws; it doesn't appear to me that this was the >case here? > >Regards Sven Yes and no. If the issue is the award of a Procedural Penalty (Law 90), where the Direktor has discretion on whether and/or how much to penalise a player or pair, then the bridge standard of the player is relevant - that is, let the punishment fit the criminal. On the other hand, many Laws do not permit discretion. (A clearcut example is the revoke Laws.) If my interpretation of Law 41A was correct, then my Direktorial hands were tied - I had no choice but to give the ruling that I did. I strongly disagree with the Humpty Dumpty argument that the Direktor's interpretation of what the Laws *require* should change depending on whom is being given the ruling - was it Abraham Lincoln who said, "We have a government of laws, not men"? Best wishes Richard From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Apr 11 01:27:02 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:27:02 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <200304102115.RAA11863@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000201c2ffc1$162c7ae0$6d2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: Friday, 11 April 2003 9:16 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > You seem to overlook the fact that if the SO does not mandate a > > pause then it is not required and the default position that > > "...calls should be made without ...undue hesitation..." L73A2 > > The question is which hesitations are "undue." > > While I don't believe we have any official regulation in the ACBL, > there is a very strong consensus that normal tempo depends on both the > player concerned and the situation at the table. One example > is a jump > bid, where we do have a regulation, but in any high-level competitive > auction, no one can be expected to (or should!) act instantly. On > the other hand, we do expect players to act very promptly when they > hear a response to their Blackwood bid. > > Trick one is similar. The question is what is normal tempo for the > player concerned _at trick one_. This may very well differ from the > player's normal tempo at other tricks. If a player always pauses at > trick one, it is hard for me to see why the pause should be "undue." I do not think this is acceptable. How am I supposed to know if there is a hesitation at trick one whether I am playing against Mr I-always-pause-at-trick-one or Mr This-time-I-have-a-problem. On the other hand the player with a singleton or forced play can easily determine that playing that card slowly may deceive declarer or that playing from a doubleton slowly may clear up that suit for partner as in the example given elsewhere in this thread. Wayne > > There is some unofficial guidance in a recent Ruling the Game > column in > the ACBL Bulletin. (I don't have the Bulletin in front of me, but it > might have been February or March. In practice, TD's who care about > this sort of thing are likely to take the article as official.) > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Apr 11 01:39:03 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:39:03 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <200304102117.OAA31019@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000301c2ffc2$c3abf500$6d2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > Sent: Friday, 11 April 2003 9:17 a.m. > To: 'Bridge Laws Discussion List' > Cc: adam@irvine.com > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one > > > > Wayne wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > Behalf Of Eric Landau > > > Sent: Friday, 11 April 2003 12:35 a.m. > > > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > > > > > > > > >Therefore if the SO does not so mandate then any pause should be > > > >considered for what it is an unmistakable hesitation which > > > may provide > > > >UI to partner or may deceive declarer. > > > > > > Wayne seems to overlook the fact that something may be permitted > > > without being mandatory. > > > > I understand perfectly well. > > I doubt it---see below. > > > You seem to overlook the fact that if the SO does not mandate a > > pause then it is not required and the default position that > > "...calls should be made without ...undue hesitation..." L73A2 > > > > And "undue hesitation" is defined in a context in which the > > SO was permitted to allow a mandatory pause and the SO for its > > own reasons chose not to so mandate. > > What you're overlooking is that the context in which "undue > hesitation" also varies depending on the particular players involved. > > Just as a three-second pause before a bid may be a hesitation for one > player but "normal tempo" for another, then in the absence of an SO > policy forcing players to pause at the first trick, a pause at the > first trick may be an undue hesitation for players that do not > routinely pause at the first trick, but "steady tempo and unvarying > manner" for players who do. That's what I think Eric meant by > "something may be permitted without being mandatory"; just because the > SO does not mandate a trick-one hesitation for everyone does *not* > prevent individual players or partnerships from adopting their own > *policy* of always hesitating at trick one. (If you think Eric meant > simply "players are permitted to hesitate at tricke one", you will get > yourself confused; you need to realize that he meant "players are > permitted to adopt a personal policy of consistently hesitating at > trick one", which is different.) The whole weight of law is against this interpretation... 73A2 implies an otherwise undue hesitation is allowed when the SO authorises over a skip bid or when playing to the first trick therefore if the SO does not allow such a hesitation then plays should not be made with that 'undue hesitation' 73D1 talks about the desirability of playing at a steady tempo. And instructs players to be particularly careful when variations may work to their sides advantage. 73E states that it is appropriate to attempt to make all plays in an unvarying manner. There are two issues. 1.Can RHO hesitate at trick one. 2.Can declarer play in tempo at trick one. I say that the law allows 1. but it is not without risk and the law definitely allows 2. Wayne > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Apr 11 02:28:14 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:28:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] History Message-ID: Gordon Bower: >Considering how long and loudly we can debate over >the smallest changes to the laws, things that have >only a rare and small impact on how the game is >played... Richard Hills: Partially disagree. The butterfly effect can cause a trivial change in Law to have a major impact on the game. For example, a small change in the interpretation of the application of Law 40D has permitted the ACBL to place extensive restrictions upon non-conventional partnership agreements. Gordon Bower: >I am curious whether there was a longer and louder >debate, possibly for years, before really big >changes that fundamentally altered the strategy >of the game -- changing the non-vulnerable >undertricks from 1-3-5-7-9 to 1-3-5-8-11, for >instance. That was before my time. Richard Hills: While the new non-vulnerable doubled undertricks were a highly visible scoring change, I do not agree that they fundamentally changed bridge strategy. Most doubled penalties fall in the range of the score-unchanged one to three undertricks. There was a debate for some years before the change was introduced. The target was to abolish frivolous non-vul saves against vul grand slams. Under the old scoring, a non-vul save needed to score a mere two tricks to show a profit. Therefore, this law and consequential small strategy change was aimed at more frequently rewarding the skill of those players whose methods were designed to reach good grands. As the overall duplicate philosophy is that ability should be rewarded in the long run, this small law and strategy change was consistent with the fundamental nature of bridge. Gordon Bower: >It has seemed to me that almost all the discussion >now is about preserving the existing game with just >minor technical improvements, not tampering with >the basic operation of things. I wonder if we will >see any more big changes made. Richard Hills: Big changes to the basic operation of things are not necessarily due to Law changes. A really big change, which caused bridge events to have a huge increase in tables in Australia, was the adoption of Swiss Teams - which is merely a condition of contest. [snip] Best wishes Richard From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Apr 11 08:26:01 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:26:01 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Law 16A Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC9513ED@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> This is a case som might remember, but I hope most of you don't. Teams E/W vul. Dealer East South hand: S Q J 9 7 4 H J 8 D J 9 8 7 C T 3 Bidding: West North East South - - 1H 1S 2C 4S 5C Pass 6C ..Pass Pass ? There are two LA's; pass and 6S (unless you play negative slam doubles, whi= ch you don't). What action, if any, is demonstrably suggested by partner's hesitation? What bid should south be deemed to make? --- Robert Harris: First we need to know what south did. Then we can rule agai= nst him=20 if it worked well. *Harald S.: What do you mean by "rule against him if it worked well"? I my = world we rule against someone if the laws say so. I didn't give south actions yet to get an open, unbiased discu= ssion. Robert's comment suggests that he's a member of the "if they hesitate - shoot them"_school (I can't say by= just one comment) which seems to be prevaliant in many ACs. I would like to see TDs and ACs to really understan= d what law 16A de facto says, and rule accordlingly. --- Steve Wilner: How long was the hesitation? If it was only a few seconds, I think it could mean anything. Maybe North was wondering why the opponents were volunteering for down 3 until he remembered what South's overcalls look like. :-) Anyway, if the pause was short, in my opinion South can do what he likes. And a save must always be a consideration at this vulnerability, regardless of what North's hand looks like. I think, in fact, that an ultra-fast action here would restrict South's options. (See the "trick one" thread.) If it was a substantial think, it looks to me as though North must have been thinking of saving. That would make 6S illegal. If North has C-AK, I'm suspicious of a L73B1 violation. That could be a 3-second problem (maybe 6H is making) but not a 15-s problem. However, whether or not to save could easily be a 15-s or even 60-s problem. A save might be a phantom or might go for too much, especially if South habitually overcalls on hands such as the one above. I don't claim to be a high level player, so maybe there's something I'm missing. *Harald S.: They played with screens. The hesitation was so long that there= was no doubt on the other side of the screen that somone had thougt for very lo= ng on the NE side. And given the auction, that could only be north. ************************************************************************** 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 svenpran@online.no Fri Apr 11 08:31:10 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:31:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000301c2ffc2$c3abf500$6d2e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c2fffc$5369f690$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows ............. > 1.Can RHO hesitate at trick one. > 2.Can declarer play in tempo at trick one. > I say that the law allows 1. but it is not without risk > and the law definitely allows 2. > > Wayne Bridge is a game where a major feature is your reasoning capability. There is nothing in the laws that forbids you from spending the time you need (!) to figure out how you are going to play your cards (or for that's sake make your calls) before leading or playing a card to any of the first twelve tricks. The burden is upon your partner to avoid making his decisions based wholly or in part on the information he receives from the manner in which you make your calls and plays rather than from your calls and plays themselves. Because it is generally recognized that declarer and both defenders should normally spend a little time at the moment dummy faces his cards to plan their tactics for the play on that board then a play to trick one after a shorter than normal hesitation is a deviation from the "normal" which conveys to everybody the information that you had little or no need for considerations. This information is most often unauthorized for your partner! (For declarer a "faster than normal" play from dummy to trick one could very well be a violation of Law 73D2 and/or Law 74C7). Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Apr 11 09:49:34 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:49:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] History References: Message-ID: <001401c30007$4de23fb0$e0def1c3@LNV> Good question, Let me introduce a possible fundamental change which probably has been discussd for many years already but apparently never made it. Adopting it probably will make Larry Cohen (the law of total tricks) a millionaire (if he isn't yet). I am talking about the idea to award bidding 3spades above the result of making 2spades plus one, which both now get the same points. Of course not just this case but generally adopted: 4 diamonds and 10 tricks better than 3 diamonds with the same result and probably 4 diamonds making 11 tricks being better than 3 diamonds with the same result. This of course is a huge change when playing top-bottom and doesn't mean very much playing teams. I possess a letter from a bridge player in India who suggests this change, which is on my desk for a long time already. I'll promisse to answer it after having received your reactions. The reason to change the non vulnerable doubled undertricks was that we didn't want almost automatic saves in vulnerable slambidding (I could take more lines to explain it but this is the kernel I think). ton > > Considering how long and loudly we can debate over the smallest changes to > the laws, things that have only a rare and small impact on how the game is > played... > > I am curious whether there was a longer and louder debate, possibly for > years, before really big changes that fundamentally altered the strategy > of the game -- changing the non-vulnerable undertricks from 1-3-5-7-9 to > 1-3-5-8-11, for instance. That was before my time. > > It has seemed to me that almost all the discussion now is about preserving > the existing game with just minor technical improvements, not tampering > with the basic operation of things. I wonder if we will see any more big > changes made. (See the ACBL attacks on L40E, and some unLawful things > being done online that may or may not become codified later...) > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gillp@bigpond.com Fri Apr 11 10:14:32 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 19:14:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] trick one Message-ID: <01e801c3000a$c9356ae0$d18d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Sven Pran wrote: >Because it is generally recognized that declarer and both ---------------------------- >defenders should normally spend a little time at the moment >dummy faces his cards to plan .... Sven, we are discussing the Laws of Bridge. This discussion group is not called the Generally Recognized Principles of Bridge Mailing List, it is called BLML for a reason. What you may generally recognize as normal in the limited sample of bridge that you see in part of Norway is not necessarily what is generally recognized elsewhere. Also, this discussion group is not called the Generally Recognized by Sven Principles of Bridge Mailing List. This is why we have bridge laws. And the Laws are what they say, not what you want them to say, until they are changed. That seems to me to be what Wayne has been saying in this thread. We must rule according to the Laws rather than twist them into meaning what they do not mean. Indeed I guarantee you with 100.0% certainty that there is at least one bridge club in the world where what you say is complete and utter nonsense. People simply do not habitually stop at Trick One at this club. It's interesting that membership is booming there, and that problems are minimal, compared to other bridge clubs. I am referring to a real bridge club which I play at sometimes. There are over 50 bridge clubs in Sydney. I have played or directed at about eight of them so far this year. At another local bridge club, what you say is regarded as sensible. Another feature of this club is that some pairs (mainly of LOLs) write on their Convention Cards that they play "Compulsory Pauses over Preempts" (note that we are in a land of 'No Stop Cards' here). I have noticed that when I preempt, they do pause if they have cards and want partner to act,, but they don't pause if they have nothing. Useful for me too! Sven, I know - such things don't happen in Norway - but they do happen elsewhere. The concept of introducing compulsory pauses to the Laws, or into the regulations of a sponsoring organisation, is not costfree. IMO when bridge law and/or regulation reaches the stage where one does not adjust the score in Con's example in this thread, we are getting close to the time when the administrators are choking the life out of the game. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From svenpran@online.no Fri Apr 11 10:15:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:15:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] History In-Reply-To: <001401c30007$4de23fb0$e0def1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000201c3000a$ef70b5c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman .......... > Let me introduce a possible fundamental change which probably has > been discussed for many years already but apparently never made it. > Adopting it probably will make Larry Cohen (the law of total tricks) > a millionaire (if he isn't yet). >=20 > I am talking about the idea to award bidding 3spades above the result > of making 2spades plus one, which both now get the same points. Of > course not just this case but generally adopted: 4 diamonds and 10 > tricks better than 3 diamonds with the same result and probably 4 > diamonds making 11 tricks being better than 3 diamonds with the > same result. This of course is a huge change when playing top-bottom > and doesn't mean very much playing teams. >=20 > I possess a letter from a bridge player in India who suggests this > change, which is on my desk for a long time already. I'll promisse > to answer it after having received your reactions. Interesting idea, but I am inclined to turn it "upside down" if we are = to make any change: Two tables, both making 10 tricks in a diamond contract. At one table = the defenders were fighting to 3 hearts forcing the contracting party to bid = 4 diamonds while at the other table defense was silent allowing a contract = in 2 or 3 diamonds. What are "fair" results? You might compare to the relative scores for doubled contracts in 2D, 3D or 4D all won with 10 tricks. My suggestion would be that undoubled overtricks score 50 points each regardless of vulnerability. This will in general give a premium to a party that fights to the bitter = end over a party that resigns without fight (both during auction and during play). Regards Sven From con.holzscherer@philips.com Fri Apr 11 10:13:23 2003 From: con.holzscherer@philips.com (con.holzscherer@philips.com) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:13:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] History Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote: > Let me introduce a possible fundamental change which probably > has been discussd for many years already but never made it. > ... > I am talking about the idea to award bidding 3spades above > the result of making 2spades plus one, > ... > I possess a letter from a bridge player in India who > suggests this change, To give credit where it is due, this was already suggested around 1970 bij the Dutch bridge player Bavinck from Nijmegen. His implementation was simply to add the numeral of the contract (i.e. "2" for two spades, "3" for 3NT etc.) to the score. Examples (non vul.): 2 spades, 9 tricks: 140 + 2 = 142 3 spade, 9 tricks: 140 + 3 = 143 3 spade, 8 tricks: -50 + 3 = -47 4 spade, 9 tricks: -50 + 4 = -46 This of course would revolutionize bidding strategy for pairs games. Regards, Con Holzscherer From gillp@bigpond.com Fri Apr 11 10:22:49 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 19:22:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] History Message-ID: <01ef01c3000b$f163ddc0$d18d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Ton Kooijman wrote: >Let me introduce a possible fundamental change which probably >has been discussd for many years already but apparently never >made it. Adopting it probably will make Larry Cohen (the law of >total tricks) a millionaire (if he isn't yet). > >I am talking about the idea to award bidding 3spades above the >result of making 2spades plus one, which both now get the same >points. Of course not just this case but generally adopted: 4 diamonds >and 10 tricks better than 3 diamonds with the same result and >probably 4 diamonds making 11 tricks being better than 3 diamonds >with the same result. This of course is a huge change when playing >top-bottom and doesn't mean very much playing teams. > >I possess a letter from a bridge player in India who suggests this >change, which is on my desk for a long time already. I'll promise to >answer it after having received your reactions. This change would be quite similar to the change in the 1920s from Auction Bridge to Contract Bridge. It would make a huge number of bridge books and magazine articles which refer to the old game become out of date, and would fundmaentally change the game of bridge. Why should one do this? If it would magically increase the popularity of bridge, then go for it. If it would simplify the teaching of the game and simplify the scoring of the game, it has something going for it. Otherwise, I see no reason to tinker with an already good product. I don't think this change would have sufficient advantages to make it worth revolutionising the game of bridge. Good arguments might however convince me that I have failed to see the advantages. Peter Gill Australia. From gillp@bigpond.com Fri Apr 11 10:41:24 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 19:41:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] trick one Message-ID: <023701c3000e$8a1240a0$d18d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Con Holzscherer wrote: Sven Pran wrote: >> Before bothering more with this discussion I shall appreciate >> some example on how a pause for thought before playing to >> trick 1 can imply any UI to partner... > >I might have such an example from a moderately high-level pairs >competition in the Netherlands, a few years ago. I should be able >to find the complete distribution if necessary, but this is the >essential part of what happened. > >East was on lead against a contract of 4 spades, where >-- NS had made a slam try but stopped in game without > showing a lack of control and >-- Dummy had bid clubs. > >East had AQxxx of clubs and (probably thinking that the best chance >of making two or even three tricks in defense was a club ruff with >partner) lead the Ace of clubs. > >Dummy came down with KJxxx of clubs. Declarer politely thanked >his partner and without much thought (nor undue haste) played >small in dummy. > >West now took about 30 seconds to play the 9 of clubs, declarer >played the 10. East switched to a heart, which held declarer to >11 tricks (a club at trick two would have enabled declarer to >make 12 tricks). > >NS called the TD. Your decision please! Assuming no special regulations apply regarding pauses at Trick One in the Netherlands, I have no choice by Law (Law 73F2, "could have known ... that the action could work to his benefit") but to adjust to 12 tricks. Any self-respecting East in a "moderately high level pairs competition in the Netherlands" should have the commonsense not to give such blatant UI to his partner by pausing at such a vital time when he could pause without the dire consequences a bit later, by leaving his card face up at the end of Trick One for example. This example is exactly what Law 73F2 is there to protect against, isn't it? For newcomers to BLML, note that in Law 73F2, intent is irrelevant. That makes the voting on BLML in favour of 12 tricks 2-1 so far. More votes please. I await other opinions with interest. Peter Gill Australia. From gillp@bigpond.com Fri Apr 11 10:53:40 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 19:53:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 16A Message-ID: <024f01c30010$41061420$d18d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Harald Skjaran wrote: > >Teams >E/W vul. Dealer East > >South hand: >S Q J 9 7 4 >H J 8 >D J 9 8 7 >C T 3 > > >West North East South > - - 1H 1S > 2C 4S 5C Pass > 6C ..Pass Pass ? > >There are two LA's; pass and 6S (unless you play negative >slam doubles, which you don't). > >What action, if any, is demonstrably suggested by partner's hesitation? > >What bid should south be deemed to make? Mmm, a toughie. Partner could have something like SA and CA and think for a while about whether to double, because West couldn't Blackwood so could be off two cashing aces. Or North could, perhaps more likely at this vulnerability, be thinking about saving. Thus both Pass and 6S are to varying extents suggested by partner's hesitation. X is also indicated by partner's hesitation and if South did double and got lucky, an adjustment would be necessary. However that is unlikely as then this case wouldn't have made it onto BLML. I don't know which call South is allowed to make. Not X. Certainly at the table I see nothing wrong with South trying Pass or 6S and seeing what happens later - at the table or with the AC. If South is deemed to make a BID, then 6S is that bid. However the CALL of Pass may be a little bit more likely to be South's action IMO. Peter Gill. From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Apr 11 11:17:22 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:17:22 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] History Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC95142E@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Ton wrote: Let me introduce a possible fundamental change which probably has been discussd for many years already but apparently never made it. Adopting it probably will make Larry Cohen (the law of total tricks) a millionaire (if he isn't yet). I am talking about the idea to award bidding 3spades above the result of making 2spades plus one, which both now get the same points. Of course not just this case but generally adopted: 4 diamonds and 10 tricks better than 3 diamonds with the same result and probably 4 diamonds making 11 tricks being better than 3 diamonds with the same result. This of course is a huge change when playing top-bottom and doesn't mean very much playing teams. I possess a letter from a bridge player in India who suggests this change, which is on my desk for a long time already. I'll promisse to answer it after having received your reactions. The reason to change the non vulnerable doubled undertricks was that we didn't want almost automatic saves in vulnerable slambidding (I could take more lines to explain it but this is the kernel I think). ----- This idea bring back memories of the late Eric Jannersten's Rexbridge, intr= oduced in the 1950's. The idea of adding bonuses to bidding more exact was then constrained to co= ntracts between game and slam level (i.e. 4N, 5H, 5S, 5N), where extra bonuses were awarded. Rexbrid= ge included lots of other=20 ideas as well, and the scoring was altered. There was no difference in scor= e between major and minor=20 suits, you could bid at the 8 and 9 level, and you got a plus score for goi= ng 1 down undoubled in contracts above game level. Doubled partscores did not give score for game.= No difference in score=20 for won contracts in different zones. And a lot more. I read about it in one of Jannersten's many books; "Med bridge i bagaget" -= translating to "With bridge in the luggage". I don't know wether an english translation of the book exi= st. Harald S. ************************************************************************** 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Apr 11 11:18:51 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:18:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] trick one References: Message-ID: <006b01c30013$bfdb3a20$aa9c27d9@pbncomputer> Con wrote: > East was on lead against a contract of 4 spades, where > -- NS had made a slam try but stopped in game without > showing a lack of control and > -- Dummy had bid clubs. > East had AQxxx of clubs and (probably thinking that the best chance > of making two or even three tricks in defense was a club ruff with > partner) led the Ace of clubs. > Dummy came down with KJxxx of clubs. Declarer politely thanked his > partner and without much thought (nor undue haste) played small in > dummy. > West now took about 30 seconds to play the 9 of clubs, declarer > played the 10. East switched to a heart, which held declarer to 11 tricks > (a club at trick two would have enabled declarer to make 12 tricks). > NS called the TD. Your decision please! This is relatively straightforward: East has extraneous information from West's tempo; a switch is demonstrably suggested over the LA of a continuation; the score is adjusted to whatever would have happened after a continuation (presumably 12 tricks). A severe disciplinary penalty (not a procedural one) seems appropriate, regardless of the level of experience of East-West; this is just cheating, whoever perpetrates it. In the general case, I have some sympathy with the view that third hand should be allowed additional time to play to trick one; Michael Rosenberg and others have suggested a compulsory pause, which would perhaps better be applied before declarer plays from dummy. However, this is not the present Law, and I would only support the introduction of such a pause were it to be made both universal and enforceable (with which I can see a number of practical difficulties). I have no sympathy at all with the notion that declarer may not play "quickly" from dummy at trick one if that is declarer's normal tempo and normal practice. I am aware that all the textbooks enjoin declarer to "plan the play before playing even a singleton from dummy", but there are those who are capable of doing this very quickly, and it is also the case that most hands may be planned just as readily after the completion of an "obvious" trick one as before it. Current practice is for third hand, if he wishes to take some time to analyse the entire situation, to announce that this is what he proposes to do. The practice of saying "I am not thinking about this trick, but about the whole hand" is to be deplored, since there are obvious UI implications. The practice of detaching a card, placing it face down, and then thinking is also to be deplored, for it amounts to the same thing; it is surely obvious that if you are going to think, you should minimise the possibility that partner can deduce what you are thinking about. But to say "I am not yet ready to play" seems to me acceptable, though not entirely satisfactory. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 11 12:01:07 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:01:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000901c2ffa1$76605f00$0100a8c0@Desktop> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030410173020.0246ad00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030411125356.00ab5990@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:40 11/04/2003 +1200, you wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > > Sent: Friday, 11 April 2003 3:31 a.m. > > To: 'blml' > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > > > > At 00:04 11/04/2003 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >I don't see what law declarer has infracted so that declarer > > > > >becomes the culprit. > > > > > > > > AG : at least L74C7. And perhaps 73A2 too. > > > > > >74C7 requires that the variation is done for the purpose of > > >disconcerting > > >and opponent. > > > > > >Declarer may simply have considered the options and played > > accordingly. > > > > AG : no. A declarer who plays the first card at flashing speed didn't > > consider anything. > >We are not talking about flashing speed we are talking about an in >tempo play made in the context of the SO not mandating a compulsory >pause at trick one. AG : I launched the case and can ensure you that the words "flahing speed"= =20 are quite descriptive. Anyway, the problem is not whether declarer has to pause (in some countries= =20 he has, in others he hasn't), but whether n=B03 has the right to pause if=20 declarer didn't. I do claim that it is proper, and in said case the TD did,= =20 too. *Not* taking a normal amount of time creates UI ; telling that "I'm=20 just checking the whole deal" does, too. Perhaps declarer shouldn't be compelled to pause, because any information=20 he gives about "no problem" will be beneficial to the other side only, but= =20 the defender should have the right of thinking about the deal in all cases. Come to think of it, if declarer plays very quickly, and defender too,=20 declarer could infer that the defender has a singleton. I don't think he is= =20 entitled to it. If he took the (non-mandatory but lawful to L74C7) pause,=20 he wouldn't. Thus, he shouldn't when he doesn't. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Fri Apr 11 12:08:53 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:08:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <01e801c3000a$c9356ae0$d18d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: <000301c3001a$bd644280$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Peter Gill=20 > Sven Pran wrote: > >Because it is generally recognized that declarer and both > ---------------------------- > >defenders should normally spend a little time at the moment > >dummy faces his cards to plan .... >=20 > Sven, we are discussing the Laws of Bridge. This discussion group > is not called the Generally Recognized Principles of Bridge Mailing > List, it is called BLML for a reason. What you may generally recognize > as normal in the limited sample of bridge that you see in part of > Norway is not necessarily what is generally recognized elsewhere. >=20 > Also, this discussion group is not called the Generally Recognized > by Sven Principles of Bridge Mailing List. Let us avoid personalities shall we? >=20 > This is why we have bridge laws. And the Laws are what they say, > not what you want them to say, until they are changed. That seems > to me to be what Wayne has been saying in this thread. We must > rule according to the Laws rather than twist them into meaning what > they do not mean. Every textbook and every lesson for beginners on this item I have seen = has emphasized the importance that before any card is played to trick one = the declarer spend some time planning how to carry out the play of all = thirteen tricks. And that the defenders do their planning for the defense during = this same time. Beginners are even taught that if declarer leaves too little time before playing to the first trick from dummy then third hand should still spend = the time needed for his own planning of the play before playing to that = trick. In short: During the first trick is the time to plan the entire play - = both for declarer and for defenders. This is not my opinion, this is what I see whenever the item is brought forward in any kind of a lesson. What do the laws have to say about this? The only explicit rule = specifically relevant to trick one is in L73A2 under which a sponsoring organization = may require a mandatory pause before playing to the first trick. However, = the reason why such regulation probably doesn't exist anywhere could most = likely be that it is considered superfluous, and the absence of any such = regulation does not make it illegal for a player to take a pause for thought = whenever he feels he will need it. The major question here should be: Are the laws dealing with "variation = in tempo" to be interpreted so that the pause for thought frequently needed before playing to trick one is to be considered a possible infringement = of Law 73D? Remember that at least for serious players that pause will = usually be significantly longer than any pause he needs to take later during the play.=20 When you first meet a player you do not know his habits when playing to = any trick so you do not know whether his tempo at trick one is consistent = with his tempo in general (not for trick one nor for other tricks). When you meet this player on later boards you already have some = experience on his "normal" tempo both at trick one as well as his tempo in general. Thus there is no practical difficulty in treating his "normal tempo" at trick one different from his normal tempo at other tricks for the = purpose of judging whether there has been a "variation in tempo" possibly in = conflict with Law 73D. The special conditions for any board revealed when dummy is faced makes = it reasonable (at least in my opinion) to treat plays to that trick = specially. And my experience is: That is exactly what is done in most places I = know, and there is nothing in the laws that make such practice illegal. To your following note: I have never been in Australia, I have no = experience with any Australian club, and for all I know they may have a whole set = of local habits different from what I am used to. >=20 > Indeed I guarantee you with 100.0% certainty that there is at least > one bridge club in the world where what you say is complete and > utter nonsense. People simply do not habitually stop at Trick One > at this club. It's interesting that membership is booming there, and > that problems are minimal, compared to other bridge clubs. I am > referring to a real bridge club which I play at sometimes. >=20 > There are over 50 bridge clubs in Sydney. I have played or directed > at about eight of them so far this year. At another local bridge club, > what you say is regarded as sensible. Another feature of this club > is that some pairs (mainly of LOLs) write on their Convention Cards > that they play "Compulsory Pauses over Preempts" (note that we > are in a land of 'No Stop Cards' here). I have noticed that when > I preempt, they do pause if they have cards and want partner to > act,, but they don't pause if they have nothing. Useful for me too! Talking about the laws: They don't consider this illegal do they? As a side point: The original "Stop" regulations in Norway required Stop also on opening NT bids that could be weaker than (I believe) 14 HCP. In = one Norwegian region this resulted in a new convention: Stop - 1NT showed = 12-14 NT hand while 1NT without stop showed 15-17. And as the (then) secretary general of the Norwegian federation told me: It was completely = impossible to get them understand this was illegal! > Sven, I know - such things don't happen in Norway - but they do > happen elsewhere. The concept of introducing compulsory pauses > to the Laws, or into the regulations of a sponsoring organisation, > is not costfree. Sure they happen. We too have clubs using their own rules, often in = conflict with the laws of duplicate contract bridge, but I do not claim them as justification of any practice. >=20 > IMO when bridge law and/or regulation reaches the stage where > one does not adjust the score in Con's example in this thread, > we are getting close to the time when the administrators are > choking the life out of the game. If the habits in that particular club are hardly ever to bother with any planning of the play when dummy is faced then I agree with you. In that = case the pause by third hand before playing to the first trick was clearly a break in (normal) tempo. I cannot remember having seen any such information with the original = post, so I based my ruling on the fact that declarer did play from dummy = without spending any time for the considerations I normally expect any player to make at trick one and which also third hand is entitled to make without being suspected of giving partner unauthorized information specifically related to trick one.=20 Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Apr 11 13:02:36 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:02:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <200304102117.OAA31019@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030411080119.02733170@pop.starpower.net> At 05:17 PM 4/10/03, Adam wrote: >Just as a three-second pause before a bid may be a hesitation for one >player but "normal tempo" for another, then in the absence of an SO >policy forcing players to pause at the first trick, a pause at the >first trick may be an undue hesitation for players that do not >routinely pause at the first trick, but "steady tempo and unvarying >manner" for players who do. That's what I think Eric meant by >"something may be permitted without being mandatory"; just because the >SO does not mandate a trick-one hesitation for everyone does *not* >prevent individual players or partnerships from adopting their own >*policy* of always hesitating at trick one. (If you think Eric meant >simply "players are permitted to hesitate at tricke one", you will get >yourself confused; you need to realize that he meant "players are >permitted to adopt a personal policy of consistently hesitating at >trick one", which is different.) Well put; that's exactly what I meant. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Apr 11 13:06:44 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:06:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] New lamps for old In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030411080528.02e64e40@pop.starpower.net> At 08:10 PM 4/10/03, richard wrote: >was it Abraham Lincoln who said, >"We have a government of laws, not men"? John Adams. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Apr 11 13:11:08 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:11:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000201c2ffc1$162c7ae0$6d2e37d2@Desktop> References: <200304102115.RAA11863@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030411080812.02e641f0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:27 PM 4/10/03, wayne wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Steve Willner > > Trick one is similar. The question is what is normal tempo for the > > player concerned _at trick one_. This may very well differ from the > > player's normal tempo at other tricks. If a player always pauses at > > trick one, it is hard for me to see why the pause should be "undue." > >I do not think this is acceptable. > >How am I supposed to know if there is a hesitation at trick one >whether I am playing against Mr I-always-pause-at-trick-one or >Mr This-time-I-have-a-problem. You aren't. "...inferences from such variation may... be drawn... by an opponent... at his own risk." [L73D1]. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Apr 11 14:56:40 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:56:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - 2005 In-Reply-To: <"p05200f02babb48ed66b6(a)(091)216.112.239.190(093)*"@MHS> Message-ID: At 4:02 PM +1000 4/4/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >I suggest that the WBF consider a total rewrite >from the ground up of the Bridge Laws in 2005, >similar to the total rewrite from the ground up >of the French legal system brought about by the >Code Napoleon. ________________________________________________________ Completely rewriting would be profitable, but this task seems too large for the next edition. This rewriting would also cause a lot of new problems (word definitions, order of things, etc...). Dealing with hundred of suggestions made by BLML members is a new deal and would be sufficient for this edition. Having work hundred of hours on Law flow charts since more than 10 years, I think that the next Law book could have the usual approach (same number of Laws with the same numbers). Though, I think that order of subdivisions (A, B, etc...) could be checked to make sure it follow the way the TD deals with. Let look at Law 15 as an example. 15A: Players Have not Previously Played the Board 15B: One or More Players Have Previously Played the Board 15C: Discovered During the Auction I should prefer: 15A: Discovered During the Auction 15B: Discovered After Play Period Commenced 15B1. One or More Players have Previously Played the Board 15B2. Players Have Not Previously Played the Board IMHO, this is the way TDs have to deal with this Law (and the way my flow chart is made...). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From kaima13@hotmail.com Fri Apr 11 14:52:06 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 06:52:06 -0700 Subject: [blml] trick one References: <000801c2ffa1$36163dc0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: SNIP > The SO may force me to pause. > The SO do not force me to pause. > Therefore I am not forced to pause. > > And further if I do pause my partner is not permitted to use > any information garnered from that action and I may deceive > declarer and I could have known that I could deceive declarer. > > Very straight forward. > > Eric, Sven et al you are forcing players to do something that > the SO has not enforced. K: This is something that I was taught early on LONG time ago. Same advice can be found in books, teachings, articles, told by mentors etc. "Take your time playing trick 1, to get a picture of the hand and plan future defense, so that later in play you are PREPARED to play in tempo when difficult decisions arise or may arise." When taking stock at trick one, it should not convey any UI or AI or any information at all. It is just good form and sensible. Playing in "mid-hand tempo" to trick one indicates that he player is not practicing good bridge habits. Same for declarer. The time to think is trick 1, not later, and doing so trick 1 therefore never conveys any information at all. Best regards, Kaima aka D R Davis From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Apr 11 15:21:43 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:21:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] trick one References: <000801c2ffa1$36163dc0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <001c01c30035$ae555340$515627d9@pbncomputer> Kaima wrote: > When taking stock at trick one, it should not convey any UI or AI or any > information at all. It is just good form and sensible. Unfortunately, the Laws of bridge do not require people to do only what is sensible. They require people not to transmit extraneous information to partner. Whether you do this in the course of behaving sensibly or of behaving like a complete lunatic does not matter - you may not do it. > Playing in > "mid-hand tempo" to trick one indicates that he player is not practicing > good bridge habits. Same for declarer. It is a good - nay, an excellent - bridge habit not to convey information to partner by virtue of the tempo with which you make a play. > The time to think is trick 1, not > later, and doing so trick 1 therefore never conveys any information at all. Not "therefore". One could imagine having a rule to this effect, but such a rule would be enforceable only if thinking, or at any rate pausing, before playing to trick one were mandatory. And such a rule *does not exist* at the present time. If partner acts on extraneous information that could have been transmitted by your tempo to trick one, he is in breach of Law 16, just as he is in breach of Law 16 if he acts on information from your tempo at trick eight, or on the second round of bidding. It is not that I do not have sympathy with the view expressed that a pause at trick one may be deemed "information free". Indeed, I think that this would be a positive step. I play with one partner who always pauses at trick one anyway (and always asks a question about an alerted call). We have lost rulings because of this, even though we know in our hearts that these pauses and questions convey no information - and we will continue to lose them, for that is what the Laws require. We explain to the opponents in advance that this is what we do, of course, and most opponents are sympathetic - but if an opponent draws a false inference from one of my partner's trick one pauses, or questions in the auction, and if my partner could have known that there was a possibility declarer would do so, then the score is adjusted. And rightly so - the Laws at present permit no other outcome. David Burn London, England From kaima13@hotmail.com Fri Apr 11 15:48:54 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 07:48:54 -0700 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <000801c2ffa1$36163dc0$0100a8c0@Desktop> <001c01c30035$ae555340$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David, and all blml law experts: Is it an undisputed fact that a "pause at trick 1 to get a picture of dummy, review facts gained from bidding, and prepare to make later play decisions in tempo" is a well documented recommendation for a sensible habit to adopt? If "Yes" - then all teachers, authors, instructors, coaches, bridge articles, etc. who recommend it, are teaching players to commit an irregularity, infraction, break the laws? Pausing habitually trick one - according to blml posters - is source of UI and subject to penalties/restrictions on the pauser's partner, according to law? Is this correct, or am I interpreting something wrong? Best regards, and thank you for setting me straight. Kaima > Kaima wrote: > > > When taking stock at trick one, it should not convey any UI or AI or > any > > information at all. It is just good form and sensible. > > Unfortunately, the Laws of bridge do not require people to do only what > is sensible. They require people not to transmit extraneous information > to partner. Whether you do this in the course of behaving sensibly or of > behaving like a complete lunatic does not matter - you may not do it. > > > Playing in > > "mid-hand tempo" to trick one indicates that he player is not > practicing > > good bridge habits. Same for declarer. > > It is a good - nay, an excellent - bridge habit not to convey > information to partner by virtue of the tempo with which you make a > play. > > > The time to think is trick 1, not > > later, and doing so trick 1 therefore never conveys any information at > all. > > Not "therefore". One could imagine having a rule to this effect, but > such a rule would be enforceable only if thinking, or at any rate > pausing, before playing to trick one were mandatory. And such a rule > *does not exist* at the present time. If partner acts on extraneous > information that could have been transmitted by your tempo to trick one, > he is in breach of Law 16, just as he is in breach of Law 16 if he acts > on information from your tempo at trick eight, or on the second round of > bidding. > > It is not that I do not have sympathy with the view expressed that a > pause at trick one may be deemed "information free". Indeed, I think > that this would be a positive step. I play with one partner who always > pauses at trick one anyway (and always asks a question about an alerted > call). We have lost rulings because of this, even though we know in our > hearts that these pauses and questions convey no information - and we > will continue to lose them, for that is what the Laws require. We > explain to the opponents in advance that this is what we do, of course, > and most opponents are sympathetic - but if an opponent draws a false > inference from one of my partner's trick one pauses, or questions in the > auction, and if my partner could have known that there was a possibility > declarer would do so, then the score is adjusted. And rightly so - the > Laws at present permit no other outcome. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Fri Apr 11 15:56:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:56:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <001c01c30035$ae555340$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000401c3003a$988593e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Burn > Kaima wrote: >=20 > > When taking stock at trick one, it should not convey any UI or AI or > any > > information at all. It is just good form and sensible. >=20 > Unfortunately, the Laws of bridge do not require people to do only = what > is sensible. They require people not to transmit extraneous = information > to partner. Whether you do this in the course of behaving sensibly or = of > behaving like a complete lunatic does not matter - you may not do it. >=20 > > Playing in > > "mid-hand tempo" to trick one indicates that he player is not > practicing > > good bridge habits. Same for declarer. >=20 > It is a good - nay, an excellent - bridge habit not to convey > information to partner by virtue of the tempo with which you make a > play. >=20 > > The time to think is trick 1, not > > later, and doing so trick 1 therefore never conveys any information = at > all. >=20 > Not "therefore". One could imagine having a rule to this effect, but > such a rule would be enforceable only if thinking, or at any rate > pausing, before playing to trick one were mandatory. And such a rule > *does not exist* at the present time. If partner acts on extraneous > information that could have been transmitted by your tempo to trick = one, > he is in breach of Law 16, just as he is in breach of Law 16 if he = acts > on information from your tempo at trick eight, or on the second round = of > bidding. >=20 > It is not that I do not have sympathy with the view expressed that a > pause at trick one may be deemed "information free". Indeed, I think > that this would be a positive step. I play with one partner who always > pauses at trick one anyway (and always asks a question about an = alerted > call). We have lost rulings because of this, even though we know in = our > hearts that these pauses and questions convey no information - and we > will continue to lose them, for that is what the Laws require. We > explain to the opponents in advance that this is what we do, of = course, > and most opponents are sympathetic - but if an opponent draws a false > inference from one of my partner's trick one pauses, or questions in = the > auction, and if my partner could have known that there was a = possibility > declarer would do so, then the score is adjusted. And rightly so - the > Laws at present permit no other outcome. I agree with everything you write except the premises: If your partner consistently behaves in the exact same manner during = trick one I do not accept that this behavior conveys any information at all (except the "information" that he has not deviated from his usual = routines). You actually seem to argue that we must (through the manner in which we = play our cards when defending) inform our partners of at what trick we first = are in a position to have a choice between several options because we shall = not be allowed to take a break planning our general defense until that = trick? So assuming declarer plays from dummy to trick one without any = significant pause and I have no practical alternatives for my play I have to = announce this fact by playing without pause for thought while if I have at least = two alternatives then I am allowed my pause both to select which alternative = to shoes and also to plan the defense as a whole?=20 What a nice way of being able to communicate what should be extraneous information to partner under protection of Law 73D. Or do you claim that = I am never allowed to plan my play beyond the trick currently in progress? That will not be bridge as I have learned it! Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Apr 11 16:42:52 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:42:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <000801c2ffa1$36163dc0$0100a8c0@Desktop> <001c01c30035$ae555340$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <003a01c30041$035ce640$515627d9@pbncomputer> Kaima wrote: > David, and all blml law experts: These are, of course, entirely different categories :) > Is it an undisputed fact that a "pause at trick 1 to get a picture of > dummy, review facts gained from bidding, and prepare to make later play > decisions in tempo" is a well documented recommendation for a sensible habit > to adopt? Yes. But so is "lead fourth highest of your longest suit against notrump". It is not an infraction of Law to lead something else instead. It is an infraction of Law to act upon extraneous information from partner. To avoid this infraction, it is as well to avoid any action that may be (or may be construed as) the transmission of extraneous information. > If "Yes" - then all teachers, authors, instructors, coaches, bridge > articles, etc. who recommend it, are teaching players to commit an > irregularity, infraction, break the laws? No, they are not. When they impart this advice, they are not concerned with the Laws; they are concerned with teaching people how to play bridge. It remains the case that any break in tempo, however well-intentioned, may transmit extraneous information, upon which if your partner acts, your side is subject to score adjustment. The Laws do not define good bridge, only legal bridge. > Pausing habitually trick one - according to blml posters - is source of UI > and subject to penalties/restrictions on the pauser's partner, according to > law? Is this correct, or am I interpreting something wrong? If by "habitually" you mean "invariably", then the position is this: *always* pausing in certain well-defined situations is not an infraction of Law, since it conveys no extraneous information. The actions of the partner of a player who has paused in positions where this always occurs are in no way unethical, or immoral. But they may be illegal. This is because the Law does not require that extraneous information *has been* transmitted and acted upon, only that it *could have been*. This is necessary for various reasons, paramount among which is that if we say to a player "You did this because of what your partner's tempo break suggested", then we call the man a cheat, and he may sue us for defamation. If, on the other hand, we are able to say "We do not believe that you are a cheat, but we must rule this way because your partnership's actions are those that would have been committed by a pair of cheats", we are immune from legal action. We are weasels, and we use weasel words, but this is viewed as a necessary constraint. > Best regards, and thank you for setting me straight. Get hence, get hence to the world of men, for the doom has yet to run, And - the faith that ye took from a printed book uphold you, Tomlinson! Rudyard Kipling David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Fri Apr 11 16:53:31 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 17:53:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c30042$808c5d70$6900a8c0@WINXP> No Kaima, you are not interpreting the current discussion here wrong. But there is a disagreement on whether a significant pause at trick one shall be considered a "variation in tempo" for the purpose of applying = Law 73D (and other laws). I maintain as my opinion it shall not (unless = there are strong indications to the effect that the pause taken was for communication purposes rather than for planning the play as such). And I agree with you that at least in the world of bridge that I know we have the recommendation again and again: Never play to trick one until = you have made up your mind on how to (generally?) play the rest of the = tricks. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > kaima > Sent: 11. april 2003 16:49 > To: 'Bridge Laws Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws >=20 > David, and all blml law experts: > Is it an undisputed fact that a "pause at trick 1 to get a picture of > dummy, review facts gained from bidding, and prepare to make later = play > decisions in tempo" is a well documented recommendation for a sensible > habit > to adopt? > If "Yes" - then all teachers, authors, instructors, coaches, bridge > articles, etc. who recommend it, are teaching players to commit an > irregularity, infraction, break the laws? > Pausing habitually trick one - according to blml posters - is source = of UI > and subject to penalties/restrictions on the pauser's partner, = according > to > law? Is this correct, or am I interpreting something wrong? > Best regards, and thank you for setting me straight. > Kaima >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > > Kaima wrote: > > > > > When taking stock at trick one, it should not convey any UI or AI = or > > any > > > information at all. It is just good form and sensible. > > > > Unfortunately, the Laws of bridge do not require people to do only = what > > is sensible. They require people not to transmit extraneous = information > > to partner. Whether you do this in the course of behaving sensibly = or of > > behaving like a complete lunatic does not matter - you may not do = it. > > > > > Playing in > > > "mid-hand tempo" to trick one indicates that he player is not > > practicing > > > good bridge habits. Same for declarer. > > > > It is a good - nay, an excellent - bridge habit not to convey > > information to partner by virtue of the tempo with which you make a > > play. > > > > > The time to think is trick 1, not > > > later, and doing so trick 1 therefore never conveys any = information at > > all. > > > > Not "therefore". One could imagine having a rule to this effect, but > > such a rule would be enforceable only if thinking, or at any rate > > pausing, before playing to trick one were mandatory. And such a rule > > *does not exist* at the present time. If partner acts on extraneous > > information that could have been transmitted by your tempo to trick = one, > > he is in breach of Law 16, just as he is in breach of Law 16 if he = acts > > on information from your tempo at trick eight, or on the second = round of > > bidding. > > > > It is not that I do not have sympathy with the view expressed that a > > pause at trick one may be deemed "information free". Indeed, I think > > that this would be a positive step. I play with one partner who = always > > pauses at trick one anyway (and always asks a question about an = alerted > > call). We have lost rulings because of this, even though we know in = our > > hearts that these pauses and questions convey no information - and = we > > will continue to lose them, for that is what the Laws require. We > > explain to the opponents in advance that this is what we do, of = course, > > and most opponents are sympathetic - but if an opponent draws a = false > > inference from one of my partner's trick one pauses, or questions in = the > > auction, and if my partner could have known that there was a = possibility > > declarer would do so, then the score is adjusted. And rightly so - = the > > Laws at present permit no other outcome. > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From kaima13@hotmail.com Fri Apr 11 16:54:51 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:54:51 -0700 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <000801c2ffa1$36163dc0$0100a8c0@Desktop> <001c01c30035$ae555340$515627d9@pbncomputer> <003a01c30041$035ce640$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: SNIP > > If "Yes" - then all teachers, authors, instructors, coaches, bridge > > articles, etc. who recommend it, are teaching players to commit an > > irregularity, infraction, break the laws? David wrote: > No, they are not. When they impart this advice, they are not concerned > with the Laws; they are concerned with teaching people how to play > bridge. It remains the case that any break in tempo, however > well-intentioned, may transmit extraneous information, upon which if > your partner acts, your side is subject to score adjustment. The Laws do > not define good bridge, only legal bridge. K: From this one might conclude that "playing good bridge" and "playing legal bridge" are exclusive of each other. That cannot possibly be the intent of the laws....or can it? Kaima From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Apr 11 17:42:46 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 17:42:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <000801c2ffa1$36163dc0$0100a8c0@Desktop> <001c01c30035$ae555340$515627d9@pbncomputer> <003a01c30041$035ce640$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <006101c30049$61f89700$515627d9@pbncomputer> Kaima wrote: > K: From this one might conclude that "playing good bridge" and "playing > legal bridge" are exclusive of each other. That cannot possibly be the > intent of the laws....or can it? It is good bridge to think at all times, but especially when you have something to think about. It is illegal bridge for partner to act upon his awareness of the fact that you have something to think about. His actions may be determined to be illegal if it is *possible* that they were based on your tempo variation, even though you did not in fact diverge from your normal tempo (because you always think at trick one) and even though the problem through which you were thinking had no bearing whatever on your partner's actions. Kaima, and Sven, and everyone who is still listening - I do not pretend that these Laws are sensible; they are not. But you must realise that they arise from two completely irreconcilable objectives. Bridge is a sport of the mind; its players must think, or the game is nothing worth. But bridge is also a sport that could not exist in its present form if communication with partner other than by calls made and cards played were tolerated for an instant. The overriding objective is, as it should be, that you may not draw any inference when partner thinks, nor may you think in a position where to do so might cause an opponent to draw a false inference. These two objectives render the game unplayable for practical purposes. The only ways to resolve them are mechanistic. Either: each call and each play must be made with unvarying tempo, enforced by rule; or measures must exist to ensure that no information from variation in tempo is capable of being transmitted to partner. At present, we strive towards each of these objectives in various ways. We introduce the Stop card. We play with screens, and we say that it is desirable that the movement of the tray across a screen should be "randomly" varied by the players. But we do not come close to reconciling the incompatible objectives in any theoretically or practically satisfactory manner. Hence, debates such as this one are incapable of resolution. We do the best we can. David Burn London, England From HarrisR@missouri.edu Fri Apr 11 17:53:51 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:53:51 -0500 Subject: SV: [blml] Law 16A In-Reply-To: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC9513ED@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC9513ED@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Harald wrote: >This is a case som might remember, but I hope most of you don't. > >Teams >E/W vul. Dealer East > >South hand: >S Q J 9 7 4 >H J 8 >D J 9 8 7 >C T 3 > >Bidding: >West North East South >- - 1H 1S >2C 4S 5C Pass >6C ..Pass Pass ? > >There are two LA's; pass and 6S (unless you play negative slam >doubles, which you don't). > >What action, if any, is demonstrably suggested by partner's hesitation? > >What bid should south be deemed to make? > >--- >Robert Harris: First we need to know what south did. Then we can >rule against him >if it worked well. > >*Harald S.: What do you mean by "rule against him if it worked >well"? I my world we rule against someone if the >laws say so. I didn't give south actions yet to get an open, >unbiased discussion. Robert's comment suggests that >he's a member of the "if they hesitate - shoot them"_school (I can't >say by just one comment) which seems to be >prevaliant in many ACs. I would like to see TDs and ACs to really >understand what law 16A de facto says, and rule >accordlingly. >--- Sorry, I agree. I was trying (not entirely successfully) to indicate that this seems too often the approach of AC's. It's difficult to put a sarcastic tone of voice into written expression, at least for one with limited talent for clear written expression. 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 Fri Apr 11 19:52:45 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:52:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one Message-ID: On 4/10/03, Steve Willner wrote: >There is some unofficial guidance in a recent Ruling the Game column in >the ACBL Bulletin. (I don't have the Bulletin in front of me, but it >might have been February or March. In practice, TD's who care about >this sort of thing are likely to take the article as official.) I may be mistaken, but I believe the ACBL has stated that the "Ruling the Game" articles *are* official. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 11 19:47:12 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:47:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 16A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/10/03, Robert E. Harris wrote: >First we need to know what south did. Then we can rule against him >if it worked well. Every time I see a statement like this, I cringe. It is *not* within the laws to rule against someone because the action he took "worked well" for him. The first question that needs an answer is whether there has in fact been UI. The second is whether that UI demonstrably suggested one action over a logical alternative action. *Then* we need to know what south did. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 11 19:39:04 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:39:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000d01c2ff59$5277f280$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: On 4/11/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >73A2 backs up my assertion that a mandate from the SO is required for >any mandatory pause at trick one. I agree with this assertion. I do not agree that it's the same assertion as, nor that it leads to the assertion that "the tempo for plays at trick one is the same as the tempo for plays to all other tricks". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 11 19:49:01 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:49:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 16A In-Reply-To: <00b701c2ff85$01a32ec0$601d27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On 4/10/03, David Burn wrote: >First, we need to know what South's thirteenth card was. It was the three of clubs. :-) From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Apr 11 20:23:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <006101c30049$61f89700$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David Burn wrote: > His actions may be determined to be illegal if it is *possible* that > they were based on your tempo variation, even though you did not in fact > diverge from your normal tempo (because you always think at trick one) I'm struggling with this. If you didn't diverge from your normal tempo then there was no "tempo variation". If you mean it is possible that a TD will rule that there was a tempo variation (in ignorance of the fact that you always think at trick one) then I guess it is possible. However I'd think it extremely unlikely that a competent TD would consider a pause of 4-10 seconds (from time of lead) a tempo variation for many people. Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 11 20:23:09 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:23:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <006b01c30013$bfdb3a20$aa9c27d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On 4/11/03, David Burn wrote: >This is relatively straightforward: East has extraneous information >from West's tempo; You base this, I think, on the assumption that West does not normally pause at trick one. Either that, or you buy Wayne's argument that "in tempo" means the same time delay at trick one as at later tricks. FWIW, I *don't* buy that. >a switch is demonstrably suggested over the LA of a >continuation; East and dummy have 10 clubs between them. That leaves three. Either the 9 is a singleton, or it may be top of a doubleton (do EW show doubletons this way, or do they do it "upside down"?). If the former, declarer's play of the 10 is an attempt (perfectly legal, of course) to deceive East. If the 9 is from a doubleton, then either West had something to think about not related to his play to trick one, or he was deciding whether to encourage a continuation or a switch. BTW, we do not know how the bidding went, so we don't know whether West has any expection that declarer may be short in clubs (which may affect whether he was deciding whether to encourage or discourage a continuation). I don't think there's sufficient information here to decide as you suggest. You assert that a switch is demonstrably suggested (by the UI you assert exists, I assume). Very well. Demonstrate it. >the score is adjusted to whatever would have happened after a >continuation (presumably 12 tricks). A severe disciplinary penalty >(not a procedural one) seems appropriate, regardless of the level of >experience of East-West; this is just cheating, whoever perpetrates it. Is it? I don't see it as such. [snip] >I have no sympathy at all with the notion that declarer may not play >"quickly" from dummy at trick one if that is declarer's normal tempo >and normal practice. I am aware that all the textbooks enjoin declarer >to "plan the play before playing even a singleton from dummy", but >there are those who are capable of doing this very quickly, and it is >also the case that most hands may be planned just as readily after the >completion of an "obvious" trick one as before it. Declarer may play to trick one at whatever tempo (in trick one) is normal for him. So may his RHO. To assume that a player who plays relatively quickly to tricks 2-13 is playing with "undue hesitation" if he doesn't play that quickly to trick one, without evidence as to his normal tempo to trick one is, IMO, dubious at best. >Current practice is for third hand, if he wishes to take some time to >analyse the entire situation, to announce that this is what he >proposes to do. The practice of saying "I am not thinking about this >trick, but about the whole hand" is to be deplored, since there are >obvious UI implications. The practice of detaching a card, placing it >face down, and then thinking is also to be deplored, for it amounts to >the same thing; it is surely obvious that if you are going to think, >you should minimise the possibility that partner can deduce what you >are thinking about. But to say "I am not yet ready to play" seems to >me acceptable, though not entirely satisfactory. Is that indeed current practice? Everywhere? "I am not yet ready to play" around here may well result in a director call - "Can he do that"? I daresay at least some directors will say "no". From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Apr 11 20:23:41 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 21:23:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <000801c2ffa1$36163dc0$0100a8c0@Desktop> <001c01c30035$ae555340$515627d9@pbncomputer> <003a01c30041$035ce640$515627d9@pbncomputer> <006101c30049$61f89700$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <00b701c3005f$f0166b00$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear David, Your last mail makes a lot more sense than your previous mails on this subject. Of course the two objectives you mention are contradictory. There is one solution which comes near perfection. Play championships with all four players in different rooms in front of screens connected by a local network. Good software can mask almost all tempo breaks. Solves almost all currently known UI, misbid/misexplanation and other unsolvable problems. Don't worry, I can imagine a couple of objections to this solution myself. Back to earth. As David said we have introduced a couple of 'rules' like stop-cards and screens to ease the contradiction. In this context a 'mandatory' pause at the first trick makes a lot of sense. As least as much as requiring 10 seconds after every skip-bid (which makes only sense in a minority of the cases). In my world (I do play top level bridge) 'everybody' assumes a slow 1st trick as 'normal' even without any formal rule (shame on the lawmakers). In my world any declarer playing fast to the first trick has no claim against RHO pause. He should have taken 10 seconds or so to protect himself if he was vulnerable to RHO's tempo. I know there is no formal rule (shame on the lawmakers) but this is how we behave and how we rule. But I know very well that this kind of rules make sense only for top level bridge. This gets me to Con's case. An important issue is if declarer took a sensible pause at the first trick. Even if the hand is a no brainer for declarer (apart from the fact you don't have to tell them), it might not be for opponents, and you have to protect yourself by giving RHO some time to think if the tempo of RHO might be sensitive (which it is in such a might-ruff situation). Most people play fast from dummy to gain info from RHO's behaviour or to put pressure on him. If you play like that (should be illegal) you should not complain if it backfires. Maybe RHO had no good reason to think at all or that long but as usual there is no complete hand so who knows (anyway it doesn't really matter to me if declarer played too quick). So I tend to say tableresult but Con's statement of facts is compatible with both 2 and 8 secs for the first trick which might make quite a difference if it was an 'easy' dummy (in which case 8 secs might be ok). But I read his statement as 'as soon as declarer made up his mind' and he should have played 'as soon as everybody can be expected to have made up their mind'. If you play from dummy after 10-30 seconds (depending on the complexity of the dummy/bidding/contract) then you do have a case against RHO thinking. By the way I agree with Wayne that the rules are as they are (bananas imho). But at the top level (includes the serious EBL and WBF events) all players play as if the first trick slow rule exists. Does that also make for a valid rule ? But then EBL/WBF probably put something in the conditions of contest about this issue. That way we don't need proper laws anymore because the COC overrule them anyway. COC's are easy to change, changing laws takes forever and then some. Nice situation isn't it. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > Kaima wrote: > > > K: From this one might conclude that "playing good bridge" and > "playing > > legal bridge" are exclusive of each other. That cannot possibly be the > > intent of the laws....or can it? > > It is good bridge to think at all times, but especially when you have > something to think about. It is illegal bridge for partner to act upon > his awareness of the fact that you have something to think about. His > actions may be determined to be illegal if it is *possible* that they > were based on your tempo variation, even though you did not in fact > diverge from your normal tempo (because you always think at trick one) > and even though the problem through which you were thinking had no > bearing whatever on your partner's actions. > > Kaima, and Sven, and everyone who is still listening - I do not pretend > that these Laws are sensible; they are not. But you must realise that > they arise from two completely irreconcilable objectives. Bridge is a > sport of the mind; its players must think, or the game is nothing worth. > But bridge is also a sport that could not exist in its present form if > communication with partner other than by calls made and cards played > were tolerated for an instant. The overriding objective is, as it should > be, that you may not draw any inference when partner thinks, nor may you > think in a position where to do so might cause an opponent to draw a > false inference. > > These two objectives render the game unplayable for practical purposes. > The only ways to resolve them are mechanistic. Either: each call and > each play must be made with unvarying tempo, enforced by rule; or > measures must exist to ensure that no information from variation in > tempo is capable of being transmitted to partner. At present, we strive > towards each of these objectives in various ways. We introduce the Stop > card. We play with screens, and we say that it is desirable that the > movement of the tray across a screen should be "randomly" varied by the > players. But we do not come close to reconciling the incompatible > objectives in any theoretically or practically satisfactory manner. > Hence, debates such as this one are incapable of resolution. We do the > best we can. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Apr 11 20:48:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 21:48:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <00b701c3005f$f0166b00$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000d01c30063$636c9a90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut > Dear David, >=20 > Your last mail makes a lot more sense than your previous mails on this > subject. Of course the two objectives you mention are contradictory. ......... > In my world (I do play top level bridge) 'everybody' assumes a slow = 1st > trick as 'normal' even without any formal rule (shame on the = lawmakers). I have just one single comment to this: In "my world" we assume this practice (and rule correspondingly) not only at top level but also at = middle level and bottom level, in fact at all levels! And to my knowledge we have no problem with the laws in this respect, we simply consider what is "normal" for trick one slightly different from = what is normal for the other tricks. Regards Sven > In > my world any declarer playing fast to the first trick has no claim = against > RHO pause. He should have taken 10 seconds or so to protect himself if = he > was vulnerable to RHO's tempo. I know there is no formal rule (shame = on > the > lawmakers) but this is how we behave and how we rule. But I know very = well > that this kind of rules make sense only for top level bridge. >=20 > This gets me to Con's case. An important issue is if declarer took a > sensible pause at the first trick. Even if the hand is a no brainer = for > declarer (apart from the fact you don't have to tell them), it might = not > be > for opponents, and you have to protect yourself by giving RHO some = time to > think if the tempo of RHO might be sensitive (which it is in such a > might-ruff situation). Most people play fast from dummy to gain info = from > RHO's behaviour or to put pressure on him. If you play like that = (should > be > illegal) you should not complain if it backfires. Maybe RHO had no = good > reason to think at all or that long but as usual there is no complete = hand > so who knows (anyway it doesn't really matter to me if declarer played = too > quick). So I tend to say tableresult but Con's statement of facts is > compatible with both 2 and 8 secs for the first trick which might make > quite > a difference if it was an 'easy' dummy (in which case 8 secs might be = ok). > But I read his statement as 'as soon as declarer made up his mind' and = he > should have played 'as soon as everybody can be expected to have made = up > their mind'. If you play from dummy after 10-30 seconds (depending on = the > complexity of the dummy/bidding/contract) then you do have a case = against > RHO thinking. >=20 > By the way I agree with Wayne that the rules are as they are (bananas > imho). > But at the top level (includes the serious EBL and WBF events) all = players > play as if the first trick slow rule exists. Does that also make for a > valid > rule ? But then EBL/WBF probably put something in the conditions of > contest > about this issue. That way we don't need proper laws anymore because = the > COC > overrule them anyway. COC's are easy to change, changing laws takes > forever > and then some. Nice situation isn't it. >=20 > Jaap ......(snip) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 11 20:38:58 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:38:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <006101c30049$61f89700$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On 4/11/03, David Burn wrote: >But we do not come close to reconciling the incompatible >objectives in any theoretically or practically satisfactory manner. >Hence, debates such as this one are incapable of resolution. We do the >best we can. I am left to wonder why anyone would play a game so fundamentally flawed - particularly when he has to pay to do so. :-( From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 11 20:32:33 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:32:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <003a01c30041$035ce640$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On 4/11/03, David Burn wrote: >To avoid this infraction, it is as well to avoid any action that may >be (or may be construed as) the transmission of extraneous information. Perhaps so - but that does not mean that taking an action that *may* transmit EI actually does so, or that acting on that EI is actually illegal. (" To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." Which means also that it might not be.) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 11 20:35:28 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:35:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <003a01c30041$035ce640$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On 4/11/03, David Burn wrote: >The Laws do not define good bridge, only legal bridge. Perhaps so, but if the laws do not permit one to play good bridge, then I submit that, to quote some Englishman whose name I forget (William Pitt, perhaps?) "the law is an ass". I trust the next revision will correct that. From david-martin@talk21.com Fri Apr 11 20:54:19 2003 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:54:19 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] trick one Message-ID: <006b01c30065$ec25c120$d5f57ad5@davicaltd> David Burn wrote: >This is relatively straightforward: East has extraneous information from >West's tempo; a switch is demonstrably suggested over the LA of a >continuation; the score is adjusted to whatever would have happened >after a continuation (presumably 12 tricks). A severe disciplinary >penalty (not a procedural one) seems appropriate, regardless of the >level of experience of East-West; this is just cheating, whoever >perpetrates it. ###### This is NOT cheating in EBUland. ######## David also wrote: >In the general case, I have some sympathy with the view that third hand >should be allowed additional time to play to trick one; Michael >Rosenberg and others have suggested a compulsory pause, which would >perhaps better be applied before declarer plays from dummy. However, >this is not the present Law, and I would only support the introduction >of such a pause were it to be made both universal and enforceable (with >which I can see a number of practical difficulties). and: > It is not that I do not have sympathy with the view expressed that a > pause at trick one may be deemed "information free". Indeed, I think > that this would be a positive step. ##### Good job really. At the EBU L&E meeting held on 3rd July 2001, we agreed (at least according to my memory & the minutes) that pauses in 3rd hand conveyed no UI even when holding a singleton in the suit led. Or am I missing something? For ease of reference, the whole minute is reproduced below. ###### 7. Technical matters 7.1 Pauses at trick 1; unauthorised information; disclaimers The L&E considered whether any new guidance could be given in this area, since it has been suggested that the partner of the opening leader should be allowed some time to think about the hand generally at trick 1 without either misleading declarer, or giving unauthorised information to partner. It decided as follows:- > although such a provision might have some theoretical merit, a regulation requiring compulsory pauses at trick one was unlikely to command general acceptance, so no such regulation should be introduced; > a pause by declarer before playing from dummy at trick 1 should not give rise to the possibility of a claim by a defender that he had been misled; indeed, such a pause is recommended practice; > if declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick 1, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. In such circumstances, no disclaimer is necessary. The L&E noted that the freedom for third hand to think about the hand generally at trick 1 if declarer has not paused before playing from dummy applies irrespective of his holding. Thus, for example, it is perfectly legitimate to think about the hand generally at trick 1 even if third hand holds a singleton in the suit led. As a consequence TDs should not entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third hand at trick 1 if declarer did not himself pause before playing from dummy. The L&E did not think that any general guidance could be given in the circumstances where declarer pauses before playing from dummy, and third hand also pauses. Unauthorised information can arise, as can the possibility of declarer being misled, although each case must be considered on its own facts, and a disclaimer may assist a defender who wishes to think about the hand as a whole rather than his play to the first trick. Reference to this guidance would be included in the White Book and/or the Orange Book, as appropriate, and the L&E thought that it would be helpful if Mr Stevenson could in due course write a further article for English Bridge to cover this matter. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Apr 11 21:15:20 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 08:15:20 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030411080812.02e641f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000801c30067$16e78910$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Eric Landau > Sent: Saturday, 12 April 2003 12:11 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > At 08:27 PM 4/10/03, wayne wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > Behalf Of Steve Willner > > > Trick one is similar. The question is what is normal > tempo for the > > > player concerned _at trick one_. This may very well > differ from the > > > player's normal tempo at other tricks. If a player > always pauses at > > > trick one, it is hard for me to see why the pause should > be "undue." > > > >I do not think this is acceptable. > > > >How am I supposed to know if there is a hesitation at trick one > >whether I am playing against Mr I-always-pause-at-trick-one or > >Mr This-time-I-have-a-problem. > > You aren't. "...inferences from such variation may... be drawn... by > an opponent... at his own risk." [L73D1]. This part of a two sided coin. The sentence immediately before the one that you quote states that "...players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side" And the sentence immediately after (in L73E) states that "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of ...the ... hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made." . I can think of no reason why this wouldn't apply at trick one. If you always hesitate at trick one even for no reason and I do not know that then when you hesitate at my table you midlead me. And it is reasonable to expect that you could have known that that was possible in advance. As I said elsewhere I think that you are simply justifying coffeehousing. Wayne > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Apr 11 21:23:25 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 08:23:25 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000401c3003a$988593e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000901c30068$39350280$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Saturday, 12 April 2003 2:57 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > > David Burn > > Kaima wrote: > > > > > When taking stock at trick one, it should not convey any > UI or AI or > > any > > > information at all. It is just good form and sensible. > > > > Unfortunately, the Laws of bridge do not require people to > do only what > > is sensible. They require people not to transmit extraneous > information > > to partner. Whether you do this in the course of behaving > sensibly or of > > behaving like a complete lunatic does not matter - you may > not do it. > > > > > Playing in > > > "mid-hand tempo" to trick one indicates that he player is not > > practicing > > > good bridge habits. Same for declarer. > > > > It is a good - nay, an excellent - bridge habit not to convey > > information to partner by virtue of the tempo with which you make a > > play. > > > > > The time to think is trick 1, not > > > later, and doing so trick 1 therefore never conveys any > information at > > all. > > > > Not "therefore". One could imagine having a rule to this effect, but > > such a rule would be enforceable only if thinking, or at any rate > > pausing, before playing to trick one were mandatory. And such a rule > > *does not exist* at the present time. If partner acts on extraneous > > information that could have been transmitted by your tempo > to trick one, > > he is in breach of Law 16, just as he is in breach of Law > 16 if he acts > > on information from your tempo at trick eight, or on the > second round of > > bidding. > > > > It is not that I do not have sympathy with the view expressed that a > > pause at trick one may be deemed "information free". Indeed, I think > > that this would be a positive step. I play with one partner > who always > > pauses at trick one anyway (and always asks a question > about an alerted > > call). We have lost rulings because of this, even though we > know in our > > hearts that these pauses and questions convey no > information - and we > > will continue to lose them, for that is what the Laws require. We > > explain to the opponents in advance that this is what we > do, of course, > > and most opponents are sympathetic - but if an opponent > draws a false > > inference from one of my partner's trick one pauses, or > questions in the > > auction, and if my partner could have known that there was > a possibility > > declarer would do so, then the score is adjusted. And > rightly so - the > > Laws at present permit no other outcome. > > I agree with everything you write except the premises: > > If your partner consistently behaves in the exact same manner > during trick > one I do not accept that this behavior conveys any information at all > (except the "information" that he has not deviated from his > usual routines). > > You actually seem to argue that we must (through the manner > in which we play > our cards when defending) inform our partners of at what > trick we first are > in a position to have a choice between several options > because we shall not > be allowed to take a break planning our general defense until > that trick? > > So assuming declarer plays from dummy to trick one without > any significant > pause and I have no practical alternatives for my play I have > to announce > this fact by playing without pause for thought while if I > have at least two > alternatives then I am allowed my pause both to select which > alternative to > shoes and also to plan the defense as a whole? No you should endeavour to play your singletons and forced plays and your considered plays in the same tempo. Of course this is not humanly possible anything like 100% of the time unless we simply play the card closest to our left thumbs. Therefore when we are unable to play in tempo we graciously accept any restraint on partner due to UI and any adjustment necessarily because we have deceived declarer. > > What a nice way of being able to communicate what should be extraneous > information to partner under protection of Law 73D. Or do you > claim that I > am never allowed to plan my play beyond the trick currently > in progress? There is plenty of time to think when we will create no UI or deceptive problems. And if you need additional time it will likely cause little or no problems. But if it does accept that your break in tempo caused the problem. Wayne > > That will not be bridge as I have learned it! > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Fri Apr 11 21:35:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 22:35:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <006b01c30065$ec25c120$d5f57ad5@davicaltd> Message-ID: <000e01c30069$d3001570$6900a8c0@WINXP> THANK YOU! At last a formal confirmation of the practice which has been undisputed = in "my world" for as long as I can remember. From the past discussion on = this thread I believe some participants from the EBU area might have = something to reconsider and/or tell their own national organizations? Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > David Martin > Sent: 11. april 2003 21:54 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Fw: [blml] trick one >=20 > David Burn wrote: >=20 > >This is relatively straightforward: East has extraneous information = from > >West's tempo; a switch is demonstrably suggested over the LA of a > >continuation; the score is adjusted to whatever would have happened > >after a continuation (presumably 12 tricks). A severe disciplinary > >penalty (not a procedural one) seems appropriate, regardless of the > >level of experience of East-West; this is just cheating, whoever > >perpetrates it. >=20 > ###### This is NOT cheating in EBUland. ######## >=20 > David also wrote: >=20 > >In the general case, I have some sympathy with the view that third = hand > >should be allowed additional time to play to trick one; Michael > >Rosenberg and others have suggested a compulsory pause, which would > >perhaps better be applied before declarer plays from dummy. However, > >this is not the present Law, and I would only support the = introduction > >of such a pause were it to be made both universal and enforceable = (with > >which I can see a number of practical difficulties). >=20 > and: >=20 > > It is not that I do not have sympathy with the view expressed that a > > pause at trick one may be deemed "information free". Indeed, I think > > that this would be a positive step. >=20 > ##### Good job really. At the EBU L&E meeting held on 3rd July 2001, = we > agreed (at least according to my memory & the minutes) that pauses in = 3rd > hand conveyed no UI even when holding a singleton in the suit led. Or = am > I > missing something? For ease of reference, the whole minute is = reproduced > below. ###### >=20 >=20 > 7. Technical matters >=20 > 7.1 Pauses at trick 1; unauthorised information; disclaimers >=20 > The L&E considered whether any new guidance could be given in this = area, > since it has been suggested that the partner of the opening leader = should > be > allowed some time to think about the hand generally at trick 1 without > either misleading declarer, or giving unauthorised information to = partner. > It decided as follows:- >=20 > > although such a provision might have some theoretical merit, a > regulation > requiring > compulsory pauses at trick one was unlikely to command general = acceptance, > so no such regulation should be introduced; >=20 > > a pause by declarer before playing from dummy at trick 1 should not = give > rise to the possibility of a claim by a defender that he had been = misled; > indeed, such a pause is recommended practice; >=20 > > if declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick 1, a pause by third = hand > should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to > partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. = In > such circumstances, no disclaimer is necessary. >=20 > The L&E noted that the freedom for third hand to think about the hand > generally at trick 1 if declarer has not paused before playing from = dummy > applies irrespective of his holding. Thus, for example, it is = perfectly > legitimate to think about the hand generally at trick 1 even if third = hand > holds a singleton in the suit led. As a consequence TDs should not > entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third = hand > at > trick 1 if declarer did not himself pause before playing from dummy. >=20 > The L&E did not think that any general guidance could be given in the > circumstances where declarer pauses before playing from dummy, and = third > hand also pauses. Unauthorised information can arise, as can the > possibility of declarer being misled, although each case must be > considered > on its own facts, and a disclaimer may assist a defender who wishes to > think > about the hand as a whole rather than his play to the first trick. >=20 > Reference to this guidance would be included in the White Book and/or = the > Orange Book, as appropriate, and the L&E thought that it would be = helpful > if > Mr Stevenson could in due course write a further article for English > Bridge > to cover this matter. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Apr 11 21:50:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 22:50:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000901c30068$39350280$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <000f01c3006c$0c328010$6900a8c0@WINXP> To Wayne: You didn't grasp my point did you? ....... > > So assuming declarer plays from dummy to trick one without > > any significant > > pause and I have no practical alternatives for my play I have > > to announce > > this fact by playing without pause for thought while if I > > have at least two > > alternatives then I am allowed my pause both to select which > > alternative to > > shoes and also to plan the defense as a whole? >=20 > No you should endeavour to play your singletons and forced plays > and your considered plays in the same tempo. ...... > > What a nice way of being able to communicate what should be = extraneous > > information to partner under protection of Law 73D. Or do you > > claim that I > > am never allowed to plan my play beyond the trick currently > > in progress? >=20 > There is plenty of time to think when we will create no UI or = deceptive > problems. And if you need additional time it will likely cause little > or no problems. But if it does accept that your break in tempo caused > the problem. IMO you are contradicting yourself here. Either you allow the time = needed for planning the entire board (all thirteen tricks) or you allow only = the time needed to decide your play to the current trick. And if you allow = for planning the entire board you will need approximately the same time even = if you have a forced play to the current trick. You cannot have it both = ways. But I am quitting this discussion: David Martin settled the dispute once = and for all for the EBU area; ACBL and other areas can do whatever they = want, I do not care. Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Apr 12 02:44:27 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 02:44:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] trick one References: <000f01c3006c$0c328010$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00a801c30095$0e3fdfa0$515627d9@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: >But I am quitting this discussion: David Martin settled the dispute once and for all for the EBU area No, he did not, He wrote what you wished to hear, and you have seized upon it as though it were some kind of truth. The EBU regulation that David Martin quotes exists, as does the regulation enjoining players not to ask questions unless they are "interested" in the answer. Both regulations are equally (and positively) illegal, and neither of them could ever be implemented worldwide, for they are in simple contravention of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Now, those of you who know that I am the current chair of the English laws commission may wonder how it is that I make such an assertion. When I write on BLML, or elsewhere, my opinions are my own. When I have to rule on the game as played in England, my rulings accord with the Laws of the game and the regulations established by a Committee of which I am but one member. At least, I hope they do - it is not easy to lose sight of one's personal preferences, but I do the best I can. >ACBL and other areas can do whatever they want, I do not care. Does it not strike you, or anyone else, as curious that there are "American" laws of bridge, or "English" laws of bridge, or "Dutch" laws of bridge, or "Norwegian" laws of bridge? Why should there not simply be "the laws of bridge", that are the same worldwide? Do you not think it strange that, because one foreign jurisdiction appears to support your (erroneous) point of view, you are thereby entitled to claim some kind of "victory" and to say, like a little child, "I don't care what the rest of you think - I'm right"? David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Apr 12 03:15:08 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 03:15:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <000801c2ffa1$36163dc0$0100a8c0@Desktop> <001c01c30035$ae555340$515627d9@pbncomputer> <003a01c30041$035ce640$515627d9@pbncomputer> <006101c30049$61f89700$515627d9@pbncomputer> <00b701c3005f$f0166b00$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001101c30099$57245120$515627d9@pbncomputer> >Your last mail makes a lot more sense than your previous mails on this subject. Of course the two objectives you mention are contradictory. Why, thank you kindly sir. May I be permitted to clean your boots before you leave the room? >There is one solution which comes near perfection. Play championships with all four players in different rooms in front of screens connected by a local network. Good software can mask almost all tempo breaks. Solves almost all currently known UI, misbid/misexplanation and other unsolvable problems. Great Scott! This is very close to the idea that there is some Platonic (but wholly impractical) version of the game of bridge to which the Laws ought to approximate. I seem to remember that I raised the same point six - or perhaps seven - years ago, and I could have sworn that others have expressed almost the same views since then. But this cannot be - the notion can obviously have been conceived only by Your August Majesty, and I must be deluding myself even to begin to imagine that it is not original. Your humble servant craves forgiveness. >Don't worry, I can imagine a couple of objections to this solution myself. Of course you can, Sire, for your imagination is as boundless as the oceans. >In my world (I do play top level bridge) 'everybody' assumes a slow 1st trick as 'normal' even without any formal rule (shame on the lawmakers). In my world any declarer playing fast to the first trick has no claim against RHO pause. He should have taken 10 seconds or so to protect himself if he was vulnerable to RHO's tempo. I know there is no formal rule (shame on the lawmakers) but this is how we behave and how we rule. But I know very well that this kind of rules make sense only for top level bridge. Facetiousness aside now. As I have said before, when the rules are stupid, the top players just ignore them and get on with the game. But this is not a justification of an "unwritten" code of conduct that should somehow filter down from the Bermuda Bowl to the Little Festering under Lyme bridge club. Such a code does not exist; only the Laws exist. If it is desirable for everyone to pause after the opening lead, then the rules should say so. >This gets me to Con's case. Hard cases, Japp, make bad law. We publish a million cases, we circulate a million appeals, we generate tens of millions of opinions. They are all wrong, even mine, for they concentrate on the details while ignoring the complete lack of any underlying philosophy. >COC's are easy to change, changing laws takes forever and then some. Nice situation isn't it. And if you can get it, please tell me how. David Burn London, England From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Apr 12 07:12:58 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:12:58 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <000f01c3006c$0c328010$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001101c300ba$94188da0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Saturday, 12 April 2003 8:51 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one > > > To Wayne: You didn't grasp my point did you? I didn't agree with it is that what you mean? > ....... > > > So assuming declarer plays from dummy to trick one without > > > any significant > > > pause and I have no practical alternatives for my play I have > > > to announce > > > this fact by playing without pause for thought while if I > > > have at least two > > > alternatives then I am allowed my pause both to select which > > > alternative to > > > shoes and also to plan the defense as a whole? > > > > No you should endeavour to play your singletons and forced plays > > and your considered plays in the same tempo. > ...... > > > What a nice way of being able to communicate what should > be extraneous > > > information to partner under protection of Law 73D. Or do you > > > claim that I > > > am never allowed to plan my play beyond the trick currently > > > in progress? > > > > There is plenty of time to think when we will create no UI > or deceptive > > problems. And if you need additional time it will likely > cause little > > or no problems. But if it does accept that your break in > tempo caused > > the problem. > > IMO you are contradicting yourself here. Either you allow the > time needed > for planning the entire board (all thirteen tricks) or you > allow only the > time needed to decide your play to the current trick. And if > you allow for > planning the entire board you will need approximately the > same time even if > you have a forced play to the current trick. You cannot have > it both ways. I don't see a contradiction. I am saying it is desirable to play in tempo. If you do not then accept that it is your actions that have caused any problems that arise. And accept any adjustments etc graciously. Wayne > > > But I am quitting this discussion: David Martin settled the > dispute once and > for all for the EBU area; ACBL and other areas can do > whatever they want, I > do not care. > > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jkljkl@gmx.de Sat Apr 12 08:41:01 2003 From: jkljkl@gmx.de (stefan filonardi) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 09:41:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one Message-ID: <3E97DF2D.14460.612C19@localhost> Hello, just to add a stone to the picture since it seems that no other nation came up with a regulation about this ... Larry Bennett asked: > Is there any documented guidance, EBU or elsewhere, > regarding third player having a think at trick one with a > singleton, after declarer has played almost instantaneously > from dummy? Here in germany in the "Turnierordnung 2000", kind of EBU Orange book, the play at trick one is regulated in the =A718(1) ####begin relevant quote#### =A7 18: =DCberlegungszeit, Stop-Regel (1) Der Teiler soll seine erste Ansage erst dann machen, wenn alle Spieler ihre Karten aufgenommen haben. Jeder Spieler soll seine Ansage in der ersten Bietrunde wie auch sein Spiel zum ersten Stich erst nach einer Pause von etwa 3 Sekunden machen. Ausgenommen hiervon ist das Spiel des Alleinspielers vom Tisch zum ersten Stich. Dieses soll erst nach einer Pause von ca. 10 Sekunden nach dem Aufdecken des Tisches erfolgen, anderenfalls verliert der Alleinspieler seine Rechte aufgrund einer ggf. unerlaubten Information infolge einer verz=F6gerten Zugabe seines rechten Gegners. ####end quote#### here a raw translation Dealer should make his first call after all players took up their cards. Every player should make his call in the first biddinground as his play to the first trick after a pause of 3 seconds. An exception to this rule is dummy's card play by declarer at trick one. This should happen after a pause of about 10 seconds after dummy has spread the cards on the table, otherwise declarer loses his rights due of an eventual UI after a delayed play by RHO. So summa summarum here in germany we have the same regulation about declarer playing dummy's card to trick one and about how the stop card should be used: a) Wait ten seconds and you keep all your rights. b) feel free to not wait 10 seconds but you lose every right. This is worded even stronger in the regulation about the stop card ####begin relevant quote =A718(2)#### (snip) Unterl=E4sst es ein Spieler Stop zu sagen oder gibt er die Reizung zu fr=FCh wieder frei, so verliert seine Seite das Recht, irgendwelche Anspr=FCche aus einer =FCberm=E4=DFig verz=F6gerten oder =FCberhasteten An= sage eines Gegners herzuleiten. ####end quote#### raw translation If a player doesn't say stop or does he give the bidding free too early, then his side loses the right to claim damage out of an excessive delaying or an overhasted call by any opponent. with best regards stefan filonardi germany From svenpran@online.no Sat Apr 12 08:52:25 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 09:52:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <00a801c30095$0e3fdfa0$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000001c300c8$755d16c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Burn > Sven wrote: >=20 > >But I am quitting this discussion: David Martin settled the dispute > once and > for all for the EBU area >=20 > No, he did not, He wrote what you wished to hear, and you have seized > upon it as though it were some kind of truth. The EBU regulation that > David Martin quotes exists, as does the regulation enjoining players = not > to ask questions unless they are "interested" in the answer. Both > regulations are equally (and positively) illegal, and neither of them > could ever be implemented worldwide, for they are in simple > contravention of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. That, frankly, must be a matter of opinion. David Martin showed the existence of a published EBU interpretation (not = a regulation?) of the laws. Sure I was pleased to see the existence of = this interpretation, and coming from EBU I certainly should consider it as = "some kind of truth", what else? It is really tempting to ask: Who are you to flatly state that the = highest official body in your country is wrong in their interpretation of the = laws on bridge as these shall be applied in your area? Have you told EBU that they have made an illegal interpretation and asked them to reconsider = it? >=20 > Now, those of you who know that I am the current chair of the English > laws commission may wonder how it is that I make such an assertion. = When > I write on BLML, or elsewhere, my opinions are my own. When I have to > rule on the game as played in England, my rulings accord with the Laws > of the game and the regulations established by a Committee of which I = am > but one member. At least, I hope they do - it is not easy to lose = sight > of one's personal preferences, but I do the best I can. One question ("Who are you to ...") answered. Another question: Do you consider yourself subordinate or superior to EBU? >=20 > >ACBL and other areas can do whatever they want, I do not care. >=20 > Does it not strike you, or anyone else, as curious that there are > "American" laws of bridge, or "English" laws of bridge, or "Dutch" = laws > of bridge, or "Norwegian" laws of bridge? Why should there not simply = be > "the laws of bridge", that are the same worldwide? Do you not think it > strange that, because one foreign jurisdiction appears to support your > (erroneous) point of view, you are thereby entitled to claim some kind > of "victory" and to say, like a little child, "I don't care what the > rest of you think - I'm right"? Curious? Sure. I am astonished that it shall be so difficult to reach a world wide common understanding on what is bridge. And I certainly do = not claim any kind of "victory" on discovering official support for "my" = view within my zone. I find comfort in that I shall not need to feel totally wrong but I also feel deeply sorry for the situation and I wonder why it must be that way. But once I have found support for my understanding within official = bodies to which I am subordinate I relax and see little reason to continue the = dispute against bodies serving other areas in the world. I have presented my = views, now I must assume those who are in the positions to sort things out to = be aware of the problems and do what they can to work towards a common understanding of the laws.=20 On this particular matter I must add that I simply cannot understand the heavy opinion against what I believe has been considered obvious for = "good bridge" since before Ely Culbertson started writing, apparently based on = a technicality in how to use the laws. For that situation to be resolved I sure hope that the EBU interpretation quoted by David Martin somehow = finds its way into the laws. Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Apr 12 09:58:46 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 10:58:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <000801c2ffa1$36163dc0$0100a8c0@Desktop> <001c01c30035$ae555340$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <002001c300d3$24a294c0$953df0c3@LNV> > David, and all blml law experts: > Is it an undisputed fact that a "pause at trick 1 to get a picture of > dummy, review facts gained from bidding, and prepare to make later play > decisions in tempo" is a well documented recommendation for a sensible habit > to adopt? YES but when later play once in while is delayed because a player wasn't able to oversee all possibilities in trick one that is no offence. L 73D1 and of course L16 among others are covering this situation > If "Yes" - then all teachers, authors, instructors, coaches, bridge > articles, etc. who recommend it, are teaching players to commit an > irregularity, infraction, break the laws? NO, which laws? To break the laws in this respect we have to distinct two possibilities: a) the tempo in which RHO plays has to suggest something to partner and partner follows this suggestion while he has other normal choices. If RHO always takes 20 seconds he isn't sugggesting anything taking these 20 seconds. He might if he takes 2 minutes or 2 seconds. L73C, F1 b) the tempo in which RHO plays suggests something to declarer (or the question he asks suggests something to declarer). 99,7% of these situations are covered by L73D: conclusions drawn are at declarer's own risk. the .3% (this estimation is probably much too high, I made it that high to be friendly to those making a huge issue of it) has to do with behaviour as described in L73F2: there was no bridge reason for the question and the player when he asked could have known that the question (or the hesitation) could work to his benefit. These words were carefully chosen to describe the behaviour of (almost) cheaters, not to describe the situation where a player wants to know what is going on and asks about it or has to figure out how to get the defeating trick, because those reasons are the most honest bridge reasons there are (L73F 1 might apply but 73F2 certainly isn''t it). The most common examples are hesitating with a singleton or hesitating in a 'yes or no' cover situation where the honour isn't there. Declarer plays the 10 towards AJxx in dummy and LHO hesitates, the shorter the (still noticable) hesitation the more effective it is. Cheating that is, but much more than .3% of the players have such habit, so we don't dare to call it cheating and don't dare to apply L 73F2 in those cases. Players don't call a TD even, they know he won't do anything, but his eyes will say: ''sir, are you a serious bridge player?". Nice story about youngsters, playing in a big event. One of them declarer plays this 10 towards AJxx and LHO hesitates, he takes the ace and finesses the Q on his right side, trick taken by LHO. Declarer looks at dummy and as an apology stumbles: ''I have never seen this''. There is a similar 7NT story by Reese. Intermezzo: this is a real problem which should be considered developing the new laws. Let us assume declarer playing 6S and after winning the first trick in hand plays a small club towards K10x in dummy. What should LHO do? This might be a difficult decision in which case smoothly playing small possessing the ace is not so easy. So normal tempo play by LHO might indicate the ace at RHO side. Such situation asks for a standard pause, in my opinion, as does the 10 towards AJxx. The game is just too difficult. > Pausing habitually trick one - according to blml posters - is source of UI > and subject to penalties/restrictions on the pauser's partner, according to > law? NO, playing within 2 seconds is a sourceof UI in that case. > > > The time to think is trick 1, not > > > later, and doing so trick 1 therefore never conveys any information at > > all. David: > > Not "therefore". One could imagine having a rule to this effect, but > > such a rule would be enforceable only if thinking, or at any rate > > pausing, before playing to trick one were mandatory. And such a rule > > *does not exist* at the present time. If partner acts on extraneous > > information that could have been transmitted by your tempo to trick one, > > he is in breach of Law 16, just as he is in breach of Law 16 if he acts > > on information from your tempo at trick eight, or on the second round of > > bidding. > > > > It is not that I do not have sympathy with the view expressed that a > > pause at trick one may be deemed "information free". Indeed, I think > > that this would be a positive step. I play with one partner who always > > pauses at trick one anyway (and always asks a question about an alerted > > call). We have lost rulings because of this, even though we know in our > > hearts that these pauses and questions convey no information - and we > > will continue to lose them, for that is what the Laws require. How can you say so? Regulations in the EBU do require such decisisons, but not the laws. I thought we had done with those ideas? We > > explain to the opponents in advance that this is what we do, of course, > > and most opponents are sympathetic - but if an opponent draws a false > > inference from one of my partner's trick one pauses, or questions in the > > auction, and if my partner could have known that there was a possibility > > declarer would do so, then the score is adjusted. In the EBU. It must be a pleasure to be declarer in the EBU. In pairs there should be a 10% bonus for being defender and the same deduction for declarer's side. Has: 'no demonstrable Bridge reason'' disappeared in the English lawbook? And rightly so - the > > Laws at present permit no other outcome. You are wrong. The laws at present do not permit this outcome ton > > David Burn From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Apr 12 10:29:39 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 11:29:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one References: <006b01c30065$ec25c120$d5f57ad5@davicaltd> Message-ID: <003701c300d6$13c14360$953df0c3@LNV> Good to read such clear and useful contribution from the EBU. I knew they have good ideas too. ton > ##### Good job really. At the EBU L&E meeting held on 3rd July 2001, we > agreed (at least according to my memory & the minutes) that pauses in 3rd > hand conveyed no UI even when holding a singleton in the suit led. Or am I > missing something? For ease of reference, the whole minute is reproduced > below. ###### > > > 7. Technical matters > > 7.1 Pauses at trick 1; unauthorised information; disclaimers > > The L&E considered whether any new guidance could be given in this area, > since it has been suggested that the partner of the opening leader should be > allowed some time to think about the hand generally at trick 1 without > either misleading declarer, or giving unauthorised information to partner. > It decided as follows:- > > > although such a provision might have some theoretical merit, a regulation > requiring > compulsory pauses at trick one was unlikely to command general acceptance, > so no such regulation should be introduced; > > > a pause by declarer before playing from dummy at trick 1 should not give > rise to the possibility of a claim by a defender that he had been misled; > indeed, such a pause is recommended practice; > > > if declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick 1, a pause by third hand > should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to > partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. In > such circumstances, no disclaimer is necessary. > > The L&E noted that the freedom for third hand to think about the hand > generally at trick 1 if declarer has not paused before playing from dummy > applies irrespective of his holding. Thus, for example, it is perfectly > legitimate to think about the hand generally at trick 1 even if third hand > holds a singleton in the suit led. As a consequence TDs should not > entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third hand at > trick 1 if declarer did not himself pause before playing from dummy. > > The L&E did not think that any general guidance could be given in the > circumstances where declarer pauses before playing from dummy, and third > hand also pauses. Unauthorised information can arise, as can the > possibility of declarer being misled, although each case must be considered > on its own facts, and a disclaimer may assist a defender who wishes to think > about the hand as a whole rather than his play to the first trick. > > Reference to this guidance would be included in the White Book and/or the > Orange Book, as appropriate, and the L&E thought that it would be helpful if > Mr Stevenson could in due course write a further article for English Bridge > to cover this matter. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Apr 12 10:27:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 10:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: <00a801c30095$0e3fdfa0$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: David Burn Wrote: > No, he did not, He wrote what you wished to hear, and you have seized > upon it as though it were some kind of truth. The EBU regulation that > David Martin quotes exists, as does the regulation enjoining players not > to ask questions unless they are "interested" in the answer. Both > regulations are equally (and positively) illegal L73A states. 2. Correct Manner for Calls and Plays Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste I see no reason why the EBU cannot tell TDs "A hesitation of up to 10 seconds between opening lead and play of the 3rd card to trick one should never be considered 'undue' since the desirability of considering the whole hand at this stage is a well known principle of bridge." they could go further and add "Note that in situations where dummy bears little resemblance to what might have been expected from the bidding a considerably longer hesitation *may* be judged as "due". Absent contradictory guidance I see no reason why an individual TD could not adopt the above as his own private guideline. It was careless of the EBU not to recognise that trick one pauses considerably in excess of ten seconds could mislead/create UI - but perhaps they can amend that oversight next time around. Similarly I would judge that any declarer who draws the conclusion that an opponent hesitating for a few seconds before playing to trick was thinking specifically about trick one has done so *at his own risk*. Declarers should be aware that planning the defence of the whole hand is sufficiently common bridge practice that they should allow for it when drawing conclusions. In fact the EBU has decided that "considering the whole hand" is a "demonstrable bridge reason" for hesitating at trick one thus clarifying that L73f2 would not be applicable. Again the actual EBU regulation seems a little flawed to me (I don't see that declarer playing quickly from dummy, or after 2-3 seconds should make any difference to the expected tempo of 3rd hand). Tim From john@asimere.com Sat Apr 12 12:50:52 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 12:50:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] trick one In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c2ff59$5277f280$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: In article , Ed Reppert writes >On 4/11/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>73A2 backs up my assertion that a mandate from the SO is required for >>any mandatory pause at trick one. > >I agree with this assertion. I do not agree that it's the same assertion >as, nor that it leads to the assertion that "the tempo for plays at >trick one is the same as the tempo for plays to all other tricks". > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > tempo changes are different for different players too. Damian, with whom I played for 15 years, has a very strict tempo. I clearly recall him playing the Ace over dummy's KJxxx when declarer finessed the Jack. The tempo change was less than a quarter of a second. Suffice it to say I "knew" he had the Queen. No-one else but I could have remotely gotten close to what was for me a glaring change in tempo. I roll up in hysterical laughter when people start arguing about 15 or 30 seconds and whether that constitutes a change in tempo, when I'm sensitive to less than 1/4 of a second. btw he always hesitated at Trick 1. Thank the Lord. 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 wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Apr 12 21:31:35 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 08:31:35 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <002001c300d3$24a294c0$953df0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000001c30132$848028d0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > Sent: Saturday, 12 April 2003 8:59 p.m. > To: 'Bridge Laws Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > David, and all blml law experts: > > Is it an undisputed fact that a "pause at trick 1 to get a > picture of > > dummy, review facts gained from bidding, and prepare to > make later play > > decisions in tempo" is a well documented recommendation for > a sensible > habit > > to adopt? > > YES > but when later play once in while is delayed because a player > wasn't able to > oversee all possibilities in trick one that is no offence. > L 73D1 and of course L16 among others are covering this situation > > > > > > If "Yes" - then all teachers, authors, instructors, coaches, bridge > > articles, etc. who recommend it, are teaching players to commit an > > irregularity, infraction, break the laws? > > > NO, > > which laws? To break the laws in this respect we have to distinct two > possibilities: > a) the tempo in which RHO plays has to suggest something to > partner and > partner follows this suggestion while he has other normal > choices. If RHO > always takes 20 seconds he isn't sugggesting anything taking these 20 > seconds. He might if he takes 2 minutes or 2 seconds. It will be difficult to prove the assertion that player such and such always takes 20 sec. You ask which laws I have listed them in other places: L73A2 in the absense of a SO mandate; L73D1; L73D2 an attempt to mislead declarer by intentionally playing slowly; and L73E allows declarer or 3rd player to play in normal tempo to avoid giving information to opponents. L73C, F1 > b) the tempo in which RHO plays suggests something to declarer (or the > question he asks suggests something to declarer). 99,7% of > these situations > are covered by L73D: conclusions drawn are at declarer's own risk. > the .3% (this estimation is probably much too high, I made it > that high to > be friendly to those making a huge issue of it) has to do > with behaviour as > described in L73F2: there was no bridge reason for the > question and the > player when he asked could have known that the question (or > the hesitation) > could work to his benefit. What of L73D1 "...However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. ..." I believe trick one with a singleton is such a position. > > > Pausing habitually trick one - according to blml posters - > is source of UI > > and subject to penalties/restrictions on the pauser's > partner, according > to > > law? > > NO, playing within 2 seconds is a sourceof UI in that case. I am sorry but you have not comprehended what the laws say. I can only assume that this is a personal bias or desire. The way the law is written a delay at trick one is only (relatively) risk-free if there is a SO mandate. Otherwise a player is simply on his own initiative making an undue hesitation for which that player is solely responsible. > > > > > > > > The time to think is trick 1, not > > > > later, and doing so trick 1 therefore never conveys any > information at > > > all. > > > David: > > > > Not "therefore". One could imagine having a rule to this > effect, but > > > such a rule would be enforceable only if thinking, or at any rate > > > pausing, before playing to trick one were mandatory. And > such a rule > > > *does not exist* at the present time. If partner acts on > extraneous > > > information that could have been transmitted by your > tempo to trick one, > > > he is in breach of Law 16, just as he is in breach of Law > 16 if he acts > > > on information from your tempo at trick eight, or on the > second round of > > > bidding. > > > > > > It is not that I do not have sympathy with the view > expressed that a > > > pause at trick one may be deemed "information free". > Indeed, I think > > > that this would be a positive step. I play with one > partner who always > > > pauses at trick one anyway (and always asks a question > about an alerted > > > call). We have lost rulings because of this, even though > we know in our > > > hearts that these pauses and questions convey no > information - and we > > > will continue to lose them, for that is what the Laws require. > > How can you say so? Regulations in the EBU do require such > decisisons, but > not the laws. I thought we had done with those ideas? > > > > We > > > explain to the opponents in advance that this is what we > do, of course, > > > and most opponents are sympathetic - but if an opponent > draws a false > > > inference from one of my partner's trick one pauses, or > questions in the > > > auction, and if my partner could have known that there > was a possibility > > > declarer would do so, then the score is adjusted. > > > In the EBU. It must be a pleasure to be declarer in the EBU. > In pairs there > should be a 10% bonus for being defender and the same deduction for > declarer's side. > Has: 'no demonstrable Bridge reason'' disappeared in the > English lawbook? > > > And rightly so - the > > > Laws at present permit no other outcome. > > > > You are wrong. The laws at present do not permit this outcome This is not true just because you say it. If there is no SO regulation for a mandatory pause at trick one then there is no legal justification for such a pause and 'could have known' and UI apply. It would be good if our directors ruled according to what is written the law book and not according to their personal bias. Wayne > > ton > > > > David Burn > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Apr 13 10:12:23 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 11:12:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] History References: <001401c30007$4de23fb0$e0def1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <3E9929F7.7020202@skynet.be> Hello Ton, Ton Kooijman wrote: > Good question, > > Let me introduce a possible fundamental change which probably has been > discussd for many years already but apparently never made it. Adopting it > probably will make Larry Cohen (the law of total tricks) a millionaire (if > he isn't yet). > > I am talking about the idea to award bidding 3spades above the result of > making 2spades plus one, which both now get the same points. Of course not > just this case but generally adopted: 4 diamonds and 10 tricks better than 3 > diamonds with the same result and probably 4 diamonds making 11 tricks being > better than 3 diamonds with the same result. This of course is a huge > change when playing top-bottom and doesn't mean very much playing teams. > There is one other way this changes the game: Now, it is useful to bid 3He over 2Sp in the hope of pushing them to 3Sp, hoping for one off. Then, it will have a double effect: we can gain, but so can they, since 3Sp will score more than 2Sp+1. On balance, there will be less bidding of 3He. And more 2Sp contracts. The bidding side should investigate bidding 3Sp on their own, perhaps, but will they? I think it will have a profound effect on bidding, and an even bigger difference between pairs and teams play, and I think a lot of thought needs to go into that before implementation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 14 05:43:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:43:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Trick five (was trick one) Message-ID: Sven asked: [big snip] >Or do you claim that I am never allowed to plan my >play beyond the trick currently in progress? Yes. Taking a long time at trick one may be ruled legal by an SO regulation pursuant to the parenthesis in Law 73A2 (such as the EBU and ACBL regulations). But taking time at trick five, when having an automatic play, in order to plan tricks 7 & 8 is clearly an infraction of Law 73D2. >That will not be bridge as I have learned it! > >Sven I learned bridge at a different school. I learned to use declarer's thinking time to plan my defence. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 14 06:13:40 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:13:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles Message-ID: In the thread "trick one", Peter Gill wrote: [snip] >we are discussing the Laws of Bridge. This >discussion group is not called the Generally >Recognized Principles of Bridge Mailing List, >it is called BLML for a reason. What you may >generally recognize as normal in the limited >sample of bridge that you see [snip] I almost agree with Peter. Generally Recognised Principles of Bridge are almost always irrelevant to discussions on this list. However, once a decade, bridge principles are important, since that is the time when the WBF LC conducts a General Review of the Laws. Ton has elsewhere floated a suggestion he received that would fundamentally change matchpoint bridge. Numerous other suggested major or minor Law changes now clutter Grattan's notebook. However, what Generally Recognised Principles should be enshrined in the 2005 Laws? My short list is: 1. The power of SOs to regulate partnership agreements. 2. The principle of maximum prior and/or timely disclosure of parnership agreements to the opponents (within practical limits set by SOs). 3. Mechanical rules redressing irregularities reduced to a minimum; equitable rules redressing irregularities increased to a maximum. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 14 07:07:26 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:07:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >In Richard's case, there are five comparisons, so >the variance will be (17.5 + 17.5/5 = 21 IMP^2) or >standard deviation about 4.6 IMP/board. If this >is correct, the standard deviation over 154 boards >should be around 57 IMPs. If pair A is 0.5 IMP/ >board better than pair B -- a substantial skill >advantage -- after 154 boards there is about a 9% >chance pair B will be ahead. In the ACT Open Trials, Pair B - myself and my partner - finished third, the last qualifying spot, so will be representing Canberra in the Interstate Teams at Darwin in July. Pair A - an Australian International player in harness with an expert Canberra player - were on the receiving end of the 9% Bad Luck Butler factor, and finished in the non-qualifying fourth spot. The Australian Youth Selection Trials try to reduce the Bad Luck Butler factor by using this two-stage selection process: 1. First, a barometer Butler Howell is held, with the winning pair guaranteed a place in the international Australian Youth Team; 2. Then the second placed pair chooses team-mates from the 3rd, 4th and 5th placegetters; the two remaining pairs from 3rd, 4th and 5th form another team-of-four. 3. The Chosen Team has a 64 board match against the Remainder Team; the victors are added to the Butler winning pair to be the international Australian Youth Team. What other Conditions of Contest (apart from the already discussed cross-imping) do blmlers know of that reduce the Bad Luck Butler factor? Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Apr 14 07:46:57 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 08:46:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) References: Message-ID: <3E9A5961.1050006@skynet.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > [snip] > > >>In Richard's case, there are five comparisons, so >>the variance will be (17.5 + 17.5/5 = 21 IMP^2) or >>standard deviation about 4.6 IMP/board. If this >>is correct, the standard deviation over 154 boards >>should be around 57 IMPs. If pair A is 0.5 IMP/ >>board better than pair B -- a substantial skill >>advantage -- after 154 boards there is about a 9% >>chance pair B will be ahead. >> > > In the ACT Open Trials, Pair B - myself and my > partner - finished third, the last qualifying spot, > so will be representing Canberra in the Interstate > Teams at Darwin in July. > good on you! > Pair A - an Australian International player in > harness with an expert Canberra player - were on the > receiving end of the 9% Bad Luck Butler factor, and > finished in the non-qualifying fourth spot. > well, it must have been triple bad luck. The way you tell it, they should have been first, so to drop three places .... > The Australian Youth Selection Trials try to reduce > the Bad Luck Butler factor by using this two-stage > selection process: > > 1. First, a barometer Butler Howell is held, with > the winning pair guaranteed a place in the > international Australian Youth Team; > > 2. Then the second placed pair chooses team-mates > from the 3rd, 4th and 5th placegetters; the two > remaining pairs from 3rd, 4th and 5th form another > team-of-four. > > 3. The Chosen Team has a 64 board match against > the Remainder Team; the victors are added to the > Butler winning pair to be the international > Australian Youth Team. > > What other Conditions of Contest (apart from the > already discussed cross-imping) do blmlers know > of that reduce the Bad Luck Butler factor? > I don't believe this does that - quite the contrary. You don't tell us what number of boards are played in the Butler, but let's assume also 64. Then you have let just 64 boards decide on one pair, and 64 boards on the two others. The pair finishing sixth has played only 64 boards, and even the pairs 2 and 3 were chosen on 64 rather than 128 boards. I fail to see how you can imagine this to reeduce the luck factor. A single Butler over 128 boards should be far more rewarding. > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Apr 14 08:10:06 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:10:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) References: Message-ID: <009f01c30254$e1e38a80$25b54351@noos.fr> Richard: > What other Conditions of Contest (apart from the > already discussed cross-imping) do blmlers know > of that reduce the Bad Luck Butler factor? I do think that X-imps is an improvement because it reduces the dominance of the big bipolar boards. And yes playing more boards always helps. Apart from that I don't think you can do a lot about reducing luck. There is no fundamental difference between the Bad Luck Butler and the Bad Luck Teams factor. The only difference is emotional. If you play team trials and you and/or your team mates get too many bad results (for whatever reason) then you deserve to lose and you accept it. Playing Butler you have anonymous team mates so your team mates ups and downs create swings you perceive as random. As they do with your good and bad scores. If you don't like it play a teams trial which has other problems mainly that the line up negotiations tend to be as decisive as the actual play. But there is an upside to luck as well. You need lucky players to win any serious event. Luck plays in important role in top level bridge. Good players beat weak players consistently because among other issues they know how to handle and manage and reduce the various luck factors. But playing other good players this advantage disappears and luck becomes a very important factor again. Pick up chess or go if you cannot stand it. But to win a main championship nothing beats an important finesse or so going your way at the crucial stage. I have been there a couple of times so I know. This they call luck. And you need it against serious opposition. Or at least you need them not to have (too much) more luck then you do. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 8:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) > > Steve Willner wrote: > > [snip] > > >In Richard's case, there are five comparisons, so > >the variance will be (17.5 + 17.5/5 = 21 IMP^2) or > >standard deviation about 4.6 IMP/board. If this > >is correct, the standard deviation over 154 boards > >should be around 57 IMPs. If pair A is 0.5 IMP/ > >board better than pair B -- a substantial skill > >advantage -- after 154 boards there is about a 9% > >chance pair B will be ahead. > > In the ACT Open Trials, Pair B - myself and my > partner - finished third, the last qualifying spot, > so will be representing Canberra in the Interstate > Teams at Darwin in July. > > Pair A - an Australian International player in > harness with an expert Canberra player - were on the > receiving end of the 9% Bad Luck Butler factor, and > finished in the non-qualifying fourth spot. > > The Australian Youth Selection Trials try to reduce > the Bad Luck Butler factor by using this two-stage > selection process: > > 1. First, a barometer Butler Howell is held, with > the winning pair guaranteed a place in the > international Australian Youth Team; > > 2. Then the second placed pair chooses team-mates > from the 3rd, 4th and 5th placegetters; the two > remaining pairs from 3rd, 4th and 5th form another > team-of-four. > > 3. The Chosen Team has a 64 board match against > the Remainder Team; the victors are added to the > Butler winning pair to be the international > Australian Youth Team. > > What other Conditions of Contest (apart from the > already discussed cross-imping) do blmlers know > of that reduce the Bad Luck Butler factor? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schuster@eduhi.at Mon Apr 14 08:27:33 2003 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:27:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:13:40 +1000, wrote: > However, what Generally Recognised Principles > should be enshrined in the 2005 Laws? > > My short list is: > > 1. The power of SOs to regulate partnership > agreements. > 2. The principle of maximum prior and/or timely > disclosure of parnership agreements to the > opponents (within practical limits set by SOs). No problem with that - it's the way it is in fact (though not in Law) right now. > 3. Mechanical rules redressing irregularities > reduced to a minimum; equitable rules redressing > irregularities increased to a maximum. > I favour the exact opposite: mechanical rulings as often as practicable. There are two reasons: 1. Players invariably accept them. 2. It is barely possible for a playing TD (and that's the rule in club events in my part of the world) to give sensible rulings based on equity even if he is qualified (and that's the exception in my part of the world) because he will not have the time during the round, and he receives UI about hands he still may have to play. Equity-based Laws may work fine at national level and above, but even there one side often feels hard done by. I have never seen a LOOT lead to a quarrel, but many are the imperfect claims, MI cases and so on that get emotional. If "more equity" has to be a general principle, I suggest to provide a mechanical penalty for most cases, with an equity-based alternative "when a non-playing TD certified by the SO is available". -- Regards, Petrus From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Apr 14 08:22:46 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:22:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: > > > David, and all blml law experts: > > > Is it an undisputed fact that a "pause at trick 1 to get a > > picture of > > > dummy, review facts gained from bidding, and prepare to > > make later play > > > decisions in tempo" is a well documented recommendation for > > a sensible > > habit > > > to adopt? > > > > YES > > but when later play once in while is delayed because a player > > wasn't able to > > oversee all possibilities in trick one that is no offence. > > L 73D1 and of course L16 among others are covering this situation > > > > > > > > > > > If "Yes" - then all teachers, authors, instructors, > coaches, bridge > > > articles, etc. who recommend it, are teaching players to commit an > > > irregularity, infraction, break the laws? > > > > > > NO, > > > > which laws? To break the laws in this respect we have to > distinct two > > possibilities: > > a) the tempo in which RHO plays has to suggest something to > > partner and > > partner follows this suggestion while he has other normal > > choices. If RHO > > always takes 20 seconds he isn't sugggesting anything > taking these 20 > > seconds. He might if he takes 2 minutes or 2 seconds. > > It will be difficult to prove the assertion that player such and such > always takes 20 sec. That is true, but that is your assumption, not mine. It is your established fact that this player made it a habit to wait for a certain time before playing in the first trick. So as difficult as it is, you did it sir!! > > You ask which laws I have listed them in other places: > > L73A2 in the absense of a SO mandate; > > L73D1; > > L73D2 an attempt to mislead declarer by intentionally playing slowly; > > and > > L73E allows declarer or 3rd player to play in normal tempo to avoid > giving information to opponents. > > > > > > L73C, F1 > > b) the tempo in which RHO plays suggests something to > declarer (or the > > question he asks suggests something to declarer). 99,7% of > > these situations > > are covered by L73D: conclusions drawn are at declarer's own risk. > > the .3% (this estimation is probably much too high, I made it > > that high to > > be friendly to those making a huge issue of it) has to do > > with behaviour as > > described in L73F2: there was no bridge reason for the > > question and the > > player when he asked could have known that the question (or > > the hesitation) > > could work to his benefit. > > What of L73D1 "...However, players should be particularly careful > in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their > side. ..." > > I believe trick one with a singleton is such a position. > > > > > > > > Pausing habitually trick one - according to blml posters - > > is source of UI > > > and subject to penalties/restrictions on the pauser's > > partner, according > > to > > > law? > > > > NO, playing within 2 seconds is a sourceof UI in that case. > > I am sorry but you have not comprehended what the laws say. I thought I did. Do we understand each other? What I said here was that a RHO who has made it a habit to wait for 20 seconds before playing to the first trick, playing within 2 seconds has created a source for UI information. What is wrong with that? I have some laws to support me, don't worry. > > I can only assume that this is a personal bias or desire. That is a pity. Because it isn't. > The way the law is written a delay at trick one is only (relatively) > risk-free if there is a SO mandate. That depends on the way to read them, but I am willing to join you there, the laws could be clearer in this respect. But then we have interpretations and commonly accepted rulings etc. And those make it completely clear that it is no infraction to wait as RHO for some time before playing to the first trick. Or saying it more law oriented. Pauses at that moment are considered to be normal and do not create UI nor misleading info for declarer. David: - but if an opponent > > draws a false > > > > inference from one of my partner's trick one pauses, or > > questions in the > > > > auction, and if my partner could have known that there > > was a possibility > > > > declarer would do so, then the score is adjusted. > > And rightly so - the > > > > Laws at present permit no other outcome. ton: > > You are wrong. The laws at present do not permit this outcome Wayne: > This is not true just because you say it. I can't agree more > > It would be good if our directors ruled according to what is > written the law book and not according to their personal bias. > > Wayne And once again you hit the nail ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Apr 14 08:37:47 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:37:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles Message-ID: A wish among others: > 3. Mechanical rules redressing irregularities > reduced to a minimum; equitable rules redressing > irregularities increased to a maximum. > > Best wishes > > Richard Let us hope David is on holidays. I would like that very much too. But.... Let me first give you a nice famous phrase written by some Dutch guy some decades ago (so even David doesn't know the source, unless it was stolen from an English brain) Translated it sounds as: 'between dream and reality we find laws and practical objections'. This only can be done if we really split bridge in two groups of different level offering them the same difference in level of TD's. Equity oriented on the high level and technically oriented on the other. TD's aren't very good in finding equity you know. To be honest some of them aren't very good in applying the technical laws either. So in the end the quality might not be that much different. But the proposal sounds interesting, we might include it in some parts. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Apr 14 09:39:18 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:39:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: Message-ID: <3E9A73B6.5020802@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > Wayne: > > > >>It would be good if our directors ruled according to what is >>written the law book and not according to their personal bias. >> >>Wayne >> > > > And once again you hit the nail > > I don't think so. Do you really believe there is any director out there who says: "I know what the lawbook says, but I'm ruling differently because that is what I think is better" ? What does happen is that a director says: "I know what the lawbook says, and I know some directors have different interpretations of it, but this is my interpretation and I rule accordingly." Not the same thing entirely. Now I do agree that it is not a good thing for two directors to rule in different manners, both thinking they follow the law. But then the law is to blame, not those directors. Or if not the law itself, then the LC for not issueing interpretations telling either one of those directors that his interpretation is not the correct one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Apr 14 09:31:03 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:31:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: Message-ID: <00c301c30261$fc1abd80$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Ton, Ton: > That depends on the way to read them, but I am willing to join you there, > the laws could be clearer in this respect. But then we have interpretations > and commonly accepted rulings etc. And those make it completely clear that > it is no infraction to wait as RHO for some time before playing to the first > trick. Or saying it more law oriented. Pauses at that moment are considered > to be normal and do not create UI nor misleading info for declarer. Yes I know, and yes I am at your side of the fence. Still I understand quite well the arguments and frustrations of Wayne and others. If experienced TD's have problems with this then what about the common player. What good are rules if they are so difficult to read and to understand. As chairman of WBFLC go and do your job and make sure that in the next version of the laws there will be a article that says 'it is an infraction to make a play within 10 seconds after dummy comes down'. I don't mind 10 being another number. I don't care about the exact wording. But I guess my point is clear. And nothing wrong with a explicit rule that the first bid has to wait 10 (5 probably is ok here) seconds after the cards are picked up. But there is still a can of worms lurking out there. In the same department it would be a good idea to create a mini-stop rule (lets say no bidding faster than 3-5 seconds) for the first round of bidding and for every bid where the two last bids of your side are not both pass (an acceptable definition of a competitive situation, not 100% accurate but 100% clear). We all know that tempo in competitive situations is way more sensitive than after the majority of skip bids (10 secs can/should be reduced to 3-5 except for 1st round and competitive situations). And ultra-fast is often more revealing than (ultra) slow in situations that tend to be difficult. So many people master the art of showing complete disinterest when making a weak bid (often without any intent or so) that all our discussions about UI caused by slow tempo becomes almost obscene. And ultra-fast can easily be prevented by simple rules. The same for card play. If you require everybody to use at least 1 second (quite a lot for most players) before playing a card you have solved at least 95% of all disputes about hesitations (1 sec is an hesitation to most players) and playing too fast (singleton/no problem showing etc) because playing too quick becomes an infraction. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 9:22 AM Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > David, and all blml law experts: > > > > Is it an undisputed fact that a "pause at trick 1 to get a > > > picture of > > > > dummy, review facts gained from bidding, and prepare to > > > make later play > > > > decisions in tempo" is a well documented recommendation for > > > a sensible > > > habit > > > > to adopt? > > > > > > YES > > > but when later play once in while is delayed because a player > > > wasn't able to > > > oversee all possibilities in trick one that is no offence. > > > L 73D1 and of course L16 among others are covering this situation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If "Yes" - then all teachers, authors, instructors, > > coaches, bridge > > > > articles, etc. who recommend it, are teaching players to commit an > > > > irregularity, infraction, break the laws? > > > > > > > > > NO, > > > > > > which laws? To break the laws in this respect we have to > > distinct two > > > possibilities: > > > a) the tempo in which RHO plays has to suggest something to > > > partner and > > > partner follows this suggestion while he has other normal > > > choices. If RHO > > > always takes 20 seconds he isn't sugggesting anything > > taking these 20 > > > seconds. He might if he takes 2 minutes or 2 seconds. > > > > It will be difficult to prove the assertion that player such and such > > always takes 20 sec. > > > That is true, but that is your assumption, not mine. It is your established > fact that this player made it a habit to wait for a certain time before > playing in the first trick. So as difficult as it is, you did it sir!! > > > > > > > You ask which laws I have listed them in other places: > > > > L73A2 in the absense of a SO mandate; > > > > L73D1; > > > > L73D2 an attempt to mislead declarer by intentionally playing slowly; > > > > and > > > > L73E allows declarer or 3rd player to play in normal tempo to avoid > > giving information to opponents. > > > > > > > > > > > > L73C, F1 > > > b) the tempo in which RHO plays suggests something to > > declarer (or the > > > question he asks suggests something to declarer). 99,7% of > > > these situations > > > are covered by L73D: conclusions drawn are at declarer's own risk. > > > the .3% (this estimation is probably much too high, I made it > > > that high to > > > be friendly to those making a huge issue of it) has to do > > > with behaviour as > > > described in L73F2: there was no bridge reason for the > > > question and the > > > player when he asked could have known that the question (or > > > the hesitation) > > > could work to his benefit. > > > > What of L73D1 "...However, players should be particularly careful > > in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their > > side. ..." > > > > I believe trick one with a singleton is such a position. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pausing habitually trick one - according to blml posters - > > > is source of UI > > > > and subject to penalties/restrictions on the pauser's > > > partner, according > > > to > > > > law? > > > > > > NO, playing within 2 seconds is a sourceof UI in that case. > > > > I am sorry but you have not comprehended what the laws say. > > I thought I did. Do we understand each other? What I said here was that a > RHO who has made it a habit to wait for 20 seconds before playing to the > first trick, playing within 2 seconds has created a source for UI > information. What is wrong with that? I have some laws to support me, don't > worry. > > > > > > > I can only assume that this is a personal bias or desire. > > That is a pity. Because it isn't. > > > > > The way the law is written a delay at trick one is only (relatively) > > risk-free if there is a SO mandate. > > That depends on the way to read them, but I am willing to join you there, > the laws could be clearer in this respect. But then we have interpretations > and commonly accepted rulings etc. And those make it completely clear that > it is no infraction to wait as RHO for some time before playing to the first > trick. Or saying it more law oriented. Pauses at that moment are considered > to be normal and do not create UI nor misleading info for declarer. > > David: > > - but if an opponent > > > draws a false > > > > > inference from one of my partner's trick one pauses, or > > > questions in the > > > > > auction, and if my partner could have known that there > > > was a possibility > > > > > declarer would do so, then the score is adjusted. > > > And rightly so - the > > > > > Laws at present permit no other outcome. > > > ton: > > > > You are wrong. The laws at present do not permit this outcome > > Wayne: > > > > This is not true just because you say it. > > > I can't agree more > > > > > > > It would be good if our directors ruled according to what is > > written the law book and not according to their personal bias. > > > > Wayne > > > And once again you hit the nail > > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Apr 14 10:07:42 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:07:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: > > > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > > > > Wayne: > > > > > > > >>It would be good if our directors ruled according to what is > >>written the law book and not according to their personal bias. > >> > >>Wayne > >> > > > > > > And once again you hit the nail > > > > > Herman: > > I don't think so. > You don't think what? > Do you really believe there is any director out there who says: > "I know what the lawbook says, but I'm ruling differently > because that > is what I think is better" ? I am afraid there are, and worse: I used to know some. But is that what Wayne was saying and what I agreed in? Not the latter anyway. The statement as being written makes it possible that a TD doesn't know what the lawbook says (including its interpretations) and follows personal bias. > > What does happen is that a director says: > "I know what the lawbook says, and I know some directors have > different interpretations of it, but this is my interpretation and I > rule accordingly." > > Not the same thing entirely. Coming close, in my opinion. Personal interpretations should be avoided as much as possible. > > Now I do agree that it is not a good thing for two directors to rule > in different manners, both thinking they follow the law. > But then the law is to blame You too !!! , not those directors. > > Or if not the law itself, then the LC for not issueing > interpretations > telling either one of those directors that his interpretation is not > the correct one. A very practical and handy suggestion. The LC becoming Big Brother. From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Apr 14 09:58:57 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:58:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles References: Message-ID: <00ca01c30265$b358ce80$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton: > This only can be done if we really split bridge in two groups of different > level offering them the same difference in level of TD's. Equity oriented on > the high level and technically oriented on the other. TD's aren't very good > in finding equity you know. To be honest some of them aren't very good in > applying the technical laws either. So in the end the quality might not be > that much different. This is quite terrible what you say here. 1. TD's will never be any good at finding equity because (among other problems): - it requires bridge skills they very rarely have - it requires a level of abstraction very few humans can manage - it requires an amount of time that is never available For much the same reasons AC's do better than TD's but not nearly that much better as we think and definitly not good enough to make this an acceptable way to rule a serious sport. As long as equity means 10 different things for 10 different people you get nowhere. In the end it remains an AC lottery this way. 2. Most TD's are quite good at applying technical laws. It requires some training and experience (like any job on earth) but quite soon every TD with some talent (like any other job on earth not all people qualify) can flawlessly handle a revoke or a lead out of turn or anything that is governed by simple clear laws. If you really feel that TD's cannot do LOOT's and the like you should start an education program and throw out the people that fail to achieve a certain level after a certain amount of education (like for any other job situation on this earth). But I can assure you that no amount of education will ever learn TD's how to find equity. Ton: > So in the end the quality might not be > that much different. This is ridiculous and an insult for TD's. Almost all TD's I deal with as a player (given my level of play I get the good ones) are very good at what they do and make few mistakes. But they are no good at finding equity (at least at my level) and being good TD's they know that. Big deal, if their bridge was that good they would be playing instead of directing. Ton: > This only can be done if we really split bridge in two groups of different > level offering them the same difference in level of TD's. Equity oriented on > the high level and technically oriented on the other. Are you sure it is not the other way around. At low level at least some of good TD's (I know at low level the TD's are low level too) might have a go at finding equity. At high level it is impossible because there are no TD's around (maybe 1 or 2) that play well enough to find equity at championship level bridge. But this is more of a joke. What the hell is wrong with more mechanical rules and less AC lottery (finding equity in your language) for everybody. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: ; Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 9:37 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles > > > > A wish among others: > > > > > 3. Mechanical rules redressing irregularities > > reduced to a minimum; equitable rules redressing > > irregularities increased to a maximum. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard > > > Let us hope David is on holidays. > I would like that very much too. But.... Let me first give you a nice famous > phrase written by some Dutch guy some decades ago (so even David doesn't > know the source, unless it was stolen from an English brain) > > Translated it sounds as: 'between dream and reality we find laws and > practical objections'. > > This only can be done if we really split bridge in two groups of different > level offering them the same difference in level of TD's. Equity oriented on > the high level and technically oriented on the other. TD's aren't very good > in finding equity you know. To be honest some of them aren't very good in > applying the technical laws either. So in the end the quality might not be > that much different. > > But the proposal sounds interesting, we might include it in some parts. > > ton > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Apr 14 10:10:30 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:10:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles References: Message-ID: <00cb01c30265$b3b45c00$25b54351@noos.fr> Petrus, Of course you are right. Unfortunately some people at key positions like the equity based approach. No amount of disasters and crazy rulings will change their mind. No number of unhappy players will change their minds. No number of arguments ranged from the abstract to personal attacks will change their mind. It is like religion. They are the true believers and whoever opposes them are labeled as infidels. > Equity-based Laws may work fine at national level and above, ...... Nonsense, it also doesn't work at high level. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the only two good players (= having at least some decent international results, I hope I don't miss someone) who are active in these discussions are the two who oppose this equity stuff the most. Jaap. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" To: Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles > On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:13:40 +1000, wrote: > > > > However, what Generally Recognised Principles > > should be enshrined in the 2005 Laws? > > > > My short list is: > > > > 1. The power of SOs to regulate partnership > > agreements. > > 2. The principle of maximum prior and/or timely > > disclosure of parnership agreements to the > > opponents (within practical limits set by SOs). > No problem with that - it's the way it is in fact (though not in Law) right > now. > > > 3. Mechanical rules redressing irregularities > > reduced to a minimum; equitable rules redressing > > irregularities increased to a maximum. > > > I favour the exact opposite: mechanical rulings as often as practicable. > There are two reasons: > 1. Players invariably accept them. > 2. It is barely possible for a playing TD (and that's the rule in club > events in my part of the world) to give sensible rulings based on equity > even if he is qualified (and that's the exception in my part of the world) > because he will not have the time during the round, and he receives UI > about hands he still may have to play. > Equity-based Laws may work fine at national level and above, but even there > one side often feels hard done by. > I have never seen a LOOT lead to a quarrel, but many are the imperfect > claims, MI cases and so on that get emotional. > If "more equity" has to be a general principle, I suggest to provide a > mechanical penalty for most cases, with an equity-based alternative "when a > non-playing TD certified by the SO is available". > > -- > Regards, > Petrus > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Apr 14 10:40:32 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:40:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles Message-ID: <1580907.1050313232524.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Japp wrote: > Nonsense, it also doesn't work at high level. That is certainly true. "Equity-based" rulings are random, inconsistent, unfair, and in a very large number of cases incompatible with the rules. They are a truly appalling idea that has done, and will continue to do, great harm to the image and the development of bridge. >Doesn't it strike you as odd that the only two good players... That's a bit much. Peter Gill is an excellent player who has represented his country on more than one occasion. Richard Hills is to be congratulated, we learn, reached an advanced stage in his national team trials and will, I am sure we all hope, continue to progress, even though his success appears to have been (by his own admission) a complete fluke dependent upon a wholly discredited method of scoring, and nothing to do with the way he played at all. Many others on this list play at a level below Open international standard, but not all that far below. Moreover, it is not clear that the opinion of good players are more relevant than the opinions of bad ones when it comes to questions of equity and fairness. I will say, however, that in my experience the opinions of bad players tends to be given more weight; whenever a good player volunteers a suggestion as to what the rules ought to be, or how a tournament ought to be run, the reaction is usually "You're just saying that because it would suit you as an expert; what about all us idiots?" The idiots, for some reason, always agree with this. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Apr 14 10:51:08 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:51:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: <2729041.1050313868309.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Japp wrote: [TK] >But then we have interpretations and commonly accepted rulings etc. And those make it completely clear that it is no infraction to wait as RHO for some time before playing to the first trick. Or saying it more law oriented. Pauses at that moment are considered to be normal and do not create UI nor misleading info for declarer. If "we" do, then I am pleased. I know of no such regulation apart from the English one; certainly I am not aware that when we made our regulation, we believed that it conformed to a published WBF or EBL ruling on the question. That is why, although I personally am in favour of a regulation to the effect that any trick 1 pause by third hand is to be considered "innocent", I have believed it to be illegal, for the Laws make no provision to declare any kind of break in tempo "information-free". If I can be shown some minute, or some precedent, that confirms its legality, I will be much relieved. >make sure that in the next version of the laws there will be a article that says 'it is an infraction to make a play within 10 seconds after dummy comes down'. Ah. Now there's a sensible rule. David Burn London, England From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Apr 14 11:03:18 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:03:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles Message-ID: >This is quite terrible what you say here. > This is ridiculous and an insult for TD's. Yes, Jaap is back again. You may not have noticed but I started my mail with: between dreams and reality we have laws and pratical objections. That sentence had a meaning in the context of what I tried to say. Two weeks ago - I was dummy and the TD available had a case already - I was asked to solve something at a table. It appeared that somebody had opened 1S while it was his partner's turn to call. An infraction with one of the more impressive penalties we have. Partner is barred from the bidding during this whole auction. It took some time to explain and even then his partner kept looking at me in disbelief. This is an infraction after which there is no normal bridge being played anymore, opponents depending on the vulnerability considering to pass a strong hand, this player estimating the best shot etc, etc. Even the play is influenced very much by this infraction and the penalty given. Bridge as a sport should be served by telling partner not to use the UI received and allowing the auction to continue without further restrictions. That is my opinion, and you may use ridiculous, insult, terrible as much as you want, I need other 'words' to be convinced that I am wrong. But it is a dream, since I know that mechanical rulings are easier to apply. But it can't hurt to consider other approaches once in a while, does it? And don't tell me that we could consider changing the penalty for this specific irregularity, that I know. ton From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Apr 14 11:21:37 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:21:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: > >make sure that in the next version of the laws there will be > a article that says 'it is an infraction to make a play within > 10 seconds after dummy comes down'. > > Ah. Now there's a sensible rule. Yes, but probably one mostly for dreamland also. Ever noticed the application of the stop rule? And the regulation in European championships telling that play has to wait for a couple of seconds after dummy has come down? I know, we can use such law if we want so, but I don't like laws where we can predict they are infringed 2 times out of 3. ton > David Burn > London, England From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Apr 14 13:32:34 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:32:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: Message-ID: <010701c30283$23b2d640$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton: > Yes, but probably one mostly for dreamland also. Ever noticed the > application of the stop rule? Yes but that rule is stupid. 10 seconds is way too long in most cases. It should be 10 seconds only in the first round and in competitive situations (definition, the last two bids by our side where not both pass) and even then 10 secs is probably too much. It should be reduced to 3-5 seconds in other situations. But apart from that as long as there is no real penalty against an infraction it doesn't work. No rule works without enforcement. If it cost 3 imp or so then everybody will respect the rule. > And the regulation in European championships telling that play has to wait > for a couple of seconds after dummy has come down? > I know, we can use such law if we want so, but I don't like laws where we > can predict they are infringed 2 times out of 3. You are really completely out of touch with reality. Or more likely you are dreaming up and faking arguments to support your lazy point of view. At serious level this non existing rule is already respected 9 times out of 10. The 10th time being the senseless 3NT+2/4H+1 boards in teams. Maybe I overdo the numbers but in a serious context I rarely see somebody playing quick from dummy on a non trivial board. Anyway if you make this an official law and you add an appropiate penalty (why not an automatic 3 imp PP or so) it will be followed 10 times out of 10. I don't see the problem. Of course I can understand such rules probably don't make sense at the social level. But that is the eternal discussion that tournament bridge is something different from social bridge. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: ; Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 12:21 PM Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > >make sure that in the next version of the laws there will be > > a article that says 'it is an infraction to make a play within > > 10 seconds after dummy comes down'. > > > > Ah. Now there's a sensible rule. > > > > Yes, but probably one mostly for dreamland also. Ever noticed the > application of the stop rule? > And the regulation in European championships telling that play has to wait > for a couple of seconds after dummy has come down? > I know, we can use such law if we want so, but I don't like laws where we > can predict they are infringed 2 times out of 3. > > > ton > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 14 14:06:24 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:06:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <000d01c30063$636c9a90$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <00b701c3005f$f0166b00$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030414145949.00abe740@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:48 11/04/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > the lawmakers). > >I have just one single comment to this: In "my world" we assume this >practice (and rule correspondingly) not only at top level but also at middle >level and bottom level, in fact at all levels! > >And to my knowledge we have no problem with the laws in this respect, we >simply consider what is "normal" for trick one slightly different from what >is normal for the other tricks. AG : right on target ! It is normal to lead face down to the first trick, not to the others. It is normal to thank partner when you see the dummy for the first time, not thereafter. It is normal to enquire about alerted calls during the first trick ; it may be done thereafter but could be deemed abnormal (transmitting UI, eg you counted the hand and noticed something strange). L41 applies only to that trick, etc. The first trick is simply something else, while tricks 2-12 follow a standard procedure (well, perhaps not trick 12 - see revoke rules). I would appreciate the addition of a paragraph in the Laws that specifies it is not standard practice to play instantly from the dummy - perhaps another # in L74B or L74C or a second line in L74C7. Would you ? Best regards, Alain >Regards Sven > > > In > > my world any declarer playing fast to the first trick has no claim against > > RHO pause. He should have taken 10 seconds or so to protect himself if he > > was vulnerable to RHO's tempo. I know there is no formal rule (shame on > > the > > lawmakers) but this is how we behave and how we rule. But I know very well > > that this kind of rules make sense only for top level bridge. > > > > This gets me to Con's case. An important issue is if declarer took a > > sensible pause at the first trick. Even if the hand is a no brainer for > > declarer (apart from the fact you don't have to tell them), it might not > > be > > for opponents, and you have to protect yourself by giving RHO some time to > > think if the tempo of RHO might be sensitive (which it is in such a > > might-ruff situation). Most people play fast from dummy to gain info from > > RHO's behaviour or to put pressure on him. If you play like that (should > > be > > illegal) you should not complain if it backfires. Maybe RHO had no good > > reason to think at all or that long but as usual there is no complete hand > > so who knows (anyway it doesn't really matter to me if declarer played too > > quick). So I tend to say tableresult but Con's statement of facts is > > compatible with both 2 and 8 secs for the first trick which might make > > quite > > a difference if it was an 'easy' dummy (in which case 8 secs might be ok). > > But I read his statement as 'as soon as declarer made up his mind' and he > > should have played 'as soon as everybody can be expected to have made up > > their mind'. If you play from dummy after 10-30 seconds (depending on the > > complexity of the dummy/bidding/contract) then you do have a case against > > RHO thinking. > > > > By the way I agree with Wayne that the rules are as they are (bananas > > imho). > > But at the top level (includes the serious EBL and WBF events) all players > > play as if the first trick slow rule exists. Does that also make for a > > valid > > rule ? But then EBL/WBF probably put something in the conditions of > > contest > > about this issue. That way we don't need proper laws anymore because the > > COC > > overrule them anyway. COC's are easy to change, changing laws takes > > forever > > and then some. Nice situation isn't it. > > > > Jaap > >......(snip) > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Apr 14 13:41:16 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:41:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles References: Message-ID: <010801c30284$87345bc0$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton: > This is an infraction after which there is no > normal bridge being played anymore, opponents depending on the vulnerability > considering to pass a strong hand, this player estimating the best shot etc, > etc. Even the play is influenced very much by this infraction and the > penalty given. After such an infraction it is (in most cases) not possible to get a normal result anymore whatever you do. If lets say number two opens the bidding out of turn but in real life number one would have opened then you cannot compare this board anymore in a sensible way with other results. The infraction has rendered the board unplayable. Now it is probably better to throw out the board and to give 60-40 or 60-20 or 60-0 (or imp equivalent). But for some reasons the current laws prefer this board to be played in casino conditions giving the non offenders a huge advantage but the offenders still have a go at a lucky good result (and given that what it is wrong with exploiting the situation in any way you see fit, it is the laws which force the casino environment). Not my idea of a sensible law but at least it is the same for everybody. Actually it is not that different from a misduplication (putting board 1 in board 8 or so), and then we all agree we cannot compare the scores anymore. > don't tell me that we could consider changing the penalty for this specific > irregularity, that I know. If you know, why didn't you do something about it. Anyway what you say is an argument to change the penalty. It is not an argument against mechanical rules. Every rule system will create some 'extreme' rulings. But as long as we agree on the rules and they are the same for everybody you know the consequences of the infraction. Other than you I have no problem with the fact that a stupid mistake like not following suit or bidding when it is not your turn might cost a lot of points. Nothing wrong with serious penalties for stupid mistakes that often makes it impossible to finish a board in a normal way. Why should such stupid disrupting mistakes cost less than bridge mistakes. Playing a wrong legal card can also cost a lot of points. So why do we have to protect the consequences of playing an illegal card or making an illegal bid. In any other sport stupid mistakes like this are very expensive. It is like that in competitive sports. Do you think Tiger Woods gets away with touching a ball. Or Gary Kasparov with touching a piece. Come on, get real. Once again, what do you want. A set of rules that makes the old ladies happy. Or a set of rules with which we can play tournament bridge. I am afraid it is next to impossible to combine those two. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 12:03 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles > > >This is quite terrible what you say here. > > > This is ridiculous and an insult for TD's. > > > > Yes, Jaap is back again. > > You may not have noticed but I started my mail with: between dreams and > reality we have laws and pratical objections. > > That sentence had a meaning in the context of what I tried to say. > > Two weeks ago - I was dummy and the TD available had a case already - I was > asked to solve something at a table. It appeared that somebody had opened 1S > while it was his partner's turn to call. An infraction with one of the more > impressive penalties we have. Partner is barred from the bidding during this > whole auction. It took some time to explain and even then his partner kept > looking at me in disbelief. This is an infraction after which there is no > normal bridge being played anymore, opponents depending on the vulnerability > considering to pass a strong hand, this player estimating the best shot etc, > etc. Even the play is influenced very much by this infraction and the > penalty given. > > Bridge as a sport should be served by telling partner not to use the UI > received and allowing the auction to continue without further restrictions. > That is my opinion, and you may use ridiculous, insult, terrible as much as > you want, I need other 'words' to be convinced that I am wrong. > > But it is a dream, since I know that mechanical rulings are easier to apply. > But it can't hurt to consider other approaches once in a while, does it? And > don't tell me that we could consider changing the penalty for this specific > irregularity, that I know. > > ton > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Apr 14 13:51:07 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:51:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: Message-ID: <010901c30284$877f2060$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Ton, Ton, it requires a sledgehammer or worse to get through that thick skull of yours. All what you write here is just dodging the issue. You just have to write better laws. Because the average TD has just the laws at hand in an average situation. And if these laws are no good or cannot be used without all kind of other material to which the TD has no easy access then every TD will rule as he sees fit. Not because he likes to do so but because he has to make a ruling in a limited amount of time with a limited amount of energy and a limited amount of knowledge. Ton: > ..... A very practical and handy suggestion. The LC becoming Big Brother. The tip of Herman is quite ok and has nothing to do with Big Brother (you obviously have never understood Eric Blair). Now suppose the LC surpasses itself and comes up with the perfect 2005 laws (of course it won't). Even then something will happen in 2006 that makes an interpretation or whatever necessary. This should be published at the official WBFLC website (shame on you, part of your job is to make sure the existing WBF site should be used for such essential communication, as is it contains only dead information like a copy of the law book) and if you don't clutter this site with too much rubbish every serious TD will take this into account. That makes more sense than all national NCBO's making all kind of additional rules. Different rules at best, but often conflicting. By the way. Now we get this far. When I have a look at the WBF-COC it is almost a shadow law. If the COC gets this serious and overrules the laws anyway why do we still need laws. Maybe better to get rid of the laws and stick with the COC. Ok, this is kind of joke again but if you want to keep up the assumption that bridge is played everywhere with the same rules we have to cut down on the WBF, every Zone, and every NCBO creating their own set of rules. What am I to do when ruling on the Dutch national AC. What is more important. The laws of bridge? The general COC of the EBL? The general COC of the WBF? The most recent COC for an international event? The COC (we call it different) that are written by the Dutch laws committee. I am sure I can find lots of contradictions in those texts (and their translations). What should I take more serious. Recent WBF rulings on similar cases. Or recent EBL rulings. Or recent rulings of my own Dutch national AC which formally is independant. For most interesting cases I can come up with conflicting rulings using the above sources. Guess what, like all the others I have given up bothering too much (although I tend to know much more about these sources than the average AC member) and I follow my own instincts. Dear Ton, something is very wrong with the management of this development and are you really the right guy for this job ? I wonder. Diplomacy and political bickering is not really your forte and that is what is needed most to straighten out this mess. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Herman De Wael'" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 11:07 AM Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Wayne: > > > > > > > > > > > >>It would be good if our directors ruled according to what is > > >>written the law book and not according to their personal bias. > > >> > > >>Wayne > > >> > > > > > > > > > And once again you hit the nail > > > > > > > > > > > > > Herman: > > > > I don't think so. > > > > You don't think what? > > > > Do you really believe there is any director out there who says: > > "I know what the lawbook says, but I'm ruling differently > > because that > > is what I think is better" ? > > I am afraid there are, and worse: I used to know some. But is that what > Wayne was saying and what I agreed in? Not the latter anyway. The statement > as being written makes it possible that a TD doesn't know what the lawbook > says (including its interpretations) and follows personal bias. > > > > > What does happen is that a director says: > > "I know what the lawbook says, and I know some directors have > > different interpretations of it, but this is my interpretation and I > > rule accordingly." > > > > Not the same thing entirely. > > Coming close, in my opinion. Personal interpretations should be avoided as > much as possible. > > > > > > > Now I do agree that it is not a good thing for two directors to rule > > in different manners, both thinking they follow the law. > > But then the law is to blame > > > You too !!! > > > , not those directors. > > > > Or if not the law itself, then the LC for not issueing > > interpretations > > telling either one of those directors that his interpretation is not > > the correct one. > > > > > A very practical and handy suggestion. The LC becoming Big Brother. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 14 14:17:06 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:17:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <002001c300d3$24a294c0$953df0c3@LNV> References: <000801c2ffa1$36163dc0$0100a8c0@Desktop> <001c01c30035$ae555340$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030414151319.02592020@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:58 12/04/2003 +0200, Ton Kooijman wrote: > To break the laws in this respect we have to distinct two >possibilities: >a) the tempo in which RHO plays has to suggest something to partner and >partner follows this suggestion while he has other normal choices. If RHO >always takes 20 seconds he isn't sugggesting anything taking these 20 >seconds. He might if he takes 2 minutes or 2 seconds. L73C, F1 >b) the tempo in which RHO plays suggests something to declarer (or the >question he asks suggests something to declarer). 99,7% of these situations >are covered by L73D: conclusions drawn are at declarer's own risk. >the .3% (this estimation is probably much too high, I made it that high to >be friendly to those making a huge issue of it) has to do with behaviour as >described in L73F2: there was no bridge reason for the question and the >player when he asked could have known that the question (or the hesitation) >could work to his benefit. These words were carefully chosen to describe the >behaviour of (almost) cheaters, not to describe the situation where a player >wants to know what is going on and asks about it or has to figure out how to >get the defeating trick, because those reasons are the most honest bridge >reasons there are (L73F 1 might apply but 73F2 certainly isn''t it). The >most common examples are hesitating with a singleton or hesitating in a 'yes >or no' cover situation where the honour isn't there. Declarer plays the 10 >towards AJxx in dummy and LHO hesitates, the shorter the (still noticable) >hesitation the more effective it is. Cheating that is, but much more than >.3% of the players have such habit, so we don't dare to call it cheating and >don't dare to apply L 73F2 in those cases. Players don't call a TD even, >they know he won't do anything, but his eyes will say: ''sir, are you a >serious bridge player?". Nice story about youngsters, playing in a big >event. One of them declarer plays this 10 towards AJxx and LHO hesitates, he >takes the ace and finesses the Q on his right side, trick taken by LHO. >Declarer looks at dummy and as an apology stumbles: ''I have never seen >this''. There is a similar 7NT story by Reese. AG : perhaps it is the same story, but I love this one from Albarran, and even applied the principle with succes in a 4S contract. You play 7H. you dummy A109x KJxx AQ109x KJxx AK xx Kx Axx Take the minor-suit lead in your hand, and play the 10 of hearts. Notice how LHO reacts to this test. Draw trumps. Then play the 10 of spades. If LHO's reactions matches his previous one, then play RHO for the Queen. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 14 14:31:53 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:31:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <3E9A73B6.5020802@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030414153038.00a2e120@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:39 14/04/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Kooijman, A. wrote: > >> >>Wayne: >> >> >>>It would be good if our directors ruled according to what is written the >>>law book and not according to their personal bias. >>> >>>Wayne >> >>And once again you hit the nail > > >I don't think so. > >Do you really believe there is any director out there who says: >"I know what the lawbook says, but I'm ruling differently because that is >what I think is better" ? > >What does happen is that a director says: >"I know what the lawbook says, and I know some directors have different >interpretations of it, but this is my interpretation and I rule accordingly." AG : there are also directors who say : "I know that the Laws allow me to do such-and-such, but I will never do it in this case or a similar one". And in some cases they might be right. From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Apr 14 14:22:24 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:22:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles References: <1580907.1050313232524.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <013b01c30288$e9248b80$25b54351@noos.fr> David, > That's a bit much. Peter Gill is an excellent player who has represented his country on > more than one occasion. .................... Thanks for correcting me. Of course I realise there must be some players out there that are quite capable of beating me or you (some of the time only I hope). Sorry, I meant no insult. The only point I wanted to make is that is not the good players that insist on equity rules for high level bridge but rather the reverse. So I tend to agree with: > Moreover, it is not clear that the opinion of good players are more relevant than the > opinions of bad ones when it comes to questions of equity and fairness. I will say, > however, that in my experience the opinions of bad players tends to be given more > weight; whenever a good player volunteers a suggestion as to what the rules ought to > be, or how a tournament ought to be run, the reaction is usually "You're just saying > that because it would suit you as an expert; what about all us idiots?" The idiots, for > some reason, always agree with this. For some subjects I tend to take the good players (and relevant experience counts as well) more serious than the bad players because in the end they tend to understand the game better (at least certain technical issues). But there are lots of issues where my or your opinion shouldn't carry more weight than the next guy's idea. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 11:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles > Japp wrote: > > > Nonsense, it also doesn't work at high level. > > That is certainly true. "Equity-based" rulings are random, inconsistent, unfair, and in a very large number of cases incompatible with the rules. They are a truly appalling idea that has done, and will continue to do, great harm to the image and the development of bridge. > > >Doesn't it strike you as odd that the only two good players... > > That's a bit much. Peter Gill is an excellent player who has represented his country on more than one occasion. Richard Hills is to be congratulated, we learn, reached an advanced stage in his national team trials and will, I am sure we all hope, continue to progress, even though his success appears to have been (by his own admission) a complete fluke dependent upon a wholly discredited method of scoring, and nothing to do with the way he played at all. Many others on this list play at a level below Open international standard, but not all that far below. > > Moreover, it is not clear that the opinion of good players are more relevant than the opinions of bad ones when it comes to questions of equity and fairness. I will say, however, that in my experience the opinions of bad players tends to be given more weight; whenever a good player volunteers a suggestion as to what the rules ought to be, or how a tournament ought to be run, the reaction is usually "You're just saying that because it would suit you as an expert; what about all us idiots?" The idiots, for some reason, always agree with this. > > David Burn > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Apr 14 14:39:27 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:39:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: derwerp: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > Dear Ton, > > Ton, it requires a sledgehammer or worse to get through that > thick skull of > yours. You proof constantly that a sledgehammer or worse doesn't help that much either. May be the thickness of my skull is not the explanation. Isn't that a useful reaction, it opens trilliards of other possibities to explain my terrible attitude and stupidity and to activate your brilliant writers pen. Diplomacy?, my ..s. For all other readers: I don't consider diplomacy as a useful quality when discussing the laws in blml. People should be clear, straight forward, but also tolerant and a little wise. Trying not to become too personal. Once in a while I cross (touch ?) that delicate border, but that is inevitable when writing and commenting the way I do. Be sure that I never have the intention to insult anybody, though in very special cases the temptation is there. But how to insult a sledgehammer? ton From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Apr 14 15:12:27 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:12:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: Message-ID: <001e01c3028f$e180cf40$25b54351@noos.fr> Ton: > You proof constantly that a sledgehammer or worse doesn't help that much > either. May be the thickness of my skull is not the explanation. Don't worry Ton. I know you long enough to know that nothing helps let alone a cudly sledgehammer. You have a terrible reputation when it comes to communication and I am not the one to challenge that. Ton: > Isn't that a useful reaction, it opens trilliards of other possibities to > explain my terrible attitude and stupidity and to activate your brilliant > writers pen. Nothing too much wrong with your attitude and you are not stupid. But something is wrong (imho of course) with your views. This is why you get attacked. And given the fact that you chose to be an authority you are fair game. But yes there is one big problem I have with your attitude. Whenever you lose an argument (happens quite often because your bridge skills are not nearly as good as you think, and you love to discuss bridge on 'equal' terms with your betters, a quite common if not almost universal problem with average bridge players) you either change/dodge the subject, or far worse you start twisting and inventing facts. Now I don't say you do this on purpose. Everybody has the tendency to color facts to his liking, I am vulnerable to this as well, but I have seen you doing this way too often and way too much. Ton > For all other readers: I don't consider diplomacy as a useful quality when > discussing the laws in blml. The thickness of one's skull. Twisting everything again. I said that diplomacy is a necessary quality (among others) for a chairman of the WBFLC if he wants to get anything usefull done in such a job. This has nothing to do with discussing on BLML. Maybe you are not stupid, but you seem to have quite some problems with reading (understanding !?) what others write or say. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "Kooijman, A." ; "'Herman De Wael'" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 3:39 PM Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > derwerp: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > Dear Ton, > > > > Ton, it requires a sledgehammer or worse to get through that > > thick skull of > > yours. > > > You proof constantly that a sledgehammer or worse doesn't help that much > either. May be the thickness of my skull is not the explanation. > > Isn't that a useful reaction, it opens trilliards of other possibities to > explain my terrible attitude and stupidity and to activate your brilliant > writers pen. > Diplomacy?, my ..s. > > For all other readers: I don't consider diplomacy as a useful quality when > discussing the laws in blml. People should be clear, straight forward, but > also tolerant and a little wise. Trying not to become too personal. Once in > a while I cross (touch ?) that delicate border, but that is inevitable when > writing and commenting the way I do. Be sure that I never have the intention > to insult anybody, though in very special cases the temptation is there. But > how to insult a sledgehammer? > > > ton > > From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Apr 14 15:29:45 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:29:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles Message-ID: <200304141429.KAA02023@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > My short list is: It's interesting how different our views are. I don't know what is to be done. Good luck to the LC. > 1. The power of SOs to regulate partnership > agreements. I gather Richard wants any regulation allowed. I'd prefer to have the SO's regulating power restricted. This difference probably arises because of the different philosophies of our respective NCBO's. > 2. The principle of maximum prior and/or timely > disclosure of parnership agreements to the > opponents (within practical limits set by SOs). Laws 40B and 75A seem pretty clear on the principles. No doubt the wording could be improved, but it isn't clear to me what changes Richard wants. > 3. Mechanical rules redressing irregularities > reduced to a minimum; equitable rules redressing > irregularities increased to a maximum. Along with others, I definitely prefer the opposite. Perhaps a compromise that would be reasonable in some situations is to give the NOS a choice between a mechanical and an information penalty. That lets them avoid the "casino aspect" of a mechanical penalty if they so choose. Whatever is done, _mixing_ mechanical and information penalties should be avoided at all costs. That just gives the worst of both worlds. From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Apr 14 17:55:28 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:55:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <00b701c3005f$f0166b00$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030414145949.00abe740@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004201c302a6$aa29d200$25b54351@noos.fr> Alain, Yours is quite a good example. But if you (plural) think that declarer can use this information it should be completely legal for the defence to fool declarer a little. Not real pauses of course. But if declarer is sensetive to defender playing a card in 0, 0.5 or 1 second, then defender should have the liberty to vary his tempo between those speeds. Of course there should be a rule that cards should not be played quicker than 1 second (or whatever, any amount of time slower than instaneous), this stops all this kind of nonsense cold and it solves almost all (non-)hesistation problems. It is a little like when playing against someone who tries to see your cards. I think it should not be illegal to show (sorry, let him see) such a person cards which help you rather than him (I have done so a couple of times, what is wrong with 'helping' cheaters, anyway this doesn't compensate for all those points they win against all those players who are not aware). This is not to be confused with me taking the initiative. This I deplore as much as the reverse. Bottom line, I detest all this kind of coffeehousing but if necessary I know quite well how to handle it. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > At 21:48 11/04/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > the lawmakers). > > > >I have just one single comment to this: In "my world" we assume this > >practice (and rule correspondingly) not only at top level but also at middle > >level and bottom level, in fact at all levels! > > > >And to my knowledge we have no problem with the laws in this respect, we > >simply consider what is "normal" for trick one slightly different from what > >is normal for the other tricks. > > AG : right on target ! It is normal to lead face down to the first trick, > not to the others. It is normal to thank partner when you see the dummy for > the first time, not thereafter. It is normal to enquire about alerted calls > during the first trick ; it may be done thereafter but could be deemed > abnormal (transmitting UI, eg you counted the hand and noticed something > strange). L41 applies only to that trick, etc. > The first trick is simply something else, while tricks 2-12 follow a > standard procedure (well, perhaps not trick 12 - see revoke rules). > > I would appreciate the addition of a paragraph in the Laws that specifies > it is not standard practice to play instantly from the dummy - perhaps > another # in L74B or L74C or a second line in L74C7. > Would you ? > > Best regards, > > Alain > > > >Regards Sven > > > > > In > > > my world any declarer playing fast to the first trick has no claim against > > > RHO pause. He should have taken 10 seconds or so to protect himself if he > > > was vulnerable to RHO's tempo. I know there is no formal rule (shame on > > > the > > > lawmakers) but this is how we behave and how we rule. But I know very well > > > that this kind of rules make sense only for top level bridge. > > > > > > This gets me to Con's case. An important issue is if declarer took a > > > sensible pause at the first trick. Even if the hand is a no brainer for > > > declarer (apart from the fact you don't have to tell them), it might not > > > be > > > for opponents, and you have to protect yourself by giving RHO some time to > > > think if the tempo of RHO might be sensitive (which it is in such a > > > might-ruff situation). Most people play fast from dummy to gain info from > > > RHO's behaviour or to put pressure on him. If you play like that (should > > > be > > > illegal) you should not complain if it backfires. Maybe RHO had no good > > > reason to think at all or that long but as usual there is no complete hand > > > so who knows (anyway it doesn't really matter to me if declarer played too > > > quick). So I tend to say tableresult but Con's statement of facts is > > > compatible with both 2 and 8 secs for the first trick which might make > > > quite > > > a difference if it was an 'easy' dummy (in which case 8 secs might be ok). > > > But I read his statement as 'as soon as declarer made up his mind' and he > > > should have played 'as soon as everybody can be expected to have made up > > > their mind'. If you play from dummy after 10-30 seconds (depending on the > > > complexity of the dummy/bidding/contract) then you do have a case against > > > RHO thinking. > > > > > > By the way I agree with Wayne that the rules are as they are (bananas > > > imho). > > > But at the top level (includes the serious EBL and WBF events) all players > > > play as if the first trick slow rule exists. Does that also make for a > > > valid > > > rule ? But then EBL/WBF probably put something in the conditions of > > > contest > > > about this issue. That way we don't need proper laws anymore because the > > > COC > > > overrule them anyway. COC's are easy to change, changing laws takes > > > forever > > > and then some. Nice situation isn't it. > > > > > > Jaap > > > >......(snip) > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 Mon Apr 14 18:41:36 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 19:41:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030312154156.00abf180@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <008401c302ad$1ef9f000$25b54351@noos.fr> Tenerife 26 was the case where someone lead hearts from two small for partners sevencard suit. > 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 In the subsequent discussion quite a lot of blml members said heart was the/a normal lead and clubs was not even an LA. Well I might overstate it but I am too lazy to reread all that stuff. I gave the lead to my bidding panel (70% Dutch top and 30% foreign top level players), together with other problems and not even a hint at the context. More than half my panel has experience playing EC class of events. Results: club - 9 (10 adding myself) spade - 6 heart - 1 Now 16/17 is not that big sample. But maybe this 'proves' that heart is not a normal lead and clubs is at least an LA. And the one guy for heart is inflated because it came from someone who gives sometimes quite stupid answers because he sometimes doesn't take more than three seconds to answer (yes I can see that after running a panel for more than 10 years, and yes I have told him I prefer no answers if he doesn't want to do it seriously, but then he can be quite brilliant as well which is perfect for my real purpose, writing a funny article). The arguments used I have mentioned earlier. But once more. - Partner could bid a major, he didn't. - The 3NT guy is prepared for a major lead - If partner has a (decent) fivecard it is most likely clubs - In clubs I have most help (same argument used by those that lead spade relative to hearts) - Partner didn't double the final contract (although this is a logic mistake, double is still take-out in this sequence) Actually it is a good example that one should be very careful about judging bridge if one doesn't have an adequate bridge level. The same holds true for the EBL-AC on the case. The majority of the members of that AC are poor players which probably explains that this AC excluded a club lead as an alternative (if I take the write-up seriously). This is the mess you create if you let the Herman's of this world rule what bridge is supposed to be at the EC level (he is not the only one and whoever appointed him and his likes is responsible for this nonsense). The real damage of course is that after a couple of crazy rulings and or arguments nobody takes the AC serious anymore and we get a tendency when in dire need of some points to appeal any bad result for which you can dream up a coherent story. You never know if an incapable AC will fall for it. Besides since they don't really understand the bridge arguments it matters more who is better at selling the story than who is right. Just bring a good lawyer. And the final insult is my dear friend Ton Kooijman defending this system whatever goes wrong all the time because it will give us equity. What equity. Can someone tell me what the heck is equity. Equity up my a.. Jaap From kaima13@hotmail.com Mon Apr 14 19:19:20 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:19:20 -0700 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030312154156.00abf180@pop.ulb.ac.be> <008401c302ad$1ef9f000$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Hi Jaap and all. I also was intrigued by this hand and ave the lead problem to my circle of friends. 6 led spades 6 lead hearts 4 led clubs They chose those leads without the knowledge that partner had hesitated before passing 3NT. Interesting that we should have such different results to this lead poll :)) Kaima > Tenerife 26 was the case where someone lead hearts from two small for > partners sevencard suit. > > > 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 > > In the subsequent discussion quite a lot of blml members said heart was > the/a normal lead and clubs was not even an LA. Well I might overstate it > but I am too lazy to reread all that stuff. I gave the lead to my bidding > panel (70% Dutch top and 30% foreign top level players), together with other > problems and not even a hint at the context. More than half my panel has > experience playing EC class of events. Results: > > club - 9 (10 adding myself) > spade - 6 > heart - 1 > > Now 16/17 is not that big sample. But maybe this 'proves' that heart is not > a normal lead and clubs is at least an LA. And the one guy for heart is > inflated because it came from someone who gives sometimes quite stupid > answers because he sometimes doesn't take more than three seconds to answer > (yes I can see that after running a panel for more than 10 years, and yes I > have told him I prefer no answers if he doesn't want to do it seriously, but > then he can be quite brilliant as well which is perfect for my real purpose, > writing a funny article). > > The arguments used I have mentioned earlier. But once more. > - Partner could bid a major, he didn't. > - The 3NT guy is prepared for a major lead > - If partner has a (decent) fivecard it is most likely clubs > - In clubs I have most help (same argument used by those that lead spade > relative to hearts) > - Partner didn't double the final contract (although this is a logic > mistake, double is still take-out in this sequence) > > Actually it is a good example that one should be very careful about judging > bridge if one doesn't have an adequate bridge level. The same holds true for > the EBL-AC on the case. The majority of the members of that AC are poor > players which probably explains that this AC excluded a club lead as an > alternative (if I take the write-up seriously). This is the mess you create > if you let the Herman's of this world rule what bridge is supposed to be at > the EC level (he is not the only one and whoever appointed him and his likes > is responsible for this nonsense). > > The real damage of course is that after a couple of crazy rulings and or > arguments nobody takes the AC serious anymore and we get a tendency when in > dire need of some points to appeal any bad result for which you can dream up > a coherent story. You never know if an incapable AC will fall for it. > Besides since they don't really understand the bridge arguments it matters > more who is better at selling the story than who is right. Just bring a good > lawyer. > > And the final insult is my dear friend Ton Kooijman defending this system > whatever goes wrong all the time because it will give us equity. What > equity. Can someone tell me what the heck is equity. Equity up my a.. > > Jaap From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Apr 14 20:09:17 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:09:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 16A In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >On 4/10/03, Robert E. Harris wrote: > >>First we need to know what south did. Then we can rule against him >>if it worked well. > >Every time I see a statement like this, I cringe. It is *not* within the >laws to rule against someone because the action he took "worked well" >for him. > >The first question that needs an answer is whether there has in fact >been UI. The second is whether that UI demonstrably suggested one action >over a logical alternative action. *Then* we need to know what south >did. I quote mine of Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:53:51 -0500: "Sorry, I agree. I was trying (not entirely successfully) to indicate that this seems too often the approach of AC's. It's difficult to put a sarcastic tone of voice into written expression, at least for one with limited talent for clear written expression." Once again, let me say, as clearly as I can, that I think many AC rulings seem (to me) to fall into this "Shoot it if it hesitates" approach. This is totally wrong. Trying to find logical alternatives often seems (to me) to start from the view that the choice made was in fact made more attractive by the UI, and that there were other plausible choices that were not made more attractive, and then deciding in that way. First the sentence, then the trial. Is this the Red Queen's approach in Through the Looking Glass? Or have I forgotten? 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 Mon Apr 14 20:25:40 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:25:40 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited In-Reply-To: <008401c302ad$1ef9f000$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Tenerife 26 was the case where someone lead hearts from two small for > partners sevencard suit. [the hand given, and a poll of Dutch experts resulted in...] > club - 9 (10 adding myself) > spade - 6 > heart - 1 [kaima: and the same poll elsewhere resulted in S=6, H=6, C=4] > Now 16/17 is not that big sample. But maybe this 'proves' that heart is not > a normal lead and clubs is at least an LA. I am prepared to accept that a club seems to be an LA. I freely admit that I am surprised at the result of the panel, though. (I remember when I quit leading clubs against this auction, and I remember when I started winning regional events, about the same time. I can't wait to find out if start leading clubs again against this auction when I am good enough to win national events. And no, I'm not being sarcastic... I really do wonder what things about my game will change in the future.) > And the one guy for heart is > inflated because it came from someone who gives sometimes quite stupid > answers because he sometimes doesn't take more than three seconds to answer Wellll. If you want to know what someone would lead at the table, you should *require* him to answer quickly - not in 3 seconds, but less than a minute to commit himself - and then let him say "This was my immediate reaction, but I later realized I should have ___" in his comments as to why he bid as he did. > Actually it is a good example that one should be very careful about judging > bridge if one doesn't have an adequate bridge level. The same holds true for > the EBL-AC on the case. The majority of the members of that AC are poor > players which probably explains that this AC excluded a club lead as an > alternative (if I take the write-up seriously). This is the mess you create > if you let the Herman's of this world rule what bridge is supposed to be at > the EC level (he is not the only one and whoever appointed him and his likes > is responsible for this nonsense). This goes back to the problem with "a committee of peers" ... to some people, that means anyone who entered the same event... to a strict mind, it only means a committee of your twin brother. GRB From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Apr 14 20:51:21 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 21:51:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030312154156.00abf180@pop.ulb.ac.be> <008401c302ad$1ef9f000$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001f01c302bf$3a9a36a0$25b54351@noos.fr> > Interesting that we should have such different results to this lead poll :)) > Kaima Well for starters, what is the playing level of your poll. I would expect average and lesser players to lead spades or even hearts because they tend to use a well known rule (lead a short major suit when weak) even in a situation where it doesn't apply. I would not lead clubs myself against 1NT-3NT (I go for spades). But it is not that easy for an average player to realize that 1NT-3NT is completely different from 1D-x-3NT. In general very few non top level players are capable to make deductions about things that did not happen (here no major overcall). On paper maybe, at the table forget it. They need all their attention to handle the things that do happen. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "kaima" To: Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited > Hi Jaap and all. > I also was intrigued by this hand and ave the lead problem to my circle of > friends. > 6 led spades > 6 lead hearts > 4 led clubs > They chose those leads without the knowledge that partner had hesitated > before passing 3NT. > Interesting that we should have such different results to this lead poll :)) > Kaima > > > > Tenerife 26 was the case where someone lead hearts from two small for > > partners sevencard suit. > > > > > 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 > > > > In the subsequent discussion quite a lot of blml members said heart was > > the/a normal lead and clubs was not even an LA. Well I might overstate it > > but I am too lazy to reread all that stuff. I gave the lead to my bidding > > panel (70% Dutch top and 30% foreign top level players), together with > other > > problems and not even a hint at the context. More than half my panel has > > experience playing EC class of events. Results: > > > > club - 9 (10 adding myself) > > spade - 6 > > heart - 1 > > > > Now 16/17 is not that big sample. But maybe this 'proves' that heart is > not > > a normal lead and clubs is at least an LA. And the one guy for heart is > > inflated because it came from someone who gives sometimes quite stupid > > answers because he sometimes doesn't take more than three seconds to > answer > > (yes I can see that after running a panel for more than 10 years, and yes > I > > have told him I prefer no answers if he doesn't want to do it seriously, > but > > then he can be quite brilliant as well which is perfect for my real > purpose, > > writing a funny article). > > > > The arguments used I have mentioned earlier. But once more. > > - Partner could bid a major, he didn't. > > - The 3NT guy is prepared for a major lead > > - If partner has a (decent) fivecard it is most likely clubs > > - In clubs I have most help (same argument used by those that lead spade > > relative to hearts) > > - Partner didn't double the final contract (although this is a logic > > mistake, double is still take-out in this sequence) > > > > Actually it is a good example that one should be very careful about > judging > > bridge if one doesn't have an adequate bridge level. The same holds true > for > > the EBL-AC on the case. The majority of the members of that AC are poor > > players which probably explains that this AC excluded a club lead as an > > alternative (if I take the write-up seriously). This is the mess you > create > > if you let the Herman's of this world rule what bridge is supposed to be > at > > the EC level (he is not the only one and whoever appointed him and his > likes > > is responsible for this nonsense). > > > > The real damage of course is that after a couple of crazy rulings and or > > arguments nobody takes the AC serious anymore and we get a tendency when > in > > dire need of some points to appeal any bad result for which you can dream > up > > a coherent story. You never know if an incapable AC will fall for it. > > Besides since they don't really understand the bridge arguments it matters > > more who is better at selling the story than who is right. Just bring a > good > > lawyer. > > > > And the final insult is my dear friend Ton Kooijman defending this system > > whatever goes wrong all the time because it will give us equity. What > > equity. Can someone tell me what the heck is equity. Equity up my a.. > > > > Jaap > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Apr 14 20:37:38 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:37:38 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles In-Reply-To: <200304141429.KAA02023@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Steve Willner wrote: > It's interesting how different our views are. I don't know what > is to be done. Good luck to the LC. Yes, interesting indeed. > > 1. The power of SOs to regulate partnership > > agreements. > > I gather Richard wants any regulation allowed. I'd prefer to have the > SO's regulating power restricted. This difference probably arises > because of the different philosophies of our respective NCBO's. I am with Steve on this one. (I am from ACBLand, and look to the WBF to protect my rights in regard to choosing a bidding system and choosing when to psych. I also think it arises because of the different approaches our NCBOs have taken.) Going one step further: if Steve and I have correctly diagnosed what underlies this recommendation.... then either what we really want is to be free to bid as we choose wherever we are (and just differ as to whether we think or NCBOs need told to do this or can figure it out for themselves), or we've demonstrated it is an item on which there won't be a solution palatable to the whole world, and the LC might want to not try to force it on us. > > 2. The principle of maximum prior and/or timely > > disclosure of parnership agreements to the > > opponents (within practical limits set by SOs). This one we seem to agree on - but it also seems to be one that's already in the book. > > 3. Mechanical rules redressing irregularities > > reduced to a minimum; equitable rules redressing > > irregularities increased to a maximum. > > Along with others, I definitely prefer the opposite. This one, we already know on BLML, deeply divides the readership of the list, and to some extent divides the WBFLC too. No need for us to all post again what our positions are on this point: we know both sides have significant support. I am sure the WBFLC is aware that whatever changes they make, whether toward equity-based rulings or toward mechanical rulings, will upset a lot of us:)) GRB From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Apr 14 21:03:06 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 22:03:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited References: Message-ID: <003801c302c0$dfc7de60$25b54351@noos.fr> Gordon: Wellll. If you want to know what someone would lead at the table, you should *require* him to answer quickly - not in 3 seconds, but less than a minute to commit himself - and then let him say "This was my immediate reaction, but I later realized I should have ___" in his comments as to why he bid as he did. This is maybe why you don't win national events as yet. Sorry, just picking up your own joke. Anyway, the above is completely silly. Do you have a speedcard in mind or so. On lead in an EC or any serious bridge event you have all the time in the world and winning players take that time. It rarely happens to me that I lead too quickly (or play too quickly as declarer at the first trick) meaning before I have analysed all available info. And yes when some bloke asks me a question at a bar I sometimes also answer without thinking it through. But that doesn't mean anything in the context of serious competion bridge. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited > > > On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Tenerife 26 was the case where someone lead hearts from two small for > > partners sevencard suit. > > [the hand given, and a poll of Dutch experts resulted in...] > > > club - 9 (10 adding myself) > > spade - 6 > > heart - 1 > > [kaima: and the same poll elsewhere resulted in S=6, H=6, C=4] > > > Now 16/17 is not that big sample. But maybe this 'proves' that heart is not > > a normal lead and clubs is at least an LA. > > I am prepared to accept that a club seems to be an LA. I freely admit that > I am surprised at the result of the panel, though. (I remember when I quit > leading clubs against this auction, and I remember when I started > winning regional events, about the same time. I can't wait to find > out if start leading clubs again against this auction when I am good > enough to win national events. And no, I'm not being sarcastic... I really > do wonder what things about my game will change in the future.) > > > And the one guy for heart is > > inflated because it came from someone who gives sometimes quite stupid > > answers because he sometimes doesn't take more than three seconds to answer > > Wellll. If you want to know what someone would lead at the table, you > should *require* him to answer quickly - not in 3 seconds, but less than > a minute to commit himself - and then let him say "This was my immediate > reaction, but I later realized I should have ___" in his comments as to > why he bid as he did. > > > Actually it is a good example that one should be very careful about judging > > bridge if one doesn't have an adequate bridge level. The same holds true for > > the EBL-AC on the case. The majority of the members of that AC are poor > > players which probably explains that this AC excluded a club lead as an > > alternative (if I take the write-up seriously). This is the mess you create > > if you let the Herman's of this world rule what bridge is supposed to be at > > the EC level (he is not the only one and whoever appointed him and his likes > > is responsible for this nonsense). > > This goes back to the problem with "a committee of peers" ... to some > people, that means anyone who entered the same event... to a strict mind, > it only means a committee of your twin brother. > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Mon Apr 14 21:12:32 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 22:12:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited References: Message-ID: <005301c302c2$2fd67280$25b54351@noos.fr> Gordon: [the hand given, and a poll of Dutch experts resulted in...] Dutch ? This poll included members of the open teams (maybe not in 2003 but all more than once) of the following countries: England, USA, Danmark, Israel, Canada and yes a couple of Dutch also qualify as such Besides it was not a poll as such but part of a regular long running Master Solvers style of article. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited > > > On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > Tenerife 26 was the case where someone lead hearts from two small for > > partners sevencard suit. > > [the hand given, and a poll of Dutch experts resulted in...] > > > club - 9 (10 adding myself) > > spade - 6 > > heart - 1 > > [kaima: and the same poll elsewhere resulted in S=6, H=6, C=4] > > > Now 16/17 is not that big sample. But maybe this 'proves' that heart is not > > a normal lead and clubs is at least an LA. > > I am prepared to accept that a club seems to be an LA. I freely admit that > I am surprised at the result of the panel, though. (I remember when I quit > leading clubs against this auction, and I remember when I started > winning regional events, about the same time. I can't wait to find > out if start leading clubs again against this auction when I am good > enough to win national events. And no, I'm not being sarcastic... I really > do wonder what things about my game will change in the future.) > > > And the one guy for heart is > > inflated because it came from someone who gives sometimes quite stupid > > answers because he sometimes doesn't take more than three seconds to answer > > Wellll. If you want to know what someone would lead at the table, you > should *require* him to answer quickly - not in 3 seconds, but less than > a minute to commit himself - and then let him say "This was my immediate > reaction, but I later realized I should have ___" in his comments as to > why he bid as he did. > > > Actually it is a good example that one should be very careful about judging > > bridge if one doesn't have an adequate bridge level. The same holds true for > > the EBL-AC on the case. The majority of the members of that AC are poor > > players which probably explains that this AC excluded a club lead as an > > alternative (if I take the write-up seriously). This is the mess you create > > if you let the Herman's of this world rule what bridge is supposed to be at > > the EC level (he is not the only one and whoever appointed him and his likes > > is responsible for this nonsense). > > This goes back to the problem with "a committee of peers" ... to some > people, that means anyone who entered the same event... to a strict mind, > it only means a committee of your twin brother. > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Apr 14 21:52:29 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 21:52:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <000801c2ffa1$36163dc0$0100a8c0@Desktop> <001c01c30035$ae555340$515627d9@pbncomputer> <003a01c30041$035ce640$515627d9@pbncomputer> <006101c30049$61f89700$515627d9@pbncomputer> <00b701c3005f$f0166b00$25b54351@noos.fr> <001101c30099$57245120$515627d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <002101c302c8$090e1b20$e401e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 3:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > Facetiousness aside now. As I have said before, > when the rules are stupid, the top players just > ignore them and get on with the game. But this > is not a justification of an "unwritten" code of > conduct that should somehow filter down from > the Bermuda Bowl to the Little Festering under > Lyme bridge club. Such a code does not exist; > only the Laws exist. If it is desirable for everyone > to pause after the opening lead, then the rules > should say so. > +=+ The question was considered by the drafting committee to be one that each regulating body should determine for itself, hence the insertion of the parenthesis in 73A2. Furthermore, there is no basis by which policies or practices should filter down, other than by example, from Valhalla to Little Festering under Lyme; interpretations of the meaning of the text of the Laws should do so per the WBF By-Laws, but this does not extend to appeals committee practices in the application of the meanings. 'By example' does raise a question. It is the objective of the President and Executive of the WBF that subordinate organizations should be encouraged, not obliged, to adopt selected policies for the sake of consistency - these being disseminated via the CoP and its associated jurisprudence. One of these is (I quote the jurisprudence) that if the answer to a question "could not affect (the player's) action on the round it would be desirable to defer the question, probably until the auction is completed". This stops a little short of the policies of the WBF and EBL Appeals Committees, consistently in my experience as member over more than sixteen years, that to ask a question when the player has no immediate interest in the answer is of itself an action for which the player who asks has 'no demonstrable bridge reason' within the meaning of 73F2. (I have seen it said that such a bridge judgement is not compatible with 73F2 - but this calls, I would say, for an eccentric reading of the language of that law - and although doubt has been cast on my grasp of the related practice of these committees, I have yet to encounter a challenge in the matter from anyone substantially involved in them.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From kaima13@hotmail.com Mon Apr 14 22:17:13 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:17:13 -0700 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030312154156.00abf180@pop.ulb.ac.be> <008401c302ad$1ef9f000$25b54351@noos.fr> <001f01c302bf$3a9a36a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Kaima wrote: > > Interesting that we should have such different results to this lead poll > :)) Jaap wrote: > Well for starters, what is the playing level of your poll. I would expect > average and lesser players to lead spades or even hearts SNIP FYI, the playing level of the my poll was from solid Flight A to World Class players. I was not not asking average or lesser players (though I have friends in that category as well). What would be the point in polling other than the high level players? This was a high level event where the problem occurred in the first place. Best regards, Kaima From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 15 00:28:25 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 19:28:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 16A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/14/03, Robert E. Harris wrote: >Is this the Red Queen's approach in Through the Looking >Glass? Or have I forgotten? It is. Seems we're in agreement after all. :) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 00:39:11 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:39:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>> 3. Mechanical rules redressing irregularities >>> reduced to a minimum; equitable rules redressing >>> irregularities increased to a maximum. Steve Willner: >>Along with others, I definitely prefer the opposite. Gordon Bower: >This one, we already know on BLML, deeply divides the >readership of the list, and to some extent divides the >WBFLC too. No need for us to all post again what our >positions are on this point: we know both sides have >significant support. > >I am sure the WBFLC is aware that whatever changes >they make, whether toward equity-based rulings or >toward mechanical rulings, will upset a lot of us:)) Richard Hills: To provide focus to the mechanical versus equity debate, suppose blml examines a hypothetical test case. In the 2005 Laws, the equitable Law 64C is abolished; as compensation for the occasional damage this causes the non-offending side, every revoke penalty is mechanically increased to a two trick penalty. Would David Burn support such a mechanical change to the revoke Laws? Would Steve Willner? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 01:03:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:03:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Weapon of mass distraction Message-ID: In "trick one - break the laws, Jaap wrote: [snip] >It is a little like when playing against >someone who tries to see your cards. I think >it should not be illegal to show (sorry, let >him see) such a person cards which help you >rather than him (I have done so a couple of >times, what is wrong with 'helping' cheaters, >anyway this doesn't compensate for all those >points they win against all those players who >are not aware). > >This is not to be confused with me taking the >initiative. This I deplore as much as the >reverse. Bottom line, I detest all this kind >of coffeehousing but if necessary I know quite >well how to handle it. Compensating for opponents' infractions of Law 74C5 by distracting them with carefully selected dangerous visions may be poetic justice, but it is also an illegal infraction of Law 73D2. Responding to illegality with illegality, even if provoked by opponents' cheating, cannot be justified. Nor do I think it necessary to modify Law 73D2 in the 2005 Laws in order to legalise Jaap's weapon of mass distraction. The current Laws provide an adequate remedy for Jaap - Jaap: "Director!" TD: "What seems to be the problem?" Jaap: "In my opinion, opponent X has infracted Law 74C5." Subsequent action is in the hands of the TD and local Laws & Ethics Committee, where it appropriately belongs. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 02:03:42 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:03:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>2. The principle of maximum prior and/or timely >> disclosure of partnership agreements to the >> opponents (within practical limits set by SOs). Steve Willner: >Laws 40B and 75A seem pretty clear on the >principles. No doubt the wording could be >improved, but it isn't clear to me what changes >Richard wants. Richard Hills: The wording could definitely be improved; Law 40B uses the term "special partnership understanding", while Law 75A uses the term "special partnership agreements". Much blml text was generated by Professor Twist's successor, in his attempts to define a meaningful Lawful distinction between an "understanding" and an "agreement". David Burn also believes that "fully and freely available" disclosure, required by the current Law 75A, is an unachievable Utopian ideal. If so, the 2005 Law 75A could be profitably rewritten by including practical and achievable benchmarks for maximising disclosure. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 02:44:28 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:44:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles Message-ID: Gordon Bower: >I am with Steve on this one. (I am from ACBLand, and >look to the WBF to protect my rights in regard to >choosing a bidding system To me, this seems a red herring. 50 years ago a typical bidding system would have been mostly natural, with a few conventions tacked on. In the 21st century, a typical bidding system (even those used by Little Old Ladies) is mostly conventional, with some natural bidding tacked on. Law 40D gives the local SO (not the WBF) the power to regulate conventional agreements, so for all practical purposes players already lack rights in choosing a bidding system of which the local SO does not approve. [snip] >either what we really want is to be free to bid as we >choose wherever we are (and just differ as to whether >we think or NCBOs need told to do this or can figure >it out for themselves), or we've demonstrated it is an >item on which there won't be a solution palatable to >the whole world, and the LC might want to not try to >force it on us. There are two freedoms here; your freedom to use the Little Major system wherever you are; but your opponents' countervailing freedom not be be bamboozled for bottoms. An SO must be careful when striking the balance between permitted science and prohibited super- science, so as to maximise the enjoyment of all types of bridge players. An interesting case study on convention restrictions occurred at my local Canberra Bridge Club. Players who had recently emerged from the supervised play sessions on Wednesday nights were encouraged to play "real" duplicate sessions on Friday nights. To prevent the inexperienced players from being intimidated, Red conventions were prohibited on that night. The Friday night sessions stagnated, averaging 5-6 tables. The club committee received complaints from both good and poor players about the ban on Red Conventions. So, the ban was cancelled, and now Friday night averages 10 tables. (Inexperienced players who did not want to play against Red conventions were given the option of prohibiting opponents from being Red users that round; in practice virtually all of the bunnies did not care.) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 03:18:40 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:18:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Turtles all the way down Message-ID: In "trick one - break the laws" Jaap asked: >What am I to do when ruling on the Dutch >national AC. What is more important. The >laws of bridge? The general COC of the EBL? >The general COC of the WBF? The most recent >COC for an international event? The COC (we >call it different) that are written by the >Dutch laws committee. I am sure I can find >lots of contradictions in those texts (and >their translations). "The world rests on the back of a turtle." "What does the turtle stand on?" In answer to Jaap's questions of legal primacy, I state this hierarchy through analogy: The USA has its Constitution. Duplicate bridge has its Laws. The USA has its Supreme Court, which issues binding interpretations of the Constitution, but such interpretations may not be directly contrary to the Constitution. Duplicate bridge has the WBF LC, which issues binding interpretations of the Laws, but such interpretations may not be directly contrary to the Laws. (For example, the WBF LC was forced to withdraw an illegal interpretation of Law 25B.) The USA has its states, which have delegated powers granted by the Constitution and by the Congress. Duplicate bridge has Zones, which have delegated powers granted by the Laws and by the WBF. The USA has its cities, which have sub- delegated powers. Duplicate bridge has NCBOs, which have sub- delegated powers. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 03:49:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:49:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives Message-ID: You, South, hold: QJ9842 832 64 32 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) Pass Pass ? (1) 15-17 What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Apr 15 04:01:16 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 04:01:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles References: Message-ID: <000a01c302fb$48617820$273527d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: > In the 2005 Laws, the equitable Law 64C is abolished; as > compensation for the occasional damage this causes the > non-offending side, every revoke penalty is mechanically > increased to a two trick penalty. > Would David Burn support such a mechanical change to the > revoke Laws? No. A player who revokes should simply lose the rest of the tricks. And it is a measure of the extent to which you do not understand my point of view at all that you will think I am being frivolous with this answer. I am not. >Would Steve Willner? I would not think so. He would, perhaps, be in favour of "at least two tricks, but if the revoke has gained more than two tricks, then "equity is restored" in that the non-offenders are awarded those tricks (and only those tricks) that they would have made anyway. In other words, some revokes are "penalised", some are not. This, to my way of thinking, is obvious nonsense, though I am prepared to go this far and no further: if a revoker would have lost the rest of the tricks anyway, he does not have to lose two of his defensive tricks on the next board (though I cannot for the life of me see why he should not; a footballer who commits a serious foul in one match is banned from playing in the next three, and there is no theoretical reason why some version of this rule should not apply to bridge.) I may be wronging you, Richard. But I do not think, from reading what you have written here over a long period, that you have very much understanding of what is seriously wrong with the "equitable" point of view, and the extent to which those not in favour of it believe that it should not apply at all. I think that, if you actually polled the world's bridge players - including the best ones, on the basis of "one vote per player" - more of them would favour a rule that said "if you revoke, you don't make any more tricks" than a rule that said "if you revoke, you will not know how many tricks it has cost you until some bunch of idiots in whom you have no faith whatever are prepared to tell you how many tricks you probably get, to within the nearest one sixth of a trick or so". David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Apr 15 04:15:53 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 04:15:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives References: Message-ID: <002901c302fd$52af2fa0$273527d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: > You, South, hold: > > QJ9842 > 832 > 64 > 32 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT(1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 15-17 > > What are your logical alternatives? I don't know, Richard. What is my system? What is the form of scoring? What is the vulnerability? With what hands will partner already have taken some action? Why do I need to ask you these questions, when you should know in advance that I will need the answers? David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Apr 15 04:25:24 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 04:25:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles References: Message-ID: <003d01c302fe$a7532a60$273527d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: > Much blml text was generated by Professor Twist's > successor, in his attempts to define a meaningful > Lawful distinction between an "understanding" and > an "agreement". Oh, well. I cling to the possibly outmoded view that if you use different words in a set of something that you presume to call Laws, those different words should have different meanings. I do this despite my personal awareness that Edgar Kaplan was a prosodist who had been taught, as we all were, that repetition of a word is poor style, and should be avoided. But I am also aware that in the current climate, no one gives a tinker's curse for the meaning of a word - "equity is king", and nobody has an ace with which to beat it. David Burn The banks of the Nile, Egypt From dkent@sujja.com Tue Apr 15 04:42:30 2003 From: dkent@sujja.com (David Kent) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 23:42:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Although you have given us none of: a) vulnerability; b) IMPS or MPs; c) our defence in direct seat vs 1NT openers, I suspect 2S (if available) would be an almost unanimous choice among my peers. The "only" thing that would cause me the slightest worry is that East has a 1-4-4-4 hand with about 7 HCP and we push them to a vulnerable, makeable 4H game at IMPs. For example: x Qxxx ATxx Jxxx AKxx QJ9842 xx 832 Kxx 64 Axxx 32 xx AKJx QJxx KQx However if I start looking for monsters under the bed, I would never open, preempt, overcall... because I may go for a number, tell the opps how to play the hand... -- Dave Kent > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:49 PM > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Antipodean alternatives > > > > You, South, hold: > > QJ9842 > 832 > 64 > 32 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT(1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 15-17 > > What are your logical alternatives? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 04:41:36 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:41:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives Message-ID: >I don't know, Richard. What is my system? What >is the form of scoring? What is the vulnerability? >With what hands will partner already have taken >some action? Why do I need to ask you these >questions, when you should know in advance that I >will need the answers? > >David Burn >London, England Okay, Plan B - an excerpt from an article written by a respected National Appeals Committee chair in the latest Australian Directors Bulletin. Best wishes Richard * * * Hesitations - A Widely Misunderstood Concept David Stern Sydney, NSW There appears to be much misunderstanding regarding hesitations and how they effect partner's right to bid. It is often said that that if you hesitate then partner cannot bid. This is simply wrong. * When a player hesitates, he expresses doubt about his call. * His partner must not take advantage of this doubt. * That information is unauthorised. Once a player has hesitated, his partner may not choose amongst logical alternatives an action suggested by the hesitation to be more successful. Occasionally I run workshops for club players on hesitations. The first question I ask is based on sitting South on the following hand: QJ9842 832 64 32 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) Pass(2) Pass 2S (1) 1NT = 15-17 (2) Agreed Hesitation I ask: Has there been a problem? The unanimous answer is "yes". What has the problem been? The universal answer is "North hesitated". Occasionally one or two people offer the problem as South bidding after partner hesitated. The one thing that surprises people is when I state that there has been no infraction and nothing untoward has happened. I then go on to explain: West has a maximum of 17 HCP. East presumably has a maximum of 8 HCP. South has 3 HCP. Therefore partner has a _minimum_ of 12 HCP. Subject to the fact that he did not double, partner has a _maximum_ of 20 HCP. South is perfectly entitled to bid 2S with or without the unauthorised information provided by the hesitation based purely on the mathematics of the situation. [snip] From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 05:35:25 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:35:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bad luck Butler (was Arrow Switch) Message-ID: Jaap wrote: [big snip] >Good players beat weak players consistently >because among other issues they know how to >handle and manage and reduce the various luck >factors. But playing other good players this >advantage disappears and luck becomes a very >important factor again. Pick up chess or go >if you cannot stand it. [big snip] There is an old chess saying, "the good player is always lucky." It is not a matter of *reducing* luck factors, but being good enough to notice subtle lucky opportunities, and then exploit them. In an event of significant enough length against equally skilled rivals, I can never recall losing by "bad luck". In all my losses, swings dropped by my bad play have *thoroughly* outweighed the random luck of an offside finesse. Best wishes Richard From kaima13@hotmail.com Tue Apr 15 05:49:06 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 21:49:06 -0700 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives References: Message-ID: To me, the only logical alternative is 2S. Playing Cappelletti/Hamilton over strong 1NT, direct seat will never act on borderline hands, and never with good (up to 18HCP) balanced hands. Therefore in passout seat, action is mandatory if hand has some distribution. Best regards, Kaima ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 7:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Antipodean alternatives > > You, South, hold: > > QJ9842 > 832 > 64 > 32 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT(1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 15-17 > > What are your logical alternatives? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 15 05:57:09 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:57:09 +1200 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000c01c3030b$7be19210$392e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 15 April 2003 2:49 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Antipodean alternatives > > > > You, South, hold: > > QJ9842 > 832 > 64 > 32 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT(1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) 15-17 > > What are your logical alternatives? pass and 2S I would routinely overcall a strong NT with 2S on KQJ9xx xxx xx xx in 2nd chair. If someone had a similar style then I think that pass would not be a logical alternative. I am not sure which of these would be suggested by partner's hesitation. Assuming that is the problem. In my methods partner's values will be in a fairly narrow range for this auction. Partner has at most a poor 15 - no double. RHO has at most 7 no invite. Opener has at most 17. Therefore partner has at least 13. Partner's break in tempo is likely to suggest either a hand flawed for a penalty double or a marginal minor suited overcall that we would have to go to the three- level on. I don't think either of these suggest bidding 2S given that I expect a balanced 13 or so in the dummy. Wayne > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 15 07:49:26 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:49:26 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030414145949.00abe740@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c3031b$3b9a8ad0$22e436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Tuesday, 15 April 2003 1:06 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > At 21:48 11/04/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > the lawmakers). > > > >I have just one single comment to this: In "my world" we assume this > >practice (and rule correspondingly) not only at top level > but also at middle > >level and bottom level, in fact at all levels! > > > >And to my knowledge we have no problem with the laws in this > respect, we > >simply consider what is "normal" for trick one slightly > different from what > >is normal for the other tricks. > > AG : right on target ! It is normal to lead face down to the > first trick, > not to the others. It is normal to thank partner when you see > the dummy for > the first time, not thereafter. It is normal to enquire about > alerted calls > during the first trick ; it may be done thereafter but could > be deemed > abnormal (transmitting UI, eg you counted the hand and > noticed something > strange). L41 applies only to that trick, etc. > The first trick is simply something else, while tricks 2-12 follow a > standard procedure (well, perhaps not trick 12 - see revoke rules). > > I would appreciate the addition of a paragraph in the Laws > that specifies > it is not standard practice to play instantly from the dummy > - perhaps > another # in L74B or L74C or a second line in L74C7. > Would you ? It is never free to play instantly - one should play in tempo. Your wish is in the law in terms of a SO regulation. However if your sponsoring organization has not so regulated then it is not up to you to impose this condition of contest either as a player or as the TD. Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 15 07:49:26 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:49:26 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3031b$3ed829a0$22e436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Kooijman, A. > Sent: Monday, 14 April 2003 7:23 p.m. > To: 'Bridge Laws Discussion List' > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > David, and all blml law experts: > > > > Is it an undisputed fact that a "pause at trick 1 to get a > > > picture of > > > > dummy, review facts gained from bidding, and prepare to > > > make later play > > > > decisions in tempo" is a well documented recommendation for > > > a sensible > > > habit > > > > to adopt? > > > > > > YES > > > but when later play once in while is delayed because a player > > > wasn't able to > > > oversee all possibilities in trick one that is no offence. > > > L 73D1 and of course L16 among others are covering this situation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If "Yes" - then all teachers, authors, instructors, > > coaches, bridge > > > > articles, etc. who recommend it, are teaching players > to commit an > > > > irregularity, infraction, break the laws? > > > > > > > > > NO, > > > > > > which laws? To break the laws in this respect we have to > > distinct two > > > possibilities: > > > a) the tempo in which RHO plays has to suggest something to > > > partner and > > > partner follows this suggestion while he has other normal > > > choices. If RHO > > > always takes 20 seconds he isn't sugggesting anything > > taking these 20 > > > seconds. He might if he takes 2 minutes or 2 seconds. > > > > It will be difficult to prove the assertion that player > such and such > > always takes 20 sec. > > > That is true, but that is your assumption, not mine. It is > your established > fact that this player made it a habit to wait for a certain > time before > playing in the first trick. So as difficult as it is, you did > it sir!! > I am getting lost here. I think maybe you have not noticed that the above quote was from two distinct writers. What I am saying is that I don't think that it is reasonable to accept at face value an assertion from a player that has made an unmistakeable 20 sec hesitation that he always hesitates for that long. > > > > Pausing habitually trick one - according to blml posters - > > > is source of UI > > > > and subject to penalties/restrictions on the pauser's > > > partner, according > > > to > > > > law? > > > > > > NO, playing within 2 seconds is a sourceof UI in that case. > > > > I am sorry but you have not comprehended what the laws say. > > I thought I did. Do we understand each other? Maybe not given the above. > What I said > here was that a > RHO who has made it a habit to wait for 20 seconds before > playing to the > first trick, playing within 2 seconds has created a source for UI > information. What is wrong with that? I have some laws to > support me, don't > worry. Nothing wrong there. I also assert that the player who makes it a habit to break tempo at trick one habitually or not creates potential UI problems and perhaps more importantly creates illegally deceptive problems for declarer. > > > > > > > I can only assume that this is a personal bias or desire. > > That is a pity. Because it isn't. > > > > > The way the law is written a delay at trick one is only (relatively) > > risk-free if there is a SO mandate. > > That depends on the way to read them, but I am willing to > join you there, > the laws could be clearer in this respect. But then we have > interpretations > and commonly accepted rulings etc. And those make it > completely clear that > it is no infraction to wait as RHO for some time before > playing to the first > trick. Or saying it more law oriented. Pauses at that moment > are considered > to be normal and do not create UI nor misleading info for declarer. This is not true. There was a case at the Perth Venice Cup quoted in this thread where a pause at trick one on the player's own initiative attracted a procedural penalty. This notion that a break in tempo at trick one is legal when there is no law or regulation seems utterly absurd to me. Especially when the laws specifically allow for such a regulation and many SO choose not to impose one. In those cases it is not up to the player or the TD to rule as if such a regulation was in place. In fact I think that it is utterly wrong for the TD to do so. Wayne The laws speak of unvarying tempo. If every trick was played in an unvarying tempo of 20sec then a bridge hand would take over 17 minutes to play. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 15 07:51:47 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:51:47 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030414153038.00a2e120@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000201c3031b$7f83f2e0$22e436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Tuesday, 15 April 2003 1:32 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > At 10:39 14/04/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > >> > >>Wayne: > >> > >> > >>>It would be good if our directors ruled according to what > is written the > >>>law book and not according to their personal bias. > >>> > >>>Wayne > >> > >>And once again you hit the nail > > > > > >I don't think so. > > > >Do you really believe there is any director out there who says: > >"I know what the lawbook says, but I'm ruling differently > because that is > >what I think is better" ? > > > >What does happen is that a director says: > >"I know what the lawbook says, and I know some directors > have different > >interpretations of it, but this is my interpretation and I > rule accordingly." > > AG : there are also directors who say : > "I know that the Laws allow me to do such-and-such, but I > will never do it > in this case or a similar one". > And in some cases they might be right. But it is entirely inappropriate for them to rule deliberately contrary to the laws. Wayne From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Apr 15 07:46:58 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:46:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles References: Message-ID: <000d01c3031a$e6ef2090$b33fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles > > > > >I am sure the WBFLC is aware that whatever changes > >they make, whether toward equity-based rulings or > >toward mechanical rulings, will upset a lot of us:)) > +=+ It would seem slightly immature for anyone to become upset over a change in the rules. This should be absorbed as a development of the game and the minds of participants directed to absorbing its advent.+=+ > ----------------- \x/ -------------------- > > To provide focus to the mechanical versus equity debate, > suppose blml examines a hypothetical test case. > > In the 2005 Laws, the equitable Law 64C is abolished; as > compensation for the occasional damage this causes the > non-offending side, every revoke penalty is mechanically > increased to a two trick penalty. > > Would David Burn support such a mechanical change to the > revoke Laws? Would Steve Willner? > +=+ Or at the opposite end, could anyone not support the removal of all penalties for revokes and their treatment by score adjustment alone? Of course not, who could dream of it? :-) It is strange how emotional we can become about such a dessicated subject as the rules of a game. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 15 07:49:34 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 02:49:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Turtles all the way down In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/15/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >The USA has its Constitution. Indeed. >The USA has its Supreme Court, which issues >binding interpretations of the Constitution, >but such interpretations may not be directly >contrary to the Constitution. Yep. Although in practice such contrary interpretations exist - at least in the opinion of some. >(For example, the WBF LC was forced to withdraw an illegal >interpretation of Law 25B.) Hm. Forced by whom? >The USA has its states, which have delegated >powers granted by the Constitution and by the >Congress. That turns out not to be the case. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In theory the hierarchy is this: the people first, States second (the people having delegated some things to the States), the Federal government third. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 15 07:57:34 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:57:34 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <002101c302c8$090e1b20$e401e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000301c3031c$4e06ec30$22e436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Tuesday, 15 April 2003 8:52 a.m. > To: 'Bridge Laws Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "How hast thou purchased this experience?" > "By my penny of observation." > ['Love's Labour's Lost'] > ============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 3:15 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > Facetiousness aside now. As I have said before, > > when the rules are stupid, the top players just > > ignore them and get on with the game. But this > > is not a justification of an "unwritten" code of > > conduct that should somehow filter down from > > the Bermuda Bowl to the Little Festering under > > Lyme bridge club. Such a code does not exist; > > only the Laws exist. If it is desirable for everyone > > to pause after the opening lead, then the rules > > should say so. > > > +=+ The question was considered by the drafting > committee to be one that each regulating body > should determine for itself, hence the insertion of > the parenthesis in 73A2. And the only conclusion that I can draw from this is that if there is no regulation then a player breaks his 'unvarying tempo' at his own risk and any delay may deceive declarer and there may be no bridge reason for this. >Furthermore, there is no > basis by which policies or practices should filter > down, other than by example, from Valhalla to > Little Festering under Lyme; interpretations of > the meaning of the text of the Laws should do so > per the WBF By-Laws, but this does not extend to > appeals committee practices in the application of > the meanings. > 'By example' does raise a question. It is the > objective of the President and Executive of the > WBF that subordinate organizations should be > encouraged, not obliged, to adopt selected > policies for the sake of consistency - these being > disseminated via the CoP and its associated > jurisprudence. One of these is (I quote the > jurisprudence) that if the answer to a question > "could not affect (the player's) action on the round > it would be desirable to defer the question, > probably until the auction is completed". This stops > a little short of the policies of the WBF and EBL > Appeals Committees, consistently in my experience > as member over more than sixteen years, that to > ask a question when the player has no immediate > interest in the answer is of itself an action for which > the player who asks has 'no demonstrable bridge > reason' within the meaning of 73F2. This seems to me to be precisely analogous to the situation where a player thinks at trick one when that player has no decision to make at that trick - there is no bridge reason for this delay and it might deceive. >(I have seen it > said that such a bridge judgement is not compatible > with 73F2 - but this calls, I would say, for an eccentric > reading of the language of that law - and although > doubt has been cast on my grasp of the related > practice of these committees, I have yet to encounter > a challenge in the matter from anyone substantially > involved in them.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Wayne From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Apr 15 09:07:52 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:07:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles References: <000a01c302fb$48617820$273527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3E9BBDD8.1010602@skynet.be> Come off it David, be serious. David Burn wrote: > Richard wrote: > > > > No. A player who revokes should simply lose the rest of the tricks. And > it is a measure of the extent to which you do not understand my point of > view at all that you will think I am being frivolous with this answer. I > am not. > One shudders. > >>Would Steve Willner? >> > > I would not think so. He would, perhaps, be in favour of "at least two > tricks, but if the revoke has gained more than two tricks, then "equity > is restored" in that the non-offenders are awarded those tricks (and > only those tricks) that they would have made anyway. In other words, > some revokes are "penalised", some are not. > Yes. Sad but true. > This, to my way of thinking, is obvious nonsense, though I am prepared > to go this far and no further: if a revoker would have lost the rest of > the tricks anyway, he does not have to lose two of his defensive tricks > on the next board (though I cannot for the life of me see why he should > not; a footballer who commits a serious foul in one match is banned from > playing in the next three, and there is no theoretical reason why some > version of this rule should not apply to bridge.) > Here are a number of analogies that stretch the imagination. A footballer who commits a serious offence breaks laws that we want upheld. We want to deter him from making those infraction. We consider the infractions volontary and only stiff penalties will make the player think twice. That is not true of revokes. We don't consider deliberate revoking a problem. We don't believe we need to deter people from revoking any more than we already do. In short, the questions put forward about the revoke penalties have nothing whatsoever to do with the height of the penalty, only with its nature - mechanical or equitable. So please David, spare us your opinions. > I may be wronging you, Richard. But I do not think, from reading what > you have written here over a long period, that you have very much > understanding of what is seriously wrong with the "equitable" point of > view, and the extent to which those not in favour of it believe that it > should not apply at all. I think that, if you actually polled the > world's bridge players - including the best ones, on the basis of "one > vote per player" - more of them would favour a rule that said "if you > revoke, you don't make any more tricks" than a rule that said "if you > revoke, you will not know how many tricks it has cost you until some > bunch of idiots in whom you have no faith whatever are prepared to tell > you how many tricks you probably get, to within the nearest one sixth of > a trick or so". > Do you really believe this? People prefering 0 tricks to 5 or 6? Oh well. > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gester@lineone.net Tue Apr 15 11:09:39 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:09:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <010901c30284$877f2060$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001201c30337$741abda0$5b182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Kooijman, A." ; "'Herman De Wael'" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > .> Or recent rulings of my own Dutch national AC which > formally is independant. > +=+ Independent? How so? Has it not signed up to membership of the World Bridge Federation and so consented to be bound by its Constitution and By-Laws? +=+ > > Dear Ton, something is very wrong with the > management of this development and are you > really the right guy for this job ? I wonder. Diplomacy > and political bickering is not really your forte and that > is what is needed most to straighten out this mess. > +=+ This is unfair to ton. Given his head he would bring order to the situation - it would not be done in the way to satisfy me, nor would a number of other members of his committee be happy with an order based upon his views of some matters. But an order of its kind would be established. As it is we are in the necessity of finding a consensus position, (un)satisfactory in equal measures for each, because the world is no longer tolerant of dictators, not even in the benevolent EK style. The committee has said it will make its decisions corporately as a group and, Kaplan having departed, not give rein to any strong-minded individual (of which we have a supply) to do it for them. The other factor to bear in mind is the decision of the WBFLC that, except in extremis, it will not make interim patchwork changes but will hold back until the whole of the playground can be swept at once - which is why little is seen to stir on the surface. So, please, do not vent your dissatisfaction on any individual - rather lambaste us as a group. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Tue Apr 15 11:20:17 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:20:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles References: <000a01c302fb$48617820$273527d9@pbncomputer> <3E9BBDD8.1010602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c3034f$b3c77980$b11e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles >> > So please David, spare us your opinions. > +=+ Now, Herman, come, come..... You and I like to state our views. It would be a sad day if we were to seek like some East African Prime Minister to throw into gaol those disaffected with our opinions. ~ G ~ +=+ From cfgcs@eiu.edu Tue Apr 15 17:02:01 2003 From: cfgcs@eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:02:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] I think this ruling is easy... Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20030415103526.00ac4710@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> ...but I'd better check, just in case. [all hands except N approximate] Both vulnerable, E dealer S AKQJx H JT9 D AQxx C x S xxx S xxx H xxx H A D Kxx D Jxxxx C Kxxx C AJxx S xx H KQxxxx D x C Qxxx N E S W - 1D 1H 2C 3H* 4C P P 4H X all pass 4Hx made 5 for a cold top. Small club game. Matchpoints. EW are an experienced and aggressive pair. [I'm guessing you could deduce part of that from the bidding.] NS have only been playing for about a year, but they like to add new gadgets to their system and they have been quite successful. 3H was alerted. E asked for an explanation before bidding 4C, and was told that the bid showed 0-6 points and some heart support. When dummy was tabled, he called the Director, and claimed that he would not have doubled if he had been given correct information. The Director asked me and another experienced TD to handle the case. 1) After some discussion, it was agreed by all [even EW] that the explanation was correct--N had forgotten one of their agreements. 2) There is absolutely no chance that this NS pair is trying to pull a fast one. We ruled that as the explanation was agreed to be correct, there was no MI. S has no UI, and has bid her hand as if N really did have a bust. N has UI that S thinks he has 0-6 points, but we couldn't find any LAs to 4H. EW's bidding and S's meek pass over 4C makes slam unlikely, and we didn't figure anyone could pass that monster opposite a H overcall. We ruled result stands. Rub of the green. Did we make the right ruling? Suppose we had not known the pair in question, or suppose that it is not clear whether their agreement to play weak [Bergenesque] raises over opening bids extends to playing them over overcalls. What would the correct ruling have been then? Shouldn't E begin to suspect something at some point along the line, regardless? Thanks for your help, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Apr 15 18:48:23 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:48:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] I think this ruling is easy... Message-ID: <200304151748.NAA09097@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Grant Sterling > Did we make the right ruling? Looks OK to me. In particular, the UI to North suggests an aggressive action, but it appears North actually took the most conservative LA. [suppose there had been MI after all...] > Shouldn't E begin to suspect something > at some point along the line, regardless? This is not relevant until you get to the point of "irrational, wild, or gambling." The basic question is not whether the NOS should "get it right anyway" after the MI. It is what they would have done had there been no MI in the first place. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Apr 15 19:10:27 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:10:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles Message-ID: <200304151810.OAA09118@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >... a hypothetical test case. > > In the 2005 Laws, the equitable Law 64C is abolished; as > compensation for the occasional damage this causes the > non-offending side, every revoke penalty is mechanically > increased to a two trick penalty. Unlike David, I don't think we can get rid of equity rulings altogether. The information irregularities are just too complicated to admit purely mechanical solutions, as far as I can see. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize the situations where equity rulings are needed. The above being true, I don't have any objection to a mechanical penalty that covers nearly all cases and an equity "catch-all" when the mechanical penalties do not suffice. Examples include L64C, 72B1 (and 23), and 12A1. In the case of revokes, we need _something_ to make sure offenders cannot gain. Otherwise it would be too easy to "manufacture" a stopper in declarer's suit or find other ways to gain by revoking. If we get rid of 64C, then David's rule that revokers lose the rest of the tricks is the way to go. It does have the non- trivial advantage that most TD's are likely to be able to apply the rule, but it also has the non-trivial disadvantage that most players will think it's too harsh. I'm sorry to both David and Richard for not being a purist in either camp. In my opinion, we need a balance between simplicity on the one hand and perceived fairness on the other. Certainly reasonable people will differ on exactly where that balance is to be found. My own perception is that from our current position, both simplicity and perceived fairness can be increased by moving toward more mechanical penalties and fewer equity rulings. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Apr 15 19:25:29 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:25:29 -0700 Subject: [blml] Generally Recognised Principles References: <200304151810.OAA09118@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000e01c3037c$6613af60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > > I'm sorry to both David and Richard for not being a purist in either > camp. In my opinion, we need a balance between simplicity on the one > hand and perceived fairness on the other. Certainly reasonable people > will differ on exactly where that balance is to be found. My own > perception is that from our current position, both simplicity and > perceived fairness can be increased by moving toward more mechanical > penalties and fewer equity rulings. > My opinion also. An opponent blunders and you get an "undeserved" windfall whether the blunder is a misbid, a misplay, or an infraction. All in the spirit of the game. Besides, equity is often, perhaps usually, undeterminable. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Apr 15 19:37:04 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:37:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives References: <002901c302fd$52af2fa0$273527d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001101c3037e$1e1f3470$2235e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 4:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Antipodean alternatives > Why do I need to ask you these questions, when you > should know in advance that I will need the answers? > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Aha! A principle! The obligation to anticipate each question so that it need not be asked. With mechanical redress, no doubt - off with his head, if we do not answer the question before it is raised. "My being in Egypt, Caesar, what was't to you?" "No more than my residing here in Rome might be to you in Egypt - yet if you there did practise on my state, your being in Egypt might be my question." ~ G ~ +=+ From adam@irvine.com Tue Apr 15 19:41:08 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:41:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] Turtles all the way down In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Apr 2003 02:49:34 EDT." Message-ID: <200304151841.LAA02044@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed Reppert wrote: > >The USA has its Supreme Court, which issues > >binding interpretations of the Constitution, > >but such interpretations may not be directly > >contrary to the Constitution. > > Yep. Although in practice such contrary interpretations exist - at least > in the opinion of some. The only body that has the authority to determine whether Supreme Court interpretations really are directly contrary to the constitution is ... the Supreme Court. A turtle that stands on its own back, perhaps??? -- Adam From john@asimere.com Tue Apr 15 18:34:18 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:34:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >You, South, hold: > >QJ9842 >832 >64 >32 > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1NT(1) Pass Pass ? > >(1) 15-17 > >What are your logical alternatives? partner will have his hesitation, and that is AI to you. > >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 HarrisR@missouri.edu Tue Apr 15 20:58:34 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:58:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] trick one - who breaks the laws? In-Reply-To: <000301c3031c$4e06ec30$22e436d2@Desktop> References: <000301c3031c$4e06ec30$22e436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: This discussion of variation of tempo by third hand at trick one has ignored tempo variation in play from dummy at trick one. Playing dummy at other than the normal (3 seconds?) speed may mislead the defenders. Declairer may have no more bridge reason for stopping then to consider play of the whole hand than third hand may have at his turn when his play is obvious. Stopping to think at any point seems likely to violate some part of the law. Do we see declairers play quickly from dummy when the card is a singleton? Yes, when they are bad players. As David Burn points out, one cannot play good bridge and obey the laws. The hesitations I'd like to see made violations of all the Laws (#1-200 in the new book) are the endless and mindless postmortems after every hand. 7NT bid and made, cold on any lead, played from either side. Three minutes of defender's talk about the defense. Only a trick one claim will slow it down to one minute which follows the minutes devoted to disputing the claim. Maybe I need to get back to doing my tax returns. They seem to make a little more sense than some of this thread. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From adam@irvine.com Tue Apr 15 21:00:14 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:00:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 Apr 2003 21:49:06 PDT." Message-ID: <200304152000.NAA02966@mailhub.irvine.com> Kaima wrote: > To me, the only logical alternative is 2S. Playing Cappelletti/Hamilton over > strong 1NT, direct seat will never act on borderline hands, and never with > good (up to 18HCP) balanced hands. Therefore in passout seat, action is > mandatory if hand has some distribution. Playing Cappelletti/Hamilton, wouldn't 2S here show spades and a minor? So the only logical alternative is 2C to show a one-suiter.. (Unless you play C/H in direct seat only...) Anyway, I concur with your real point that passing is not a logical alternative here. This particular situation has caused problems at least twice over the years. In both cases, the ruling went in our favor (in one of those, the TD ruled against us but an AC reversed the decision). The funny thing is, I'm not even sure there was an agreed-upon hesitation in either of those cases; in one case, about 20 years ago, everybody pretty much agreed that opener's LHO (our teammate) paused only long enough to glance at their CC and check the range, and the other case probably was similar. This didn't stop the opponents from calling the TD just out of suspicion that something funny must have been going on for us to bid with such little high-card strength. -- Adam > > You, South, hold: > > > > QJ9842 > > 832 > > 64 > > 32 > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 1NT(1) Pass Pass ? > > > > (1) 15-17 From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Apr 15 21:36:43 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives Message-ID: <200304152036.QAA09229@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Beneschan > Anyway, I concur with your real point that passing is not a logical > alternative here. I think it's certainly a LA in the ACBL and probably elsewhere as well. Unless there is something we weren't told, why shouldn't 1NT be going down more than whatever we can make? Or why shouldn't the opponents have a making part score in some suit? Personally, I would routinely pass. Perhaps better players can show me the error of my ways, but in general, a hand without a singleton or void is better off to defend. Change the distribution a bit, keeping the spade suit the same, and I'd agree with Adam. In fact, my initial thought was to wonder whether 2S is a LA. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 15 22:57:32 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:57:32 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - who breaks the laws? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3039a$063f3b40$252e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert E. Harris [mailto:HarrisR@missouri.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2003 7:59 a.m. > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - who breaks the laws? > > > This discussion of variation of tempo by third hand at trick one has > ignored tempo variation in play from dummy at trick one. Playing > dummy at other than the normal (3 seconds?) speed may mislead the > defenders. Declairer may have no more bridge reason for stopping > then to consider play of the whole hand than third hand may have at > his turn when his play is obvious. > > Stopping to think at any point seems likely to violate some > part of the law. > > Do we see declairers play quickly from dummy when the card is > a singleton? If I can see a singleton in the dummy then I am unlikely to be misled if it is played slowly. > > Yes, when they are bad players. > > As David Burn points out, one cannot play good bridge and > obey the laws. > > > The hesitations I'd like to see made violations of all the Laws > (#1-200 in the new book) are the endless and mindless postmortems > after every hand. 7NT bid and made, cold on any lead, played from > either side. Three minutes of defender's talk about the defense. > Only a trick one claim will slow it down to one minute which follows > the minutes devoted to disputing the claim. I agree. These players almost invariably think that they are not slow players. Last weekend I played a match against a pair and my partner and I declared almost every hand. At the end of the match we were a little behind time. They said "East-West have played most of the hands". They seemed to be oblivious to the fact that when my partner or I were dealer we had our cards sorted and had made our first call while they were still post-morteming the previous hand and their cards were still in the board. Wayne > > Maybe I need to get back to doing my tax returns. They seem to make > a little more sense than some of this thread. > > REH > -- > Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 > Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia > Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 > From adam@irvine.com Tue Apr 15 23:01:13 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:01:13 -0700 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:36:43 EDT." <200304152036.QAA09229@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200304152201.PAA04326@mailhub.irvine.com> > > From: Adam Beneschan > > Anyway, I concur with your real point that passing is not a logical > > alternative here. > > I think it's certainly a LA in the ACBL and probably elsewhere as > well. Unless there is something we weren't told, why shouldn't 1NT be > going down more than whatever we can make? It might, but it's going to be hard to defend against, especially when one partner will never be on lead and the other will have to keep leading away from his strength. (If your side plays 2S, OTOH, you'll usually be able to get to your hand at least a couple times with ruffs to lead through the 1NT opener toward partner's strength.) My own experience has convinced me that balancing here with a long suit (or with a 2-suiter) works. Side note: I really don't understand why it's so hard for opener's LHO to pass in tempo. If you're playing a system with no penalty double, and you don't have distribution, you pass--WTP? Of course, something else I've learned from my experience is that passing in tempo isn't enough to stop the opponents from calling the TD anyway . . . :( -- Adam From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Apr 15 23:06:04 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:06:04 -0700 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives References: <200304152000.NAA02966@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001e01c3039b$36dbe220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > To me, the only logical alternative is 2S. Alternative to what? Don't you mean "logical action"? L16A speaks of a logical alternative to something demonstrably suggested by UI. If no action has been so suggested, then "LA" is meaningless. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam@irvine.com Tue Apr 15 23:33:38 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:33:38 -0700 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:06:04 PDT." <001e01c3039b$36dbe220$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200304152233.PAA04640@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > > To me, the only logical alternative is 2S. > > Alternative to what? Don't you mean "logical action"? L16A speaks of a > logical alternative to something demonstrably suggested by UI. If no > action has been so suggested, then "LA" is meaningless. You're right, and I shall proceed to assess a Sloppy Language Usage Penalty (SLUP) of one-quarter of a board on myself. -- Adam From toddz@att.net Tue Apr 15 23:53:01 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:53:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives In-Reply-To: <200304152233.PAA04640@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Beneschan > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 6:34 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Antipodean alternatives > > Marv wrote: > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > To me, the only logical alternative is 2S. > > > > Alternative to what? Don't you mean "logical action"? > L16A speaks of a > > logical alternative to something demonstrably > suggested by UI. If no > > action has been so suggested, then "LA" is meaningless. > > You're right, and I shall proceed to assess a Sloppy > Language Usage > Penalty (SLUP) of one-quarter of a board on myself. I have been repeatedly confused by this. L16 speaks of logical altertatives and a selection of one demonstrably suggested, but don't the logical alternatives exist absent an infraction of L16? I thought the regulations (ACBL) spoke something like, "a logical alternative is an action some number of the player's peers would seriously consider." Justly and correctly to my mind, you can define the set of logical alternatives without knowing (or without even having) a demonstrably suggested action. Given that possibility, it could be a benefit to ACs to determine the set of LAs before knowing what the UI and action at the table are with no changing their mind about what actions are LAs after receiving the other data. Am I hopelessly far off course? -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 16 06:42:39 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 15:42:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Turtles all the way down Message-ID: Richard stated: >>(For example, the WBF LC was forced to withdraw an illegal >>interpretation of Law 25B.) Ed asked: >Hm. Forced by whom? Richard replied: Complaints from NCBOs about the original WBF LC interpretation being contrary to the actual words of Law 25B "forced" the WBF LC to withdraw, redraft and reissue its interpretation. In 1930s USA, there was a political aphorism that, "the Supreme Court follows the election returns" - after originally ruling some New Deal legislation unconstitutional on narrow technicalities, the Supreme Court was "forced" to take a more favourable interpretation of the New Deal laws later in the decade. Of course, since November 2000, the more appropriate political aphorism is "the Supreme Court *decides* the election returns". :-( Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 16 06:57:54 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 15:57:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives Message-ID: David Kent wrote: [snip] >The "only" thing that would cause me the slightest >worry is that East has a 1-4-4-4 hand with about 7 >HCP and we push them to a vulnerable, makeable 4H >game at IMPs. [snip] Indeed. The problem was concocted for a TD training course as a counterexample to the invalid "if it hesitates, shoot it" theory. Unfortunately, I believe the counterexample is flawed, for the reason stated by David Kent. Suppose the auction went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT Pass Pass(1) ? (1) Long think Then South would break a wrist hauling out the green Pass card, rather than give East a second chance to push to game. On the other hand, suppose the auction went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT Pass(1) Pass ? (1) Checks opponent's system card, finds they play a strong NT, reluctantly passes (NS play penalty doubles only over weak NT) Now the chance of balancing EW into a making game is zero, so South can "risk" bidding 2S on QJ9xxx and out with no fear of adverse consequences. Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Apr 16 07:06:47 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 23:06:47 -0700 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives References: Message-ID: <001601c303df$21e434a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > L16 speaks of logical altertatives and a selection of one > demonstrably suggested, Not demonstrably suggested, you mean. It speaks of a single logical alternative to an the action demonstrably suggested by UI. If there is one, it has to be taken. > but don't the logical alternatives exist > absent an infraction of L16? I thought the regulations (ACBL) > spoke something like, "a logical alternative is an action some > number of the player's peers would seriously consider." There may be more than one LA, alternative actions to one suggested by UI, but not (in the context of L16A) alternatives to each other. > Justly > and correctly to my mind, you can define the set of logical > alternatives without knowing (or without even having) a > demonstrably suggested action. The set of logical actions, I would say. By the way, an alternative is one of two choices. While loose users of English use it to for one of many choices, surely we on BLML don't want to do that. > > Given that possibility, it could be a benefit to ACs to determine > the set of LAs Yes, if "LAs" stands for "logical actions." > before knowing what the UI and action at the table > are with no changing their mind about what actions are LAs after > receiving the other data. > > Am I hopelessly far off course? > No, this has been a nitpick. :-)) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Apr 16 07:54:28 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 07:54:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Turtles all the way down References: Message-ID: <004601c303e5$31b1dd00$dc00e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 6:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Turtles all the way down > Complaints from NCBOs about the original WBF LC > interpretation being contrary to the actual words of Law > 25B "forced" the WBF LC to withdraw, redraft and reissue > its interpretation. > +=+ I have no record of formal "complaints", the review of the decision was apparently generated from within the committee - but perhaps there had been communications to individual members. Incidentally, in connection with turtles, I noticed the following comment: "The only body that has the authority to determine whether Supreme Court interpretations really are directly contrary to the constitution is ... the Supreme Court. A turtle that stands on its own back,perhaps???" In the case of the WBFLC its decisions must be ratified by the Executive Council of the WBF. ~ G ~ +=+ From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Apr 16 09:19:09 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:19:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: . One of these is (I quote the > jurisprudence) that if the answer to a question > "could not affect (the player's) action on the round > it would be desirable to defer the question, > probably until the auction is completed". This stops > a little short of the policies of the WBF and EBL > Appeals Committees, consistently in my experience > as member over more than sixteen years, that to > ask a question when the player has no immediate > interest in the answer is of itself an action for which > the player who asks has 'no demonstrable bridge > reason' within the meaning of 73F2. (I have seen it > said that such a bridge judgement is not compatible > with 73F2 - but this calls, I would say, for an eccentric > reading of the language of that law - and although > doubt has been cast on my grasp of the related > practice of these committees, I have yet to encounter > a challenge in the matter from anyone substantially > involved in them.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It is my strong belief that it is the job of the LC to interpret the meaning of the laws. And after having done so contradicting opinions might be called 'eccentric'. Up till then using the word 'eccentric' doesn't reflect more than a personal opinion about the desired interpretation. We know each others by now. And of course it might be a good idea to collect AC-members opinions for the discussion to be held. You and Jaap know how stubborn I can be. For the balance of the fight it might be a good idea to offer them the case with both sides describing the eccentricity of the other side's opinion. Doing so we should try to avoid using expressions as: 'no immediate interest' since those are multi-interpretable. The question I am interested in is whether it is an INFRACTION to ask a question about a call from opponents when the choice of the player doesn't depend on the answer. Which then could be true for either a pass or another (obvious) call to be made. As far as I have understood the discussion up till now your answer is 'yes' and mine is 'no'. And then you find support in WBF and EBL AC's decisions and I am all alone. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 16 09:53:14 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:53:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: Message-ID: <3E9D19FA.6080304@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > It is my strong belief that it is the job of the LC to interpret the meaning > of the laws. I agree with this statement entirely and to the fullest. If the LC has failed in its duty to bring accross its intentions by the text of the laws alone, it should communicate what its intentions are. > And after having done so contradicting opinions might be called > 'eccentric'. Indeed. > Up till then using the word 'eccentric' doesn't reflect more than a personal > opinion about the desired interpretation. We know each others by now. And a minority is not necessarily wrong. I have some opinions about the laws which might be termed "eccentric" in that I am in minorities. But until I hear voices that are authoritative and not merely majoritary, I see no reason to change my opinions. > And of course it might be a good idea to collect AC-members opinions for the > discussion to be held. You and Jaap know how stubborn I can be. For the > balance of the fight it might be a good idea to offer them the case with > both sides describing the eccentricity of the other side's opinion. indeed. > Doing so we should try to avoid using expressions as: 'no immediate > interest' since those are multi-interpretable. The question I am interested > in is whether it is an INFRACTION to ask a question about a call from > opponents when the choice of the player doesn't depend on the answer. Which > then could be true for either a pass or another (obvious) call to be made. > As far as I have understood the discussion up till now your answer is 'yes' > and mine is 'no'. And then you find support in WBF and EBL AC's decisions > and I am all alone. > My answer is "no" as well. If my opponents open 2Di, alerted, even when I know them, I have absolutely no clue (from previous experience, local custom, and such) what kind of meaning they attach to that today. It might be "always strong", "multi", "weak diamonds" or some other exotic combination. If I pass without asking, I tell my partner and my opponents that I cannot call over a weak opening. If the opening happens to be strong I have given my partner UI, and my opponents AI to which they are not entitled. For that reason I should be allowed to always ask this question. Of course, in order to protect my partner from UI, I should always ask the question. The problem with many posters here is that they view the question Ton asks as "is it allowed to ask this question some of the time". The answer to that one may well be no. But Ton asks "is it allowed to ask this question?" That should be a resounding YES. I even believe that it should be deemed an infraction to NOT ask a question that you know to be relevant, simply because you are not interested in the answer. Of course there is no need to ask questions of which you know that the three others know you know the answer to, such as the basic system which is on a CC in front of you. > ton > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Apr 16 10:00:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited In-Reply-To: <008401c302ad$1ef9f000$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Jaap wrote: > Tenerife 26 was the case where someone lead hearts from two small for > partners sevencard suit. > > 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 > > In the subsequent discussion quite a lot of blml members said heart was > the/a normal lead and clubs was not even an LA. Well I might overstate > it but I am too lazy to reread all that stuff. I gave the lead to my > bidding panel (70% Dutch top and 30% foreign top level players), > together with other problems and not even a hint at the context. More > than half my panel has experience playing EC class of events. Did you also poll the panel on what they would bid with the South hand? If they didn't double then they aren't playing the same system/style as the actual pair and any choices they make based on different agreements are irrelevant to the decision on LAs. This was not a "top-level" event, although a handful of top-level pairs were playing. The dangers of polling "too good" players are similar to the dangers of polling "not good enough" players. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 16 12:52:21 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:52:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Weapon of mass distraction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030416133658.00ac84c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:03 15/04/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Responding to illegality with illegality, even if >provoked by opponents' cheating, cannot be >justified. Nor do I think it necessary to modify >Law 73D2 in the 2005 Laws in order to legalise >Jaap's weapon of mass distraction. > >The current Laws provide an adequate remedy for >Jaap - > >Jaap: "Director!" >TD: "What seems to be the problem?" >Jaap: "In my opinion, opponent X has infracted > Law 74C5." AG : this is an ideal view, and totally unusable. Some days ago, in the thread 'illogical explanation' which I launched, some contrbutors, including Richard Hills, recalled us that complaining that the opponents cheated, without having extremely stong evidence of the fact, was a terrible offence, worthy of exclusion (NB : in the case I presented, the complainer was right, but it seemed irrelevant without an absolute proof). Complaining that the opponents peek means calling them cheats ; no other word ranscribes the act of peeking into the cards. Do you suggest that we should nevertheless do it ? What would you do if somebody called you at the table and told you "In my opinion, opponent X has infracted Law 74C5." ? I don't claim that the countermeasure of letting see one's cards *without* the important card (the classical case) is correct behavior. But I think that doing so, and thereafter telling the opponents why he went wrong (only if you are sure he peeked, of course), is more effective than to call the TD and be called a slanderer. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 16 12:56:31 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:56:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030416135316.00ac9b30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:49 15/04/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >You, South, hold: > >QJ9842 >832 >64 >32 > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1NT(1) Pass Pass ? > >(1) 15-17 > >What are your logical alternatives? AG : the easiest question I've read about LAs for a long time. My logical alternatives are pass and whatever my system dictates to show a spade one-suiter (natural = 2S, Capelletti/Pottage = 2C, Vroom = double etc.). If my system allows for two zones of spade one-suiters (eg playing DONT), only the 'light' version is a LA. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 16 13:06:12 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:06:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030416135805.00ac9770@pop.ulb.ac.be> > >QJ9842 >832 >64 >32 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1NT(1) Pass(2) Pass 2S > >(1) 1NT = 15-17 >(2) Agreed Hesitation > >West has a maximum of 17 HCP. >East presumably has a maximum of 8 HCP. >South has 3 HCP. > >Therefore partner has a _minimum_ of 12 HCP. >Subject to the fact that he did not double, partner has >a _maximum_ of 20 HCP. > >South is perfectly entitled to bid 2S with or without >the unauthorised information provided by the >hesitation based purely on the mathematics of the >situation. AG : I have to disagree very strongly. a) If partner has only 12-3 HCP, 2S won't fare well. It may even be that the opponents now play 3NT on 24 HCP and win it, because my spades are isolated. b) If partner had much more, he could have acted (I assume natural, optional doubles of 1NT). His pass suggests 12-15 rather than 12-20. c) To allow the 2S bid in such a case, it doesn't suffice that the bid be normal. It is necessary that (nearly) nobody would even think of passing as a good alternative. We all know that. And this isn't the case. Nathalie Vandenbroek, the Belgian TD authority, gave us an example where 4th hand had a balanced 11-count after 1D-p(slow)-p, and her resolute opinion was that a reopening 1NT shouldn't be allowed, even if the bid was 'automatic' in the system. This is self-deluding : the same player could very well decide to pass if partner passed in tempo, even if 1NT was the systemic bid. Don't we all, sometimes ? For this reason, the tempo helped 4th hand to convince onself of the need to reopen. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 16 12:56:30 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:56:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030416135316.00ac9b30@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E9D44EE.9070206@skynet.be> A me-too post. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 12:49 15/04/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> You, South, hold: >> >> QJ9842 >> 832 >> 64 >> 32 >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> 1NT(1) Pass Pass ? >> >> (1) 15-17 >> >> What are your logical alternatives? > > > AG : the easiest question I've read about LAs for a long time. My > logical alternatives are pass and whatever my system dictates to show a > spade one-suiter (natural = 2S, Capelletti/Pottage = 2C, Vroom = double > etc.). If my system allows for two zones of spade one-suiters (eg > playing DONT), only the 'light' version is a LA. > I also believe passing a three-pointer to be a logical alternative, whatever the situation, except clearly forcing ones. I agree that many players will act on this amount of rubbish, but I will not condone anyone bidding after a hesitation. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 16 13:16:15 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:16:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] I think this ruling is easy... In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20030415103526.00ac4710@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030416141210.00acaec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:02 15/04/2003 -0500, Grant Sterling wrote: > ...but I'd better check, just in case. > > [all hands except N approximate] > >Both vulnerable, E dealer > > S AKQJx > H JT9 > D AQxx > C x > >S xxx S xxx >H xxx H A >D Kxx D Jxxxx >C Kxxx C AJxx > > S xx > H KQxxxx > D x > C Qxxx > >N E S W >- 1D 1H 2C >3H* 4C P P >4H X all pass > >4Hx made 5 for a cold top. > > Suppose we had not known the pair in question, AG : in that case, the most plausible explanation is that North suspected that West had psyched (in my views he had), knew that East would strive to bid something, and hoped to exploit this to get doubled in 4H. It worked. The culprit is West, with his 2C bid, which trapped his partner. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 16 13:36:53 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:36:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030416143305.02325ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:57 16/04/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Unfortunately, I believe the counterexample is flawed, >for the reason stated by David Kent. AG : make the hand KQJ10xx, and I would rule 'no LA'. Note that the expectation for the minimum value of the N/S hands is the same, but here, IMHO, nobody would think of passing, which makes it pass the L16 test. Note that the fact that some of us thought the pass a LA means it is, even if some others think it isn't - see the definition of LA. >Suppose the auction went: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1NT Pass Pass(1) ? > >(1) Long think > >Then South would break a wrist hauling out the green >Pass card, rather than give East a second chance to >push to game. > >On the other hand, suppose the auction went: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1NT Pass(1) Pass ? > >(1) Checks opponent's system card, finds they play a > strong NT, reluctantly passes (NS play penalty > doubles only over weak NT) > >Now the chance of balancing EW into a making game is >zero, so South can "risk" bidding 2S on QJ9xxx and >out with no fear of adverse consequences. AG : unless you consider a TD call as an 'adverse consequence' :-) From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Wed Apr 16 14:35:37 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 15:35:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited References: Message-ID: <010c01c3041d$16acec60$c38c24d5@Default> Tim: > The dangers of > polling "too good" players are similar to the dangers of polling "not good > enough" players. Here you are completely right. My panel is (almost) at the level of an open EC and the woman's EC is way weaker than that. The Dutch ladies who have won EC's and WC's have a hard time maintaining a number 25 spot or so in the Dutch open competition. There are arguments to be made for a spade lead or even a heart lead and I would expect more votes for the majors it the panel were weaker. > Did you also poll the panel on what they would bid with the South hand? No I didn't. My panel would in majority bid 1H as would any panel. Double is just a weird bid by someone that convinced herself this was too much for 1H and 4H not realising that double tends to create far more problems than bidding some number of hearts. Double is ok if you extras are points (like 18 HCP in a 5332 or so) but is silly if your extras are shape. Nothing to do with system but with bridge logic and reality. > If they didn't double then they aren't playing the same system/style as > the actual pair and any choices they make based on different agreements > are irrelevant to the decision on LAs. In theory you have a point. In this case I don't buy it. If I were on a committee and they would tell me this was an automatic double I would like lots of serious proof like handrecords from previous matches. It is just too weird at this level. Anyway if they really would play such a strange system it would have been mentioned at the AC and there should have been something in the writeup. But even if all of the above were true it is still not normal to lead hearts because you need quite a good heart suit with partner. Even when doubling with this type of hands, with almost all hands with a good heart suit partner would have overcalled. So it is simply against the odds to try to find a heart suit. Partner is 10(00...) times more likely to have a normal takeout shape in which case clubs and sometimes spades is way more likely to set the contract than hearts. But yes even opposite a 'normal' double heart lead might be the only lead to defeat the contract. But then I can even construct you a hand consistent with the bidding where you have to lead a diamond (partner has AQ bare over dummy's king and you need that Q as the setting trick, declarer gets to 9 tricks in the other suits). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited > Jaap wrote: > > > Tenerife 26 was the case where someone lead hearts from two small for > > partners sevencard suit. > > > > 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 > > > > In the subsequent discussion quite a lot of blml members said heart was > > the/a normal lead and clubs was not even an LA. Well I might overstate > > it but I am too lazy to reread all that stuff. I gave the lead to my > > bidding panel (70% Dutch top and 30% foreign top level players), > > together with other problems and not even a hint at the context. More > > than half my panel has experience playing EC class of events. > > Did you also poll the panel on what they would bid with the South hand? > If they didn't double then they aren't playing the same system/style as > the actual pair and any choices they make based on different agreements > are irrelevant to the decision on LAs. This was not a "top-level" event, > although a handful of top-level pairs were playing. The dangers of > polling "too good" players are similar to the dangers of polling "not good > enough" players. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Wed Apr 16 14:35:59 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 15:35:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030312154156.00abf180@pop.ulb.ac.be> <008401c302ad$1ef9f000$25b54351@noos.fr> <001f01c302bf$3a9a36a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <011401c3041d$205c7a00$c38c24d5@Default> Kaima, As I said in another mail, my panel is probably too strong for the actual event. Ladies EC is nowhere near open EC. I don't know how you did your poll but my panel just got the problem together with some others in a regular setting (so they had no clue it was a case). They also 'have to' give some arguments and they get published (including my comment on their comments). So they tend to take it quite seriously. Anyway your poll was a more or less even split between the three leads. Which at least supports my main point that club lead is also a serious contender. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "kaima" To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited > Kaima wrote: > > > > Interesting that we should have such different results to this lead poll > > :)) > > Jaap wrote: > > Well for starters, what is the playing level of your poll. I would expect > > average and lesser players to lead spades or even hearts > SNIP > > FYI, the playing level of the my poll was from solid Flight A to World Class > players. I was not not asking average or lesser players (though I have > friends in that category as well). What would be the point in polling other > than the high level players? This was a high level event where the problem > occurred in the first place. > Best regards, > Kaima > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 16 15:20:09 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:20:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited In-Reply-To: <010c01c3041d$16acec60$c38c24d5@Default> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030416161216.00ac00c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:35 16/04/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >No I didn't. My panel would in majority bid 1H as would any panel. Double is >just a weird bid AG : I'd have said a double is not a bid. But then I can even >construct you a hand consistent with the bidding where you have to lead a >diamond (partner has AQ bare over dummy's king and you need that Q as the >setting trick, declarer gets to 9 tricks in the other suits). AG : and that's what several persons I've polled thought partner had, based on the principle that partner can't have a very long major (matter of style) nor solid clubs (seeing our holding there). Another, less plausible, possibility, is 4 top tricks with DK and a fear of being endplayed. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 16 17:06:18 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:06:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives Message-ID: <200304161606.MAA14880@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Beneschan > (If your side plays 2S, OTOH, you'll > usually be able to get to your hand at least a couple times with ruffs When I thought about this hand some more overnight, this was exactly the conclusion I came to. Starting today, I'll be balancing with such hands... _unless_ partner's mannerism has told me about his strength. I still think pass is a LA, at least in the ACBL and probably elsewhere as well. Perhaps not at top level, but I'm not qualified to say about that. > My own experience has convinced me that balancing here with a long > suit (or with a 2-suiter) works. With distribution, balancing is automatic. Strength is irrelevant. > Side note: I really don't understand why it's so hard for opener's LHO > to pass in tempo. Me either. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Nathalie Vandenbroek, the Belgian TD authority, gave us an example where > 4th hand had a balanced 11-count after 1D-p(slow)-p, and her resolute > opinion was that a reopening 1NT shouldn't be allowed, even if the bid was > 'automatic' in the system. With a _balanced_ hand, I don't see how balancing can ever be automatic. Perhaps it is if "balanced" includes a diamond doubleton. Anyway, each case has to be evaluated on its merits, and vulnerability, form of scoring, and competitive methods in direct seat must be taken into account. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : make the hand KQJ10xx, and I would rule 'no LA'. This seems backwards to me. With the stronger suit, there is a much better chance of running it against 1NT. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 16 17:23:53 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:23:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: On 4/15/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >The laws speak of unvarying tempo. Actually, the laws say "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." If we are going to speak of what the laws require, it behooves us to start with what they actually say. >If every trick was played in an unvarying tempo of 20sec then a bridge >hand would take over 17 minutes to play. So? No law prohibits that. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 16 17:22:05 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:22:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <000001c3031b$3b9a8ad0$22e436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On 4/15/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >Your wish is in the law in terms of a SO regulation. However >if your sponsoring organization has not so regulated then it >is not up to you to impose this condition of contest either as >a player or as the TD. In at least 3 of the clubs around here, the TD *is* the SO. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 16 17:24:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:24:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: On 4/15/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >And the only conclusion that I can draw from this is >that if there is no regulation then a player breaks >his 'unvarying tempo' at his own risk and any delay >may deceive declarer and there may be no bridge reason >for this. There is no law requiring "unvarying tempo". Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 16 18:20:36 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:20:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives In-Reply-To: <200304161606.MAA14880@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030416192007.00ac1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:06 16/04/2003 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > AG : make the hand KQJ10xx, and I would rule 'no LA'. > >This seems backwards to me. With the stronger suit, there is a much >better chance of running it against 1NT. AG : only if you are on lead. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 16 17:54:28 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:54:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT Message-ID: ACBL open club game (but few, if any, players are life masters; most are novices or were a short while ago). NS reach an unopposed 4S contract, North declarer. West lays down the Diamond Ace. South, East and North all point out the lead is with East. North calls the TD. East says "I can tell you what the ruling is". North ignores this. TD arrives, looks at the situation, gives North the correct, albeit from memory, list of options. North chooses to forbid the lead of a diamond. West picks up DA and puts it back in his hand. TD tells East "you cannot lead a diamond until you lose and regain the lead". North comments that, in his opinion, the law actually requires that East "is not allowed to know" that West has the DA. TD says "right". North wins the opening lead, TD leaves the table. North loses the next trick to East, who says "I can lead a diamond now, right?" North says "provided you have a reason other than the knowledge that your partner has the ace, yes." West and East both say, at this point, "TD said I could lead a diamond after I lose and regain the lead." East leads a diamond, West takes the ace. TD is not called. The contract makes. North is of the opinion that his side was not damaged by the diamond lead, but is not certain. Questions: 1. Did the TD properly explain the law? 2. Was EW correct that there was no restriction on East's lead at trick 3? 3. Should North have called the TD back at trick 3? After the play? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Apr 16 18:38:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 18:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited In-Reply-To: <010c01c3041d$16acec60$c38c24d5@Default> Message-ID: Jaap wrote: > > Did you also poll the panel on what they would bid with the South > > hand? > > No I didn't. My panel would in majority bid 1H as would any panel. > Double is just a weird bid by someone that convinced herself this was > too much for 1H and 4H not realising that double tends to create far > more problems than bidding some number of hearts. Double is ok if you > extras are points (like 18 HCP in a 5332 or so) but is silly if your > extras are shape. Nothing to do with system but with bridge logic and > reality. I agree with all you say about the double - but the player at the table obviously didn't! Now I make no pretence at being an EC open level player but I quite happily play for money against EC ladies. I may be wrong but I think the logic goes like this. 1. Partner will routinely double on hands with a 5/6 major and semi-suitable shape 2. The 3N bid basically denies a 4 card major (except maybe 4 small) 3. Opener has at most 4 cards in either major 4. Partner is more likely to hold 5 hearts than five spades/clubs 5. I don't expect to beat this *unless* pard has a 5-timer Now after all that perhaps spades/clubs remain logical alternatives but, to me at least, the hesitation by partner doesn't suggest anything about her hand that I haven't already concluded. Now were I playing in the Open event (ha-ha) I'd be thinking. 1. Pard is unlikely to have a 5+ card major when he doubles and then passes 3N. 2. The 3N bid may well conceal a 4 card major since my RHO is unlikely to want to play in 4M with trumps 4441 anyway. 3. I want to lead one of our fits, not theirs. 4. Mind you that hesitation suggests that pard does have a decent 5+ card suit after all - what should I lead in that case, aha a Heart. It's not easy getting into the minds of other players! Tim From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Apr 16 19:07:37 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:07:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: <"r01050300-0910-E20B5C00700D11D7B90CD737D1249FAB(a)(091)192.168.1*"@MHS> Message-ID: Ed writes: ACBL open club game (but few, if any, players are life masters; most are novices or were a short while ago). NS reach an unopposed 4S contract, North declarer. West lays down the Diamond Ace. South, East and North all point out the lead is with East. North calls the TD. East says "I can tell you what the ruling is". North ignores this. TD arrives, looks at the situation, gives North the correct, albeit from memory, list of options. North chooses to forbid the lead of a diamond. West picks up DA and puts it back in his hand. TD tells East "you cannot lead a diamond until you lose and regain the lead". North comments that, in his opinion, the law actually requires that East "is not allowed to know" that West has the DA. TD says "right". North wins the opening lead, TD leaves the table. North loses the next trick to East, who says "I can lead a diamond now, right?" North says "provided you have a reason other than the knowledge that your partner has the ace, yes." West and East both say, at this point, "TD said I could lead a diamond after I lose and regain the lead." East leads a diamond, West takes the ace. TD is not called. The contract makes. North is of the opinion that his side was not damaged by the diamond lead, but is not certain. Questions: 1. Did the TD properly explain the law? 2. Was EW correct that there was no restriction on East's lead at trick 3? 3. Should North have called the TD back at trick 3? After the play? _______________________________________________________________________ Strictu sensus, when called after an OLOOT, the TD should: 1) make sure offender was not mistakenly informed or dummy or declarer did not expose cards; 2) present the 5 classic options to declarer (and most often more than one time...); 3) when declarer chooses to require or forbid the lead of the penalty card by the wright defender, ask the offender to put back his card in hand and inform his partner that information arising from the exposed card is UI (Law 50D1); 4) tell non offenders to call him back if there is any problem arising from this exposed card. Then, the TD can leave the table being sure the job is made..... In practice, and more at the club level, the TD is called many times during a game for faced OLOOT. Most of them, speedily present the 5 options, without any other comments, and leave the table as soon as the declarer retains one (and sometimes before...). I have not yet seen a TD, at club and other levels, dealing with 3). I think a lot of TDs (like me) hate this part of 50D1 and try to "forget" it. If most players in this club are "novices", some of them seems to know more than the average about Laws. Though, they should be told that nobody but the TD can make rulings (Law 9). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Apr 16 19:51:13 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:51:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Weapon of mass distraction In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030416133658.00ac84c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030416133658.00ac84c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: (bigish snip) > >I don't claim that the countermeasure of letting see one's cards >*without* the important card (the classical case) is correct >behavior. But I think that doing so, and thereafter telling the >opponents why he went wrong (only if you are sure he peeked, of >course), is more effective than to call the TD and be called a >slanderer. This reminds me of a trigonometry I took in high school. (Good grief! 52 years ago!) The fellow who sat behind me routinely peeked at my answers on exams, so I started working problems wrong for him to see, just enough so he got only the low passing grade he would have got anyway. Of course, I changed the solutions just before I turned the paper in. I don't think he ever caught on. -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Wed Apr 16 19:57:33 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:57:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Asking questions. References: Message-ID: <014901c3044a$137dac00$3b0f24d5@Default> This is from the thread first trick breaking the law. But this has nothing to do with the first trick anymore. Ton wrote: > The question I am interested > in is whether it is an INFRACTION to ask a question about a call from > opponents when the choice of the player doesn't depend on the answer. Which > then could be true for either a pass or another (obvious) call to be made. > As far as I have understood the discussion up till now your answer is 'yes' > and mine is 'no'. And then you find support in WBF and EBL AC's decisions > and I am all alone. I guess I have missed some of the previous discussion. As Ton formulates it here I am 100% on his side. Even if your call doesn't depend on the answer there might be a very good reason to ask a question. The standard example (standard in the sense that it happens 'often') is the opponents embarking on some kind of long complicated sequence including a couple of alerts. Now I normally want/need to know what the hell are they doing (main issue what is their trump suit but there are others) in order to judge whether or not to double a cuebid later on. Doubling cuebids (or not) is typical something you cannot think about, you need to be prepared. But even if I am sure I will never bid (doesn't happen very often) I can easily imagine that I want to know roughly what they are doing so I can already start to think about the lead and or the defence. It saves a lot of time if I try to decipher their bidding during the sequence rather than afterwards. But now the other side of the medal. It is easy to imagine that asking specific questions at certain moments creates problems. I normally refrain from asking questions unless I have some reason to know. Not because I want to convey the info that I (don't) have some reason to ask but in real life I feel that I am not (enough) protected against opponents hearing the answers as well. Of course some people have the reversed attitude. They ask lots of questions to provoke a UI penalty that way (if the rules make this lucrative you should change the rules and not blame the players). This puzzle has no answer. Asking questions during the bidding tends to create (lots of) UI. Both the answers and the questions themselves and their timing. You can attack the question-UI by saying that asking is obligatory at an alert and forbidden if not. But then you dramatically increase the answer-UI. And the concept that Ton mentioned creates even more UI. Under those rules the fact that I ask a question carries the UI that my bid is depending on the answer. Or that I have at least a 'bridge reason' whatever that might be. Good grief. The only simple answer is to play all serious bridge with screens. Jaap From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Wed Apr 16 20:01:17 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 21:01:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives References: Message-ID: <018501c3044a$a7d43860$3b0f24d5@Default> Kaima (echoed by others): > To me, the only logical alternative is 2S. Playing Cappelletti/Hamilton over > strong 1NT, direct seat will never act on borderline hands, and never with > good (up to 18HCP) balanced hands. Therefore in passout seat, action is > mandatory if hand has some distribution. You (plural) have still a lot to learn about reality. Your basic argument is ok but to a certain limit only. And this hand is beyond that limit. Now I might well bid 2S with this hand at pairs nonvul. Probably succeeds more often than it fails (but not by that much to my judgement). But bidding on a three count at imps can lead to all kind of trouble and can win very little. This has nothing to do with partners hesitation by the way. Anyway if you like 2S please go ahead. But some said (and you suggest strongly) that pas was not even een LA. I would love to play for money against lunatics like you. Brief, to me this is the wrong example for a good lesson. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "kaima" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 6:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Antipodean alternatives > To me, the only logical alternative is 2S. Playing Cappelletti/Hamilton over > strong 1NT, direct seat will never act on borderline hands, and never with > good (up to 18HCP) balanced hands. Therefore in passout seat, action is > mandatory if hand has some distribution. > Best regards, > Kaima > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 7:49 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Antipodean alternatives > > > > > > You, South, hold: > > > > QJ9842 > > 832 > > 64 > > 32 > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 1NT(1) Pass Pass ? > > > > (1) 15-17 > > > > What are your logical alternatives? > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Wed Apr 16 20:01:09 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 21:01:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Weapon of mass distraction References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030416133658.00ac84c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <018201c3044a$a6d0d220$3b0f24d5@Default> Thanks Alain for this defense. Actually it is at least 10 years ago I last pulled such a stunt, probably longer. It is not the kind of problem you encounter regularly. And I am not eager to do this kind of things. I don't need it. But if sufficiently provoked by a bad enough crook I might be tempted. I am only human. Whatever the law says you have no defence other than defending yourself because calling a TD gets you nowhere other than fights. The moral border for me is between showing (highly illegal) and not preventing the peeker from seeing certain cards (kind of automatic in a way, when defending a guessing a suit slam any sensible player makes sure the critical card is well hidden). But I agree it is a murky terrain. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Weapon of mass distraction > At 10:03 15/04/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >Responding to illegality with illegality, even if > >provoked by opponents' cheating, cannot be > >justified. Nor do I think it necessary to modify > >Law 73D2 in the 2005 Laws in order to legalise > >Jaap's weapon of mass distraction. > > > >The current Laws provide an adequate remedy for > >Jaap - > > > >Jaap: "Director!" > >TD: "What seems to be the problem?" > >Jaap: "In my opinion, opponent X has infracted > > Law 74C5." > > AG : this is an ideal view, and totally unusable. > > Some days ago, in the thread 'illogical explanation' which I launched, some > contrbutors, including Richard Hills, recalled us that complaining that the > opponents cheated, without having extremely stong evidence of the fact, was > a terrible offence, worthy of exclusion (NB : in the case I presented, the > complainer was right, but it seemed irrelevant without an absolute proof). > Complaining that the opponents peek means calling them cheats ; no other > word ranscribes the act of peeking into the cards. Do you suggest that we > should nevertheless do it ? What would you do if somebody called you at the > table and told you "In my opinion, opponent X has infracted Law 74C5." ? > > I don't claim that the countermeasure of letting see one's cards *without* > the important card (the classical case) is correct behavior. But I think > that doing so, and thereafter telling the opponents why he went wrong (only > if you are sure he peeked, of course), is more effective than to call the > TD and be called a slanderer. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 16 20:15:07 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 07:15:07 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001901c3044c$81b03420$3de536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Thursday, 17 April 2003 4:22 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > On 4/15/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >Your wish is in the law in terms of a SO regulation. However > >if your sponsoring organization has not so regulated then it > >is not up to you to impose this condition of contest either as > >a player or as the TD. > > In at least 3 of the clubs around here, the TD *is* the SO. It still needs a regulation not a pronouncement at the table or in the committee room after the fact. Wayne > > Regards, > > Ed > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From kaima13@hotmail.com Wed Apr 16 21:19:50 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:19:50 -0700 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives References: <018501c3044a$a7d43860$3b0f24d5@Default> Message-ID: Jaap wrote: > Kaima (echoed by others): > > To me, the only logical alternative is 2S. Playing Cappelletti/Hamilton > over > > strong 1NT, direct seat will never act on borderline hands, and never with > > good (up to 18HCP) balanced hands. Therefore in passout seat, action is > > mandatory if hand has some distribution. > > You (plural) have still a lot to learn about reality. Your basic argument is > ok but to a certain limit only. And this hand is beyond that limit. Now I > might well bid 2S with this hand at pairs nonvul. Probably succeeds more > often than it fails (but not by that much to my judgement). But bidding on a > three count at imps can lead to all kind of trouble and can win very little. > This has nothing to do with partners hesitation by the way. Anyway if you > like 2S please go ahead. But some said (and you suggest strongly) that pas > was not even een LA. I would love to play for money against lunatics like > you. K: Never did like name calling.... From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 16 22:19:58 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:19:58 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001a01c3045d$f6899ff0$3de536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Thursday, 17 April 2003 4:24 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > On 4/15/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >And the only conclusion that I can draw from this is > >that if there is no regulation then a player breaks > >his 'unvarying tempo' at his own risk and any delay > >may deceive declarer and there may be no bridge reason > >for this. > > There is no law requiring "unvarying tempo". I never said there was. Merely that there are risks involved in varying one's tempo. Wayne > > Regards, > > Ed > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 16 22:24:33 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:24:33 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001b01c3045e$96687190$3de536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Thursday, 17 April 2003 4:24 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > On 4/15/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >The laws speak of unvarying tempo. > > Actually, the laws say "It is desirable, though not always > required, for > players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. > However, players > should be particularly careful in positions in which > variations may work > to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to > vary the tempo > or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself > constitute > a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may > appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." > > If we are going to speak of what the laws require, it behooves us to > start with what they actually say. Perhaps you should read 73E and note that I merely said that the laws 'speak of unvarying tempo' Wayne From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Apr 17 02:25:44 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 21:25:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: <200304170125.VAA15918@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > I even believe that it should be deemed an infraction to NOT ask a > question that you know to be relevant, simply because you are not > interested in the answer. Bo-Yin Yang offered a good example. I may not have the details right, but it goes something like this: 1C!-P-1H!-? 1C is artificial, strong, and 1H shows spades. Now a good defense is this one: ask about the auction, then bid 1S = artificial (say hearts and a minor) do not ask, and bid 1S = natural, spades There is some similarity to "weasel" over 1 NT. Like weasel, no partnership discussion is needed. In theory we have the tools to cope with this villainy, but I am not so sure the tools we have are effective in practice. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 17 04:07:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:07:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Weapon of mass distraction Message-ID: Jaap wrote: >Thanks Alain for this defense. > >Actually it is at least 10 years ago I last pulled >such a stunt, probably longer. It is not the kind of >problem you encounter regularly. And I am not eager >to do this kind of things. I don't need it. But if >sufficiently provoked by a bad enough crook I might >be tempted. I am only human. > >Whatever the law says you have no defence other than >defending yourself because calling a TD gets you >nowhere other than fights. [snip] Richard replies: The campaign for Active Ethics seems to have had some effect - I, too, cannot recall encountering a peeker in the past decade, but I remember that peekers were frequently encountered in the 1980s. However, last year this incident occurred. A husband and wife partnership were my opponents. The wife mangled the defence on one board. So the husband gave the wife a lengthy free lesson on proper defence (with footnotes). Richard: "Director!" TD: "What seems to be the problem?" Richard: "Mr X is interfering with my enjoyment of the game." Mr X: "Sorry about that." And Mr X conducted himself with perfect deportment for the remainder of the round. Not only that, but over the past year I have noticed that Mr X has been making a determined effort to reduce the number of footnotes in his post-mortems. Now if I had failed to mildly call the TD over this incident, but instead been provoked into defending myself against Mr X's rudeness personally, I do not believe that the incident would have had such a happy outcome. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 17 05:03:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:03:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: >>If every trick was played in an unvarying tempo of 20sec >>then a bridge hand would take over 17 minutes to play. > >So? No law prohibits that. > >Regards, > >Ed Disagree. Law 90B2 requires that the ideal unvarying tempo is a tempo of deliberate speed, *not* a tempo of deliberate slowness. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 17 05:19:47 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:19:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Weapon of mass distraction Message-ID: Alain wrote: [snip] >some contributors, including Richard Hills, recalled us >that complaining that the opponents cheated, without >having extremely strong evidence of the fact, was >a terrible offence, worthy of exclusion [snip] Correct. On the other hand, reporting to the TD that you saw an opponent leaning over to have a look at your or your partner's cards *is* "extremely strong evidence". If the peeker denies their tilt from the vertical, the TD can apply Law 85, for a ruling on disputed facts. As most peekers gain notoriety through their recidivism, it is likely that the TD should decide the balance of probabilities assessment in your favour. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Apr 17 07:44:52 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:44:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited References: Message-ID: <3E9E4D64.60206@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Jaap wrote: > > >>>Did you also poll the panel on what they would bid with the South >>>hand? >>> >>No I didn't. My panel would in majority bid 1H as would any panel. >>Double is just a weird bid by someone that convinced herself this was >>too much for 1H and 4H not realising that double tends to create far >>more problems than bidding some number of hearts. Double is ok if you >>extras are points (like 18 HCP in a 5332 or so) but is silly if your >>extras are shape. Nothing to do with system but with bridge logic and >>reality. >> > > I agree with all you say about the double - but the player at the table > obviously didn't! Now I make no pretence at being an EC open level player > but I quite happily play for money against EC ladies. I may be wrong but > I think the logic goes like this. > 1. Partner will routinely double on hands with a 5/6 major and > semi-suitable shape > 2. The 3N bid basically denies a 4 card major (except maybe 4 small) > 3. Opener has at most 4 cards in either major > 4. Partner is more likely to hold 5 hearts than five spades/clubs > 5. I don't expect to beat this *unless* pard has a 5-timer > > Now after all that perhaps spades/clubs remain logical alternatives but, > to me at least, the hesitation by partner doesn't suggest anything about > her hand that I haven't already concluded. > > Now were I playing in the Open event (ha-ha) I'd be thinking. > 1. Pard is unlikely to have a 5+ card major when he doubles and then > passes 3N. > 2. The 3N bid may well conceal a 4 card major since my RHO is unlikely to > want to play in 4M with trumps 4441 anyway. > 3. I want to lead one of our fits, not theirs. > 4. Mind you that hesitation suggests that pard does have a decent 5+ card > suit after all - what should I lead in that case, aha a Heart. > > It's not easy getting into the minds of other players! > What you are saying, Tim, is that the AC was guilty of overestimating these Lady players? > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Apr 17 07:54:27 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:54:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT References: Message-ID: <3E9E4FA3.9030903@skynet.be> This is an interesting problem, and it has not been fully explored yet (although the law change is already 6 years ago) Ed Reppert wrote: > ACBL open club game (but few, if any, players are life masters; most are > novices or were a short while ago). NS reach an unopposed 4S contract, > North declarer. West lays down the Diamond Ace. South, East and North > all point out the lead is with East. North calls the TD. East says "I > can tell you what the ruling is". North ignores this. TD arrives, looks > at the situation, gives North the correct, albeit from memory, list of > options. North chooses to forbid the lead of a diamond. West picks up DA > and puts it back in his hand. TD tells East "you cannot lead a diamond > until you lose and regain the lead". North comments that, in his > opinion, the law actually requires that East "is not allowed to know" > that West has the DA. TD says "right". North wins the opening lead, TD > leaves the table. North loses the next trick to East, who says "I can > lead a diamond now, right?" North says "provided you have a reason other > than the knowledge that your partner has the ace, yes." West and East > both say, at this point, "TD said I could lead a diamond after I lose > and regain the lead." East leads a diamond, West takes the ace. TD is > not called. The contract makes. North is of the opinion that his side > was not damaged by the diamond lead, but is not certain. > > Questions: > > 1. Did the TD properly explain the law? > 2. Was EW correct that there was no restriction on East's lead at trick > 3? Yes and no. Of course there is a restiction. Both the knowledge that partner has the DA, and that he wanted to lead it, remain UI. However the knowledge that declarer forbad a diamond lead seems AI to me. (And consequently that partner must have had a diamond which has been a penalty card once) Is this enough to return a diamond? maybe. > 3. Should North have called the TD back at trick 3? After the play? > > Regards, > > Ed > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 17 09:45:31 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:45:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: <3E9E4FA3.9030903@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030417104007.00ac62d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:54 17/04/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Yes and no. >Of course there is a restiction. Both the knowledge that partner has the >DA, and that he wanted to lead it, remain UI. >However the knowledge that declarer forbad a diamond lead seems AI to me. AG : I think it isn't. This knowledge is a consequence of the infraction, and as such should be UI. Use L72B1 if needed. The problem is compounded by the possibility that West somehow encuoraged in diamonds during the early play. It is even possible that he hurried to do so (eg playing some lavinthal-type card although this pair use them scarcely), to make UI AI. It is also possible that East delude oneself into thinking that some card calls for a diamond, while in this specific case the priority goes to some other information. Nah, perhaps we'd better consider it AI, if only to make things easier. Best regards, Alain. >(And consequently that partner must have had a diamond which has been a >penalty card once) > >Is this enough to return a diamond? maybe. > > >>3. Should North have called the TD back at trick 3? After the play? >>Regards, >>Ed >>mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com >>pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or >>http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site >>pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE >>Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage >>What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." >>Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 >>_______________________________________________ >>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 agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 17 09:56:31 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:56:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Weapon of mass distraction In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030416133658.00ac84c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030416133658.00ac84c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030417104939.00ac5440@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:51 16/04/2003 -0500, Robert E. Harris wrote: >Alain wrote: >(bigish snip) > >> >>I don't claim that the countermeasure of letting see one's cards >>*without* the important card (the classical case) is correct behavior. >>But I think that doing so, and thereafter telling the opponents why he >>went wrong (only if you are sure he peeked, of course), is more effective >>than to call the TD and be called a slanderer. > >This reminds me of a trigonometry I took in high school. (Good grief! 52 >years ago!) > >The fellow who sat behind me routinely peeked at my answers on exams, so I >started working problems wrong for him to see, just enough so he got only >the low passing grade he would have got anyway. Of course, I changed the >solutions just before I turned the paper in. I don't think he ever caught on. AG: I do it regularly at duplicate Scrabble. Like many players, I use adhesive labels to remember which letter can fit into some specific part of the grid. When I notice some peeking, I 'invent' the possibility of adding some letter and mention it on a label (in a way that remembers me -and only me- that it is only a lure). More than once, the peeker has jumped on the occasion and got a nought score for 'inventing' a word. Nyargh nyargh. From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Thu Apr 17 14:57:55 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:57:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives References: <018501c3044a$a7d43860$3b0f24d5@Default> Message-ID: <009401c304ea$2bda6fe0$992b24d5@Default> > K: Never did like name calling.... Name calling ? I was using you in the plural sense. Sorry if I sometimes get it wrong. In all other languages I use, you (singular) and you (plural) and you (generalised third person like 'one') are different words. So some nuance easily gets lost in English. And you (singular) were not among those who explicitly said pas was not an LA (not very nice to people that think pas is a reasonable action) although your (singular) wording was close to it. What is wrong with me using the word lunatic in this context. It is quite a common word in bridge english to describe overly agressive bidding (which might well be winning bridge from time to time). Just pick up any magazine. Now you (plural or rather third person) might not agree on me thinking 2S (other than pairs n.v.) is a tad extreme and me thinking that saying 'pas is not an LA' (or '2S is automatic') is ridiculous. Read carefully, I am not saying that 2S is ridiculous, it is not, I am saying that calling pas (or 2S for that matter) not a possible/normal bid, is ridiculous. Anyway, I tend to allow 2S whatever the tempo (I am not a cop that shoots what hesistates). Although AG has an interesting argument. There is no way to verify whether you would also bid 2S if it is RHO who thinks rather than partner. That decreases the upside and increases the downside of 2S a lot. But that is maybe too harsh. I tend to compare with normal tempo by everybody. And then 2S seems ok to me. Because it is sure partner has a good hand and it is often difficult to get real info out of partner's pause although that depends on the system (and weak players easily think with a penalty double when their system excludes it, good players won't, when they think they have something close to one of the bids they can actually make). This hand is not that easy. The guy who used this hand for his 'lesson' should have added a K or so (or at least the S10) to get a better example. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "kaima" To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Antipodean alternatives > Jaap wrote: > > > Kaima (echoed by others): > > > To me, the only logical alternative is 2S. Playing Cappelletti/Hamilton > > over > > > strong 1NT, direct seat will never act on borderline hands, and never > with > > > good (up to 18HCP) balanced hands. Therefore in passout seat, action is > > > mandatory if hand has some distribution. > > > > You (plural) have still a lot to learn about reality. Your basic argument > is > > ok but to a certain limit only. And this hand is beyond that limit. Now I > > might well bid 2S with this hand at pairs nonvul. Probably succeeds more > > often than it fails (but not by that much to my judgement). But bidding on > a > > three count at imps can lead to all kind of trouble and can win very > little. > > This has nothing to do with partners hesitation by the way. Anyway if you > > like 2S please go ahead. But some said (and you suggest strongly) that pas > > was not even een LA. I would love to play for money against lunatics like > > you. > > K: Never did like name calling.... > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Thu Apr 17 15:04:00 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:04:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bidding 1S two ways. References: <200304170125.VAA15918@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00a401c304ea$363afe00$992b24d5@Default> Steve, > Bo-Yin Yang offered a good example. I may not have the details right, > but it goes something like this: 1C!-P-1H!-? 1C is artificial, strong, > and 1H shows spades. Now a good defense is this one: Here you have a hot problem. It is actually 'common' practice that everything without asking is natural including the double. When you do ask the meaning of your bids of course reflects the answers you get. This way you get to play two systems. Not exactly legal. > In theory we have the tools to cope with this villainy, but I am not so > sure the tools we have are effective in practice. First of all there might not be a villian at all. As long as we have no super-alert (= this is something really weird) normal alerts are so frequent and often so meaningless that they are often ignorded. Suppose you have an obvious 1S overcall and the opps bid 1C-pas-1H (alert). You probably will think it is a Walsh alert or whatever and you will bid 1S. Are you a villian for not verifying if 1H might mean spades. Of course not. This problem is only solved by super-alerts or by automatic explanations after alerts, the former being a good idea, the later creates probably more problems than it solves. The second problem. Suppose you are a good guy and ask a question. Now you get an answer that the alerted call shows a suit you wanted to bid. Now you cannot bid that suit anymore. It turns out that the guy made a mistake and you get a terrible result. We all know that if they manage to sell it as a misbid you have no redress. If this has happened to you or your friends before it is hard to fault people for protecting themselves. The only solution here is to curb the freedom to misbid this type of early/competitive conventions. You will need some sort of rule like that at a certain level of competition conventional misbids in lets say the first two rounds of bidding count as misinformation so opponents can be protected. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 3:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > From: Herman De Wael > > I even believe that it should be deemed an infraction to NOT ask a > > question that you know to be relevant, simply because you are not > > interested in the answer. > > Bo-Yin Yang offered a good example. I may not have the details right, > but it goes something like this: 1C!-P-1H!-? 1C is artificial, strong, > and 1H shows spades. Now a good defense is this one: > ask about the auction, then bid 1S = artificial (say hearts and a minor) > do not ask, and bid 1S = natural, spades > > There is some similarity to "weasel" over 1 NT. Like weasel, no > partnership discussion is needed. > > In theory we have the tools to cope with this villainy, but I am not so > sure the tools we have are effective in practice. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Apr 17 15:41:24 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT Message-ID: <200304171441.KAA19767@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > This knowledge is a consequence of the infraction, > and as such should be UI. L16C2 says "arising from," which is very broad wording. Thus I think Alain is probably right. I also think this rule is a bad one. > Use L72B1 if needed. Yes, certainly, but only if the person who led D-A out of turn "could have known" _at that instant_ that revealing the ace would be a good idea, even given the penalty. I doubt that will be the case very often, but if it is, we have 72B1 to take care of it. > The problem is compounded by the possibility that West somehow encuoraged > in diamonds during the early play. ... > It is also possible that East delude oneself into thinking that some card > calls for a diamond, while in this specific case the priority goes to some > other information. > Nah, perhaps we'd better consider it AI, if only to make things easier. These complications are what we get when mixing mechanical and information penalties. Perhaps someone has mentioned this before? :-) I wonder what the David B. rule would be here. Maybe after an OLOOT, declarer wins all 13 tricks? I bet even your average club director could apply that rule, but somehow I doubt even the lucky declarers would be entirely happy with it. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Apr 17 15:55:38 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Re: Bidding 1S two ways. Message-ID: <200304171455.KAA19784@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > Suppose you have an > obvious 1S overcall and the opps bid 1C-pas-1H (alert). You probably will > think it is a Walsh alert or whatever and you will bid 1S. Are you a villian > for not verifying if 1H might mean spades. Well, maybe. In Bo-Yin's case, the opponents are known to be playing a highly artificial strong club system. Herman's original notion was that maybe questions should be mandatory in some situations. (The ACBL's "announcements" are a step in that direction. They work pretty well, whereas our former "special alerts" worked very badly. I think the difference is that announcements are given in only a few, well- defined situations.) I don't see a simple answer -- at least not one that is practical to apply. Perhaps this is a failure of imagination on my part. > The second problem. Suppose you are a good guy and ask a question. Now you > get an answer that the alerted call shows a suit you wanted to bid. Now you > cannot bid that suit anymore. It turns out that the guy made a mistake and > you get a terrible result. We all know that if they manage to sell it as a > misbid you have no redress. They also have to avoid UI pitfalls, but sometimes they can succeed. > If this has happened to you or your friends > before it is hard to fault people for protecting themselves. The only > solution here is to curb the freedom to misbid this type of > early/competitive conventions. You will need some sort of rule like that at > a certain level of competition conventional misbids in lets say the first > two rounds of > bidding count as misinformation so opponents can be protected. This may be part of the answer, but of course it makes misbids illegal and removes the ability to psych. Maybe that's an acceptable tradeoff. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 17 16:36:11 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:36:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bidding 1S two ways. In-Reply-To: <00a401c304ea$363afe00$992b24d5@Default> References: <200304170125.VAA15918@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030417171950.026844c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:04 17/04/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Steve, > > > Bo-Yin Yang offered a good example. I may not have the details right, > > but it goes something like this: 1C!-P-1H!-? 1C is artificial, strong, > > and 1H shows spades. Now a good defense is this one: > >Here you have a hot problem. It is actually 'common' practice that >everything without asking is natural including the double. When you do ask >the meaning of your bids of course reflects the answers you get. This way >you get to play two systems. Not exactly legal. > > > In theory we have the tools to cope with this villainy, but I am not so > > sure the tools we have are effective in practice. > >First of all there might not be a villian at all. As long as we have no >super-alert (=3D this is something really weird) normal alerts are so= frequent >and often so meaningless that they are often ignorded. Suppose you have an >obvious 1S overcall and the opps bid 1C-pas-1H (alert). You probably will >think it is a Walsh alert or whatever and you will bid 1S. Are you a= villian >for not verifying if 1H might mean spades. Of course not. This problem is >only solved by super-alerts or by automatic explanations after alerts, the >former being a good idea, the later creates probably more problems than it >solves. AG : allow me to offer a solution that we tested some years ago, when we=20 were playing fert-like systems. Every pair is allowed to ask either : a) to be alerted of any call that has some interesting inference, eg Walsh= 1H. In that case, they are (of course) allowed to ask about an alerted call.=20 Doing so will occasionally pass UI. b) to be alerted only of "very special calls", eg T-Walsh 1H. In that case, they are expected to ask every time such a call is produced.= =20 *Not* doing so could pass UI. When the opponents' system is strange enough, most pairs prefer b). >The second problem. Suppose you are a good guy and ask a question. Now you >get an answer that the alerted call shows a suit you wanted to bid. Now you >cannot bid that suit anymore. It turns out that the guy made a mistake and >you get a terrible result. We all know that if they manage to sell it as a >misbid you have no redress. If this has happened to you or your friends >before it is hard to fault people for protecting themselves. The only >solution here is to curb the freedom to misbid this type of >early/competitive conventions. You will need some sort of rule like that at >a certain level of competition conventional misbids in lets say the first >two rounds of >bidding count as misinformation so opponents can be protected. AG : I'd say at least opening bids, responses, overcalls over common=20 opening bids, and actions by n=B03 over a natural overcall. Reently, such a misbid has created havoc in a playdown from Zweiffel Cup=20 (open Brussels area T4 championship) 1st division. 1C 2H* 2H alerted, then explained as 5H/4S at least. Next hand bid 4S, but this was taken as splinter by opener. The hand of overcaller didn't contain 4S - not even 2. Of course, the pair should have (at that above-average level) known how to= =20 defend vs defined two-suiters, but would you call it irrational ? The=20 matter is still to be settled. Ah yes, why didn't one rule "misbid, non adjustment" ? Well, the pair had=20 no CC - a typical Belgian behavior . Anyway, I would appreciate a SO's decision that early bids should be deemed= =20 MI even when proved conform to the system. That would cost me a bad score=20 in rare occurrences (twice this year), avoid me one from times to times,=20 but above all there would be no more need to take into account the=20 possibility that the opponent misbid when planning my next calls. The job=20 is already hard enough with psyches. ... well, that's the problem. How do you differentiate misbids from psyches= =20 ? If misbids were disallowed, some psyches would probably get penalized as= =20 misbids. Best regards, Alain. From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Apr 17 17:13:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited In-Reply-To: <3E9E4D64.60206@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > What you are saying, Tim, is that the AC was guilty of overestimating > these Lady players? IMO quite possibly. What I would have liked to see was some statement that said the pair was deemed not to be playing (by agreement) off-shape doubles before the AC applied their logic. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 17 18:09:47 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 19:09:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited In-Reply-To: References: <3E9E4D64.60206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030417190610.00ac7880@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:13 17/04/2003 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Herman wrote: > > > > What you are saying, Tim, is that the AC was guilty of overestimating > > these Lady players? > >IMO quite possibly. What I would have liked to see was some statement >that said the pair was deemed not to be playing (by agreement) off-shape >doubles before the AC applied their logic. AG : I once played an Italian system in which a double of a 1C, 1D or 1H opening bid showed 4 spades and at least 4 cards in one of the remaining suits (or a whale of a hand). Within this context, the heart lead stands out. Yes, naming the LAs compels us to analyze and understand the system used by the pair under examination. And, yes, AC sometimes forget to do it. From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Apr 17 18:34:47 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:34:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Antipodean alternatives In-Reply-To: <009401c304ea$2bda6fe0$992b24d5@Default> References: <018501c3044a$a7d43860$3b0f24d5@Default> <009401c304ea$2bda6fe0$992b24d5@Default> Message-ID: Jaap wrote: > > K: Never did like name calling.... >Name calling ? > >I was using you in the plural sense. Sorry if I sometimes get it wrong. In >all other languages I use, you (singular) and you (plural) and you >(generalised third person like 'one') are different words. So some nuance >easily gets lost in English. ... Maybe some variant of "you-all" might help here? Amazing how much relief I get from mailing my tax return. Then I start worrying whether I actually got it right. Almost as bad as playing bridge, except less time between potential mistakes-about 31,000,000 seconds for the taxes, and maybe 310 seconds for the bridge, a ratio of 1 to 100,000. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl Thu Apr 17 21:48:14 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@wanadoo.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:48:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bidding 1S two ways. References: <200304170125.VAA15918@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20030417171950.026844c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005301c30522$ad127200$2d0824d5@Default> AG: > ... well, that's the problem. How do you differentiate misbids from psyches > ? If misbids were disallowed, some psyches would probably get penalized= as > misbids. This is not a real problem if you target only early conventional misbids.= I have never seen a case where I couldn't tell a misbid and a psych apart. = But your remark is true. Ruling early conventional misbids as MI makes it impossible to psych 1x-3C (if you play this as a twosuiter) with a club s= uit because it can not been distinguished from a misbid. This is a price I am most happy to pay. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding 1S two ways. At 16:04 17/04/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Steve, > > > Bo-Yin Yang offered a good example. I may not have the details right= , > > but it goes something like this: 1C!-P-1H!-? 1C is artificial, stron= g, > > and 1H shows spades. Now a good defense is this one: > >Here you have a hot problem. It is actually 'common' practice that >everything without asking is natural including the double. When you do a= sk >the meaning of your bids of course reflects the answers you get. This wa= y >you get to play two systems. Not exactly legal. > > > In theory we have the tools to cope with this villainy, but I am not = so > > sure the tools we have are effective in practice. > >First of all there might not be a villian at all. As long as we have no >super-alert (=3D this is something really weird) normal alerts are so frequent >and often so meaningless that they are often ignorded. Suppose you have= an >obvious 1S overcall and the opps bid 1C-pas-1H (alert). You probably wil= l >think it is a Walsh alert or whatever and you will bid 1S. Are you a villian >for not verifying if 1H might mean spades. Of course not. This problem i= s >only solved by super-alerts or by automatic explanations after alerts, t= he >former being a good idea, the later creates probably more problems than = it >solves. AG : allow me to offer a solution that we tested some years ago, when we were playing fert-like systems. Every pair is allowed to ask either : a) to be alerted of any call that has some interesting inference, eg Wals= h 1H. In that case, they are (of course) allowed to ask about an alerted call. Doing so will occasionally pass UI. b) to be alerted only of "very special calls", eg T-Walsh 1H. In that case, they are expected to ask every time such a call is produced= =2E *Not* doing so could pass UI. When the opponents' system is strange enough, most pairs prefer b). >The second problem. Suppose you are a good guy and ask a question. Now y= ou >get an answer that the alerted call shows a suit you wanted to bid. Now = you >cannot bid that suit anymore. It turns out that the guy made a mistake a= nd >you get a terrible result. We all know that if they manage to sell it as= a >misbid you have no redress. If this has happened to you or your friends >before it is hard to fault people for protecting themselves. The only >solution here is to curb the freedom to misbid this type of >early/competitive conventions. You will need some sort of rule like that= at >a certain level of competition conventional misbids in lets say the firs= t >two rounds of >bidding count as misinformation so opponents can be protected. AG : I'd say at least opening bids, responses, overcalls over common opening bids, and actions by n=B03 over a natural overcall. Reently, such a misbid has created havoc in a playdown from Zweiffel Cup (open Brussels area T4 championship) 1st division. 1C 2H* 2H alerted, then explained as 5H/4S at least. Next hand bid 4S, but this was taken as splinter by opener. The hand of overcaller didn't contain 4S - not even 2. Of course, the pair should have (at that above-average level) known how t= o defend vs defined two-suiters, but would you call it irrational ? The matter is still to be settled. Ah yes, why didn't one rule "misbid, non adjustment" ? Well, the pair had no CC - a typical Belgian behavior . Anyway, I would appreciate a SO's decision that early bids should be deem= ed MI even when proved conform to the system. That would cost me a bad score in rare occurrences (twice this year), avoid me one from times to times, but above all there would be no more need to take into account the possibility that the opponent misbid when planning my next calls. The job is already hard enough with psyches. ... well, that's the problem. How do you differentiate misbids from psych= es ? If misbids were disallowed, some psyches would probably get penalized a= s misbids. Best regards, Alain. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Apr 18 07:40:41 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:40:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited References: <3E9E4D64.60206@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030417190610.00ac7880@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3E9F9DE9.4070808@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 17:13 17/04/2003 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> Herman wrote: >> > >> > What you are saying, Tim, is that the AC was guilty of overestimating >> > these Lady players? >> >> IMO quite possibly. What I would have liked to see was some statement >> that said the pair was deemed not to be playing (by agreement) off-shape >> doubles before the AC applied their logic. > > > AG : I once played an Italian system in which a double of a 1C, 1D or 1H > opening bid showed 4 spades and at least 4 cards in one of the remaining > suits (or a whale of a hand). Within this context, the heart lead stands > out. Yes, naming the LAs compels us to analyze and understand the system > used by the pair under examination. And, yes, AC sometimes forget to do it. > Well, isn't it up to the appealing pair to provide this as their defence? They did not. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 18 14:26:39 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:26:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bidding 1S two ways. In-Reply-To: <005301c30522$ad127200$2d0824d5@Default> References: <200304170125.VAA15918@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20030417171950.026844c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030418152235.02442440@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:48 17/04/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >AG: > > ... well, that's the problem. How do you differentiate misbids from >psyches > > ? If misbids were disallowed, some psyches would probably get penalized as > > misbids. > >This is not a real problem if you target only early conventional misbids. I >have never seen a case where I couldn't tell a misbid and a psych apart. But >your remark is true. Ruling early conventional misbids as MI makes it >impossible to psych 1x-3C (if you play this as a twosuiter) with a club suit >because it can not been distinguished from a misbid. This is a price I am >most happy to pay. AG : as far as two-suited overcalls are concerned, I agree with you. But there are some cases which I consider less obvious. We all know the baby-psyche 1C X 1S. Several pairs I know play transfer-Walsh (1C-1D/H shows H/S respectively, 1S denies a major unless strong and balanced). Some, but not all, still play them after a double. If the bidding goes 1C - X - 1H (alert : spades) and the 1H bidder happens to have a 2425 5-count, how do you distinguish between a baby-psyche (surely allowed, and plausible with this hand) and a misbid (possible in that context)? (assuming that there is evidence that this pair plays T-Walsh after a double) Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Apr 18 15:06:20 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:06:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bidding 1S two ways. References: <200304170125.VAA15918@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20030417171950.026844c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20030418152235.02442440@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3EA0065C.8010303@skynet.be> Well, quite easy, Alain, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 22:48 17/04/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >> AG: >> > ... well, that's the problem. How do you differentiate misbids from >> psyches >> > ? If misbids were disallowed, some psyches would probably get >> penalized as >> > misbids. >> >> This is not a real problem if you target only early conventional >> misbids. I >> have never seen a case where I couldn't tell a misbid and a psych >> apart. But >> your remark is true. Ruling early conventional misbids as MI makes it >> impossible to psych 1x-3C (if you play this as a twosuiter) with a >> club suit >> because it can not been distinguished from a misbid. This is a price I am >> most happy to pay. > > > AG : as far as two-suited overcalls are concerned, I agree with you. > But there are some cases which I consider less obvious. > We all know the baby-psyche 1C X 1S. > Several pairs I know play transfer-Walsh (1C-1D/H shows H/S > respectively, 1S denies a major unless strong and balanced). Some, but > not all, still play them after a double. > If the bidding goes 1C - X - 1H (alert : spades) and the 1H bidder > happens to have a 2425 5-count, how do you distinguish between a > baby-psyche (surely allowed, and plausible with this hand) and a misbid > (possible in that context)? > (assuming that there is evidence that this pair plays T-Walsh after a > double) > Well, easy Alain, you don't. That's what Jaap's been saying. You cannot do that psyche anymore, and it's a price Jaap is willing to pay. Besides, that baby-psyche is no psyche any more! I would not be adverse to a general regulation or even law that says that it is an infraction to misbid in certain simple situations. And that the infraction is penalized as if it were a misinformation. In fact, I interpret the footnote requiring evidence of misbid so harshly that it almost seems as if such a regulation were already in place. But please WBF, if you go that way, make it a law, not an authorisation to SOs to write regulations. > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Apr 18 16:10:33 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:10:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Turtles all the way down Message-ID: <200304181510.LAA26952@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > In 1930s USA, there was a political aphorism that, "the > Supreme Court follows the election returns" Just a brief historical note: this "aphorism" appeared in a comic strip, although it has been much quoted since as if it were truth. The extent to which it represents reality is the subject of much debate. The extreme answers "not at all" and "completely" are clearly wrong, but there's a wide range between for scholars to argue over. From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Apr 19 09:40:23 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 10:40:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] What a claim! Message-ID: <3EA10B77.40109@skynet.be> 6NT: dummy : KQ4 95 T65 AQT53 opps: T853 832 J87 762 / J62 JT74 K932 K8 decl : A97 AKQ6 AQ4 J94 Spade lead, taken in hand. Club jack run, to the king. Claim : "12 top tricks". The most difficult part of the ruling is to find the normal line that does NOT lead to 12 tricks. Can you find one? (a _normal_ line, David) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Apr 19 11:31:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] What a claim! In-Reply-To: <3EA10B77.40109@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > 6NT: > > dummy : KQ4 95 T65 AQT53 > opps: > T853 832 J87 762 / J62 JT74 K932 K8 > decl : A97 AKQ6 AQ4 J94 > > Spade lead, taken in hand. Club jack run, to the king. > Claim : "12 top tricks". > > The most difficult part of the ruling is to find the normal line that > does NOT lead to 12 tricks. Win the D return with the Ace, cash HAKQ (normal play for a man with 12 top tricks). WTP? Tim From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Apr 19 15:50:35 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 16:50:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <3E9E4D64.60206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00ae01c30683$13bd4780$fec7f1c3@LNV> You might know that Australia has a quarterly for their TD's. Nice looking, lot of information about the laws. And guess what. In their column ''Appeals'' where 3 or 4 problems are presented and a group of experts give their opinions I found the following (last issue, February 2003): After the auction between NS going 2D 2NT 3H 4H west on turn to call asks an explanation of the auction and is especially interested in the 2D call asking about alternative choices for the response. Declarer now plays for the SK in west and goes one off. He is upset and doubts the needs for west's questions. South points out that EW are playing the same 2D convention. What is the opinion of the panel? Nine are given and eight of them clearly state that the laws do allow west to ask such questions at that time. It is ''completely legal in terms of L20F1''. And some remarks making clear that such questions could give partner UI but certainly any conclusion declarer draws is for his own risk. There is one issue the LC should look at. In L20F1 it says that questions may also be asked about alternative calls but F2 - after the final pass - doesn't repeat that possibility. Therefore West said that this moment was his last opportunity to ask more thoroughly. I never have interpreted it like that, and this interpretaion is undesirable so we need to make clear that the rights under F1 are the same as under F2. Who is number 9 you want to know? Guess? No, not mister Endicot, best explanation probably is that he isn't in the panel. First some other remarks: Grenside, respected senior chief TD in the WBF: west is most certainly permitted to make inquiries. PP for NS bringing in an appeal without merit. And Colker a respected member of the WBF Appeal Committee, starts saying that it might have been better for west to wait till the auction was over, asking these questions with the first lead faced down on the table. But then: ''It is difficult to make the case that west could have known at the time that simply asking about the auction and its implications could work to his benefit. And it is even more LUDICROUS (my capitals) to suggest that west had no demonstrable bridge reason for wanting an expalnation of the auction and any negative inferences that might be available. After all, he was about to defend a game contract; has defending well suddenly been relegated only to those who hold significant high cards? '' You should know number 9 by now. David, no, not him, David Stevenson, important member of the EBU. Among other remarks, as '' either west is delibarately lying or he is very stupid indeed, or .... ", he tells to adjust the score. His answer on the question whether west had a demonstrable bridge reason is remarkable: 'no he hadn't, not when compared with asking when the opening lead is faced down'. Well, to defend their opinions people have to tie themselves in knots sometimes. There seem to be more excentric opinions on this issue than mine alone. ton From ehaa@starpower.net Sat Apr 19 22:46:27 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 17:46:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] What a claim! In-Reply-To: <3EA10B77.40109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030419172720.00a7b540@pop.starpower.net> At 04:40 AM 4/19/03, Herman wrote: >6NT: > >dummy : KQ4 95 T65 AQT53 >opps: >T853 832 J87 762 / J62 JT74 K932 K8 >decl : A97 AKQ6 AQ4 J94 > >Spade lead, taken in hand. Club jack run, to the king. >Claim : "12 top tricks". > >The most difficult part of the ruling is to find the normal line that >does NOT lead to 12 tricks. > >Can you find one? (a _normal_ line, David) Well, I'm not David, nor anywhere near as inclined to be harsh on claimers as he would be, but this guy thought he had twelve top tricks, so it would be "normal" (careless or inferior, but not irrational) to rise on the presumptive diamond return, cash his top tricks, and perhaps use some impolite language when he realizes, either before or after scoring 'em up, that he only has eleven of the little buggers. But that's not the key issue here. The more important point is that normalcy, along with its companions carelessness, inferiority and irrationality, matter only when making presumptive findings. To say that this declarer thought he had twelve top tricks isn't a presumptive finding; it's a fact, he said so. Down one. WTP? Oddly, this ruling would be less obvious had declarer tabled his hand saying nothing. Which might score a point for David, were it not for the fact that David would have this declarer down five. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Sat Apr 19 23:04:58 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:04:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: <00ae01c30683$13bd4780$fec7f1c3@LNV> References: <3E9E4D64.60206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030419174912.00a88110@pop.starpower.net> At 10:50 AM 4/19/03, Ton wrote: >And Colker a respected member of the WBF Appeal Committee, starts saying >that it might have been better for west to wait till the auction was over, >asking these questions with the first lead faced down on the table. But >then: > >''It is difficult to make the case that west could have known at the time >that simply asking about the auction and its implications could work >to his >benefit. And it is even more LUDICROUS (my capitals) to suggest that west >had no demonstrable bridge reason for wanting an expalnation of the >auction >and any negative inferences that might be available. After all, he was >about >to defend a game contract; has defending well suddenly been relegated only >to those who hold significant high cards? '' This expresses very well the views I've tried to put forth on this subject in this forum. It is a fundamental mental discipline, critical to good bridge, to "play along" with your opponents, building a mental picture of their holdings that becomes clearer with each call and play they make. This starts with following their auction along. When you think that their auction may have subtle implications, beyond what would be implied by the information derived from their alerts and non-alerts, of which they are aware but you are not, you ask; your reason for doing so is that *you want to know what's going on*. That is, IMO, always a legitimate "bridge reason", regardless of what cards you hold, thus perforce regardless of whether you might be contemplating alternative actions at the time of your inquiry. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Apr 20 12:12:20 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:12:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <3E9E4D64.60206@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20030419174912.00a88110@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003001c3072e$564a3620$dd3587d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott >After all, he was about to defend a game contract; > >has defending well suddenly been relegated only > >to those who hold significant high cards? '' > > This expresses very well the views I've tried to put forth on this > subject in this forum. > +=+ Just to reiterate the position maintained steadily by the WBF Appeals Committee, through TACs, in my experience over 16+ years: 1. No-one suggests that a question may not be asked at a player's turn. 2. It is, however, always the case that in asking a question a player may convey UI to partner; he also risks misleading an opponent. 3. If an opponent is misled by a question asked, and is damaged thereby, when the player has 'no demonstrable bridge reason' for asking the question, opponent is entitled to an adjustment of the score. 4. It is not sufficient for the player to say "I always ask" or to say "I wished to follow the auction along". The player must show that he had a need to know the answer to the question at the time when it was asked, and could not defer his curiosity until later. 5. The WBF Appeals Committee has consistently maintained that to ask a question when you do not need to know the answer is to ask without a demonstrable bridge reason. This is a bridge judgement and, as such, lies within the remit of the appeals committee. In these circumstances, if opponent draws a rational conclusion from the fact that the question was asked,and is damaged by this, he gets a ruling in his favour. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Turning to the case in point the fact that the questioner is about to defend a contract does not create any need to know the answer to his question before the final pass of the auction. It is wholly 'ludicrous' IMO to suggest otherwise. This does not say he may not *ask* the question, but he does so at risk (see 2 above). If the opponent was found to have been damaged because of the question he would get a score adjustment. If it appeared the player claiming to be damaged had created his own damage by his unreasonable inference or action subsequent to the question he would not get an adjustment. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Without wishing to intrude on the grief of any person, it may be remarked that Rich Colker is a sometime member of WBF Tournament appeals committees, but not of the WBF Appeals Committee. The WBF Appeals Committee is (sic) "a standing committee, as distinct from the Tournament Appeals Committee which is appointed by the WBF President to serve at each WBF Tournament. The (standing) Committee functions as a judicial body to rule on protests and appeals from the decisions of other contest authorities, to determine disputed facts, and to act as an investigative body in its discretion". Ton has no place in the anatomy of WBF appeals committees, tournament or standing, except when there is reference to the Laws Committee on a point of law. It is not the remit of the Laws Committee to determine what is a 'demonstrable bridge reason', although - as ton does - it may always express an opinion. With respect, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun Apr 20 13:56:14 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:56:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] What a claim! In-Reply-To: <3EA10B77.40109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <77C771E2-732F-11D7-B0E1-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Saturday, April 19, 2003, at 09:40 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > 6NT: > > dummy : KQ4 95 T65 AQT53 > opps: > T853 832 J87 762 / J62 JT74 K932 K8 > decl : A97 AKQ6 AQ4 J94 > > Spade lead, taken in hand. Club jack run, to the king. > Claim : "12 top tricks". > > The most difficult part of the ruling is to find the normal line that > does NOT lead to 12 tricks. > > Can you find one? (a _normal_ line, David) Win the diamond return with the Ace and cash top tricks (isn't that what the claim statement said?) If you think it's difficult to find this line, you must have great difficulty with many other more complex claims. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From tsvecfob@iol.ie Sun Apr 20 14:35:10 2003 From: tsvecfob@iol.ie (Fearghal O'Boyle) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 14:35:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: <3ea2a20e.48c8.0@iol.ie> Now that the question of 'questions' has arisen again, maybe we can take a fresh look at a scenario raised nearly 2 years ago. Are we any nearer to a consensus? Pairs, Game All All 4 players are internationals - but not used to meeting one another. E/W play a Strong Club with some twists of their own. West North East South 2D(A) P 3H(A) P P 3S P 4S P P Dbl All Pass West alerted the 3H bid. South asked and was told (pre-emptive raise in either major). South Passed in tempo (agreed by all). North bid 3S holding: S. K98543 H. 6 D. K76 C. Q94 South had a balanced 16 HCP. When 4SX made 10 easy tricks, E/W call the TD because they are not happy with the 3S bid after South's question. How do you rule? Additional information: 1. South always asks about alerted calls against this pair. 2. South's Pass was non-forcing. A take-out double of Hearts was available. 3. North's thought processes where along the lines of: "When the bidding returns to North, s/he knows that E/W have a heart preempt & probably not more that 20 HCP between them. If the 2D opener had the big hand other options would could have been exploited. South, therefore probably has at least 12 HCP and a somewhat balanced hand." Best regards, Fearghal. http://www.iol.ie From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Apr 20 15:20:26 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:20:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] What a claim! References: <3EA10B77.40109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002901c30748$0c97a390$e83df0c3@LNV> > 6NT: > > dummy : KQ4 95 T65 AQT53 > opps: > T853 832 J87 762 / J62 JT74 K932 K8 > decl : A97 AKQ6 AQ4 J94 > > Spade lead, taken in hand. Club jack run, to the king. > Claim : "12 top tricks". > > The most difficult part of the ruling is to find the normal line that > does NOT lead to 12 tricks. > > Can you find one? (a _normal_ line, David) How could you do this to me? Giving me no option but to support David in whatever reaction he is going to give, evn if he has to decide this case with our normal view. With 12 tricks from top it is not up to the TD to analyse all normal lines forgetting about the statement made. Since one of declarer's 'normal' lines is to put down the DA (he will do so for sure after a diamond return!) as one of the 12 top tricks before he becomes aware of being a trick short, I declare him one off. ton From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Apr 20 19:45:35 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:45:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <3E9E4D64.60206@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20030419174912.00a88110@pop.starpower.net> <003001c3072e$564a3620$dd3587d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001d01c3076d$08d03b80$25b54351@noos.fr> Grattan: > 4. It is not sufficient for the player to say "I always ask" or to say > "I wished to follow the auction along". The player must show that > he had a need to know the answer to the question at the time > when it was asked, and could not defer his curiosity until later. Are you trying to say that any question needs to carry the (U)I that you have a need for a answer at (exactly) this moment. And that opponents might use this (U)I and call the TD for an adjustment if they are mislead. Is this not giving an unfair if not illegal advantage for a pair using (highly) conventional methods ? By the way, can partner use this (U)I as well ? > "I wished to follow the auction along". Holding a K or even a Q somewhere there is by definition a bridge reason to know what is going on (assuming an artificial sequence) because you have to be prepared for a bid in this suit by RHO and the like. Are you suggesting you can only ask (without risking misleading etc.) when the suit is actually bid. There will be lot of possible answers to the question at that very moment that make it impossible to double and then you will also get caught by UI constraints (all hell will break lose if partner leads the suit after you asking but not doubling). To put this argument to the extreme, the only type of hand that maybe has no bridge reason to ask is a total yarborough that might not even double a cuebid in any circumstances. But by only not asking on this type of hand you also convey quite a lot of (U)I. > "I always ask" Whatever is wrong with that (a lot) at least it prevents all UI generated by asking or not asking questions. No Grattan, you have to do a better job convincing me that this logic of you, or rather the overlords you cite, makes a lot of sense. I doesn't to me. But as I said before, this is a hard problem and one of the reasons serious bridge can only played with screens. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 1:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > > Grattan Endicott ======================================= > "Do not think my question frivolous; on the contrary > I have in asking the question a secret motive of my > own, which I will perhaps explain to you later on." > [Dostoevsky] > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > >After all, he was about to defend a game contract; > > >has defending well suddenly been relegated only > > >to those who hold significant high cards? '' > > > > This expresses very well the views I've tried to put forth on this > > subject in this forum. > > > +=+ Just to reiterate the position maintained steadily by the > WBF Appeals Committee, through TACs, in my experience over > 16+ years: > > 1. No-one suggests that a question may not be asked at a player's > turn. > 2. It is, however, always the case that in asking a question a > player may convey UI to partner; he also risks misleading an > opponent. > 3. If an opponent is misled by a question asked, and is damaged > thereby, when the player has 'no demonstrable bridge reason' for > asking the question, opponent is entitled to an adjustment of the > score. > 4. It is not sufficient for the player to say "I always ask" or to say > "I wished to follow the auction along". The player must show that > he had a need to know the answer to the question at the time > when it was asked, and could not defer his curiosity until later. > 5. The WBF Appeals Committee has consistently maintained > that to ask a question when you do not need to know the answer > is to ask without a demonstrable bridge reason. This is a bridge > judgement and, as such, lies within the remit of the appeals > committee. In these circumstances, if opponent draws a rational > conclusion from the fact that the question was asked,and is > damaged by this, he gets a ruling in his favour. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Turning to the case in point the fact that the questioner is about to > defend a contract does not create any need to know the answer > to his question before the final pass of the auction. It is wholly > 'ludicrous' IMO to suggest otherwise. This does not say he may > not *ask* the question, but he does so at risk (see 2 above). If > the opponent was found to have been damaged because of the > question he would get a score adjustment. If it appeared the > player claiming to be damaged had created his own damage by > his unreasonable inference or action subsequent to the question > he would not get an adjustment. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Without wishing to intrude on the grief of any person, it may be > remarked that Rich Colker is a sometime member of WBF > Tournament appeals committees, but not of the WBF Appeals > Committee. The WBF Appeals Committee is (sic) > "a standing committee, as distinct from the Tournament > Appeals Committee which is appointed by the WBF > President to serve at each WBF Tournament. > The (standing) Committee functions as a judicial body to > rule on protests and appeals from the decisions of other > contest authorities, to determine disputed facts, and to act > as an investigative body in its discretion". > Ton has no place in the anatomy of WBF appeals committees, > tournament or standing, except when there is reference to the > Laws Committee on a point of law. It is not the remit of the Laws > Committee to determine what is a 'demonstrable bridge reason', > although - as ton does - it may always express an opinion. > With respect, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Apr 20 20:03:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: <003001c3072e$564a3620$dd3587d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > 4. It is not sufficient for the player to say "I always ask" or to say > "I wished to follow the auction along". The player must show that > he had a need to know the answer to the question at the time > when it was asked, and could not defer his curiosity until later. Fine as far as it goes. However what if the answer is "I needed to know since I believed I would be unable to follow the development of the subsequent auction without an explanation and I couldn't find the answer on the CC". How can I "show" the above to be true (basically you ask me to prove that I didn't already know the answer). Following an auction is a basic bridge necessity - regardless of one's holding. Surely the onus should be on the appeals committee to show that person asking did not need to know rather than the other way round. Of course the AC must also have a right to adjust if they believe a necessary question was *phrased* in such a way as to be likely to mislead opponents. UI is a different matter. It can be created whether the asker "needs to know" or not. Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Apr 21 01:35:27 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 01:35:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: Message-ID: <000f01c3079d$fbff2c50$a44fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > > 3. If an opponent is misled by a question asked, and is damaged thereby, when the player has 'no demonstrable bridge reason' for asking the question, opponent is entitled to an adjustment of the score. 4. It is not sufficient for the player to say "I always ask" or to say "I wished to follow the auction along". The player must show that he had a need to know the answer to the question at the time when it was asked, and could not defer his curiosity until later. > > T.W-M: > Surely the onus should be on the appeals > committee to show that person asking did > not need to know rather than the other way > round. > +=+ The appeals committee hears the appeal and makes a judgement; you will find nothing in the regulations that requires it to demonstrate anything. It is for the player to defend his action by satisfying the committee that he had a 'demonstrable bridge reason' for his question. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Apr 21 06:47:30 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 07:47:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <000f01c3079d$fbff2c50$a44fe150@endicott> Message-ID: <3EA385F2.2080404@skynet.be> Don't wriggle out of an argument, Grattan: Grattan Endicott wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > >>T.W-M: >> Surely the onus should be on the appeals >>committee to show that person asking did >>not need to know rather than the other way >>round. >> >> > +=+ The appeals committee hears the appeal > and makes a judgement; you will find nothing in > the regulations that requires it to demonstrate > anything. It is for the player to defend his action > by satisfying the committee that he had a > 'demonstrable bridge reason' for his question. > ~ G ~ +=+ Tim has just told you what the player tells the committee ("I want to follow the auction"). No need to prove this, no need for the AC to doubt this. The only question we have for the WBFLC is whether or not this can be regarded as a valid bridge reason. Please tell us your opinion. My opinion is that following a basic set of bidding by opponents is a valid bridge reason. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Apr 21 06:52:04 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 07:52:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: [Flags] Re: Flag-icons for languages References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030419142714.00a0dd00@shawmail> <5.1.0.14.2.20030420140048.016c0868@ficcao.online.pt> Message-ID: <3EA38704.8060805@skynet.be> Jorge Candeias wrote: (about Mozambique) > 1994). It is not even the only country not speaking english in the > Commonwealth. > Yes it is, if by "speaking English" you interpret that English is one of the languages in common use. Another country that joined around the same date is Cameroon, of which a (small) part used to be a British protectorate. Of course most countries in the Commonwealth have languages other than English. I'm even trying to find a country where no other languages are spoken, and the best I can come up with is Gibraltar. > [...] > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Apr 21 09:45:49 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:45:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions - "not asked?" In-Reply-To: <000f01c3079d$fbff2c50$a44fe150@endicott> Message-ID: <000001c307e2$691a23f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott ....... > 3. If an opponent is misled by a question asked, > and is damaged thereby, when the player has 'no > demonstrable bridge reason' for asking the question, > opponent is entitled to an adjustment of the score. > 4. It is not sufficient for the player to say "I always > ask" or to say "I wished to follow the auction along". > The player must show that he had a need to know > the answer to the question at the time when it was > asked, and could not defer his curiosity until later. This is well and fine. Now please tell me if a player claims damage because an opponent didn't = ask in a position where he could be expected to have every bridge reason for asking: Should we laugh at him (the "plaintiff") or should we accept = that he has been damaged from some "special mannerism" by opponents?=20 The "logic" in points 3 and 4 above should lead to a conclusion that NOT asking a question in a position where a player has every real reason for asking can also mislead and damage opponents. Why treat the two alternatives (asking and not asking) differently? This doesn't make sense to me. (I suppose this makes it clear that IMO we = must be very careful with claims on damage from opponents' questions unless we = can demonstrate probable intent and illegal deception?) Regards Sven=20 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Apr 21 11:35:54 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:35:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <000f01c3079d$fbff2c50$a44fe150@endicott> <3EA385F2.2080404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001901c307f8$60b73890$05def1c3@LNV> > Don't wriggle out of an argument, Grattan: > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>T.W-M: > >> Surely the onus should be on the appeals > >>committee to show that person asking did > >>not need to know rather than the other way > >>round. > > +=+ The appeals committee hears the appeal > > and makes a judgement; you will find nothing in > > the regulations that requires it to demonstrate > > anything. It is for the player to defend his action > > by satisfying the committee that he had a > > 'demonstrable bridge reason' for his question. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > Tim has just told you what the player tells the committee > ("I want to follow the auction"). No need to prove this, no need for > the AC to doubt this. The only question we have for the WBFLC is > whether or not this can be regarded as a valid bridge reason. > > Please tell us your opinion. > > > My opinion is that following a basic set of bidding by opponents is a > valid bridge reason. How dare you say so !!!!? Up till now Grattan hasn't shown any evidence to support his postion in this issue, despite quite a few requests from my side. Evidence meaning a decision of a WBF or EBL apppeals committee in a real case proving that a player was not allowed to ask a question during the auction as permitted by law 20F1. Don't confuse this withe the case brought up by Fearghal where the question is whether parner is allowed to take action after such question. Those cases we know plenty of. Grattan isn't coming any further than repeating his statement that a player needs to have a demontrable bridge reason for such question, therewith repeating what L 73F2 is saying. He ignores all arguments which show that this position is more than questionable. Let me go one step further with these arguments: L73F2 is talking about remarks, manners, tempo or the like, suggesting some extraneous action taken. It is my believe that the lawmakers didn't want to include questions asked about calls during the auction, this not being extraneous but legal procedure (we should have said so explicitly don't you think?). Which leaves the case where such question is asked for deceptive reasons, becoming extraneous to the legal game. And yes, that my dear Grattan is up to the AC to decide, judgement involved. But then in a much more extreme situation than you and the EBU want to cover. Unless something spectacular is coming up, like decisions in WBF/EBL championships supporting Grattan's view, which will not change my opinion but makes the problem more serious, I quit this issue for a couple of months. ton From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Apr 21 15:57:37 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:57:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: <200304211457.KAA00607@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "grandeval" > 3. If an opponent is misled by a question asked, and is damaged > thereby, when the player has 'no demonstrable bridge reason' for > asking the question, opponent is entitled to an adjustment of the > score. Grattan has, uncharacteristically, been less than complete here unless he is referring to something other than L73F2. That law has a "could have known" requirement in addition to the ones stated above. For neutrally-phrased questions during an artificial auction (or any auction where questions would be normal), it seems to me wildly unlikely that a player could know an opponent will be misled. > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > West North East South > 2D(A) P 3H(A) P > P 3S P 4S > P P Dbl All Pass > South asked and was told (pre-emptive raise in either major). > 1. South always asks about alerted calls against this pair. If this is established as fact, then it's hard for me to see how any UI was "available." From toddz@att.net Mon Apr 21 16:45:27 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:45:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: <001901c307f8$60b73890$05def1c3@LNV> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Ton Kooijman > Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > > > Herman De Wael > > > > My opinion is that following a basic set of bidding > > by opponents is a valid bridge reason. Grattan seems to imply that a valid bridge reason would be that your choice of action will (immediately?) be affected by the knowledge. I may have missed more-strongly worded statements to this effect. > How dare you say so !!!!? > > Up till now Grattan hasn't shown any evidence to > support his postion in this > issue, despite quite a few requests from my side. > Evidence meaning a decision of a WBF or EBL apppeals > committee in a real > case proving that a player was not allowed to ask a > question during the auction as permitted by law 20F1. My reading comprehension is notoriously poor, judging by how often it's knocked here, but I don't remember Grattan saying any such thing. His argument, as far as my poor reading skills interpret, goes along the lines that a player may ask a question, but he's only without risk to a score adjustment when he has a valid bridge reason. -Todd From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Apr 21 19:35:30 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:35:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 26 revisited Message-ID: I gave the North hand: s 6 5 2 h 9 6 d 9 7 3 2 c J 9 7 6 and the auction W N E S pass 1d dbl 3NT pass pass pass to several local (mid-Missouri) players, all experienced club players, and got the following leads: h 9 five times c 6 twice s 6 once d 2 once N.B.: No pause at the final pass in the auction given. With the south hand of s A 9 4 h A Q J 8 5 3 2 d 8 c K 4 many local players would double. Partners tend to pass a 1h overcall when holding s K 3 2 h T 7 4 d 9 7 3 2 c Q 6 5 I know. I've been left, more than once, to play at the one level when even bungling play leads to 10 tricks, and decent play gets eleven or twelve. Still, I overcall. (Hope springs eternal, or maybe it's only good for the next few years.) 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 Apr 21 20:47:45 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 15:47:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/16/03, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >Strictu sensus, when called after an OLOOT, the TD should: >1) make sure offender was not mistakenly informed or dummy or declarer > did not expose cards; She did. >2) present the 5 classic options to declarer (and most often more than > one time...); She did. >3) when declarer chooses to require or forbid the lead of the penalty > card by the wright defender, ask the offender to put back his card > in hand and inform his partner that information arising from the > exposed card is UI (Law 50D1); She did not mention UI until North brought it up. Her comment then was "that's right". >4) tell non offenders to call him back if there is any problem arising > from this exposed card. > >Then, the TD can leave the table being sure the job is made..... > >In practice, and more at the club level, the TD is called many times >during a game for faced OLOOT. Most of them, speedily present the 5 >options, without any other comments, and leave the table as soon as >the declarer retains one (and sometimes before...). I have not yet >seen a TD, at club and other levels, dealing with 3). I think a lot >of TDs (like me) hate this part of 50D1 and try to "forget" it. Heh. >If most players in this club are "novices", some of them seems to know >more than the average about Laws. Though, they should be told that >nobody but the TD can make rulings (Law 9). Yep. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From svenpran@online.no Mon Apr 21 21:14:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:14:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c30842$ae413a80$6900a8c0@WINXP> I would like to add just one point to this summary: Whenever I have referred the options available to declarer I ALWAYS ask = him (or her) before I let him choose: Have you understood all your options? You would be surprised how often I experience polite-looking players who seem to have, but on my question come up with some remark telling me = that they are more or less confused. Most often they need some elaboration on = the two main options they must first choose between: Either accept the OLOOT with the two options that gives, or not accept with the three options = that gives. And if I can spare the time (non-playing director) I always remain at = the table until the situation is completely resolved. If not I at least tell them what to be particularly aware of. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Ed > Reppert > Sent: 21. april 2003 21:48 > To: Laval Dubreuil > Cc: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT >=20 > On 4/16/03, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >=20 > >Strictu sensus, when called after an OLOOT, the TD should: > >1) make sure offender was not mistakenly informed or dummy or = declarer > > did not expose cards; >=20 > She did. >=20 > >2) present the 5 classic options to declarer (and most often more = than > > one time...); >=20 > She did. >=20 > >3) when declarer chooses to require or forbid the lead of the penalty > > card by the wright defender, ask the offender to put back his card > > in hand and inform his partner that information arising from the > > exposed card is UI (Law 50D1); >=20 > She did not mention UI until North brought it up. Her comment then was > "that's right". >=20 > >4) tell non offenders to call him back if there is any problem = arising > > from this exposed card. > > > >Then, the TD can leave the table being sure the job is made..... > > > >In practice, and more at the club level, the TD is called many times > >during a game for faced OLOOT. Most of them, speedily present the 5 > >options, without any other comments, and leave the table as soon as > >the declarer retains one (and sometimes before...). I have not yet > >seen a TD, at club and other levels, dealing with 3). I think a lot > >of TDs (like me) hate this part of 50D1 and try to "forget" it. >=20 > Heh. >=20 > >If most players in this club are "novices", some of them seems to = know > >more than the average about Laws. Though, they should be told that > >nobody but the TD can make rulings (Law 9). >=20 > Yep. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Ed From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 21 21:10:13 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:10:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030417104007.00ac62d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 4/17/03, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Nah, perhaps we'd better consider it AI, if only to make things easier. Oh, goody. "It's too hard to figure out if I should rule in favor of the NOS, so I'll rule in favor of the OS." That's just *great*. :( Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 21 21:02:27 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:02:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <001b01c3045e$96687190$3de536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On 4/17/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >Perhaps you should read 73E and note that I merely said that the >laws 'speak of unvarying tempo' Perhaps I should. In fact I have. Again. However, your argument in this thread seems to be that it is a violation of law *not* to call and play in "unvarying tempo", including the same tempo at trick one as at every other trick. That is *not* what the law says. And that was my point. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 21 20:50:18 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 15:50:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: On 4/17/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >It still needs a regulation not a pronouncement at the table or in >the committee room after the fact. Oh, I agree - and so does the ACBL. Doesn't seem to matter, though. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 21 21:06:48 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:06:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/17/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Disagree. Law 90B2 requires that the ideal unvarying >tempo is a tempo of deliberate speed, *not* a tempo of >deliberate slowness. Um. Law 90B2 suggests that "unduly slow play" merits a procedural penalty. It does not define what is "unduly slow". Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Apr 21 21:24:58 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:24:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: References: <001901c307f8$60b73890$05def1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030421161555.00a05590@pop.starpower.net> At 11:45 AM 4/21/03, Todd wrote: > My reading comprehension is notoriously poor, judging by how >often it's knocked here, but I don't remember Grattan saying any >such thing. His argument, as far as my poor reading skills >interpret, goes along the lines that a player may ask a question, >but he's only without risk to a score adjustment when he has a >valid bridge reason. I think we're in unanimous agreement on that. The debate is over what may constitute a "valid bridge reason". Grattan and others argue for the English view: you have a legitimate reason for asking only if the answer might affect your next action. Ton, Herman, I and others argue that attempting to follow the opponents' auction call by call is by itself a legitimate reason for asking, whether it might affect your next action or not. As Mr. Colker suggests, it seems absurd that holding a worthless hand should mean that you can't legally find out what your opponents are doing. 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 Apr 21 21:33:37 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:33:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT Message-ID: <200304212033.QAA09120@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > Oh, goody. "It's too hard to figure out if I should rule in favor of the > NOS, so I'll rule in favor of the OS." That's just *great*. :( I think the proposal was to change the Laws, not to rule wrong under the current ones. Although no doubt some directors do.... What about six options: the classic five, except everything is AI to everyone, and add a sixth: pick up the card, it is UI to partner, correct leader leads? (This is the 1987 Laws plus option six plus L72B1.) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 01:00:34 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:00:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: Grattan wrote: >>+=+ The appeals committee hears the appeal >>and makes a judgement; you will find nothing in >>the regulations that requires it to demonstrate >>anything. It is for the player to defend his action >>by satisfying the committee that he had a >>'demonstrable bridge reason' for his question. >> ~ G ~ +=+ Herman replied: >Tim has just told you what the player tells the >committee ("I want to follow the auction"). No need to >prove this, no need for the AC to doubt this. The only >question we have for the WBFLC is whether or not this >can be regarded as a valid bridge reason. > >Please tell us your opinion. > >My opinion is that following a basic set of bidding by >opponents is a valid bridge reason. Richard noted: Some time ago, in a Canberra club event, I was perpetrating a game-force relay auction against an Australian international player and her partner. The international player was of the Grattanista school. She did not ask any questions about our game-force relays, since she did not have enough distribution to overcall. This proved costly - pard made an artificial 3D call, and the international player noted that she held AQT9 in diamonds. So the international player doubled for the lead. Unfortunately, our methods permitted me to make a penalty redouble (for an overtrick) when pard and I held the remaining nine diamonds between us. Best wishes Richard From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Apr 22 01:14:51 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:14:51 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes Message-ID: The ACBL website, as many of you no doubt are already aware, publishes the minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission's meetings on the web. Those of their most recent meeting (Philadelphia, March 8) can be viewed at http://66.147.103.154/lawscommission/lawscommission031.pdf Both this set of minutes and the ones from last fall include intriguing references to specific proposals sent to them by the WBF. This one, for instance, reports the ACBLLC complaining about L70C4, L70C5, and L85B4(c). Frustratingly, the actual proposals themselves do not appear in the minutes. Were they instructed by the WBF not to release the proposals to the public? If not, is there anywhere on the web where the proposals can be found by the curious? GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 02:37:33 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:37:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Slooow play Message-ID: >From the thread "trick one - break the laws". Richard Hills wrote: >>Disagree. Law 90B2 requires that the ideal unvarying >>tempo is a tempo of deliberate speed, *not* a tempo of >>deliberate slowness. Ed Reppert replied: >Um. Law 90B2 suggests that "unduly slow play" merits a >procedural penalty. It does not define what is "unduly >slow". Richard Hills continued: "Unduly slow" varies according to local bridge culture. >From evidence provided by blml postings and Bridge World articles, it seems that tempo defined by Aussies as "unduly slow", would be defined by ACBL-land experts as "unduly hasty". :-( This cultural difference may be because of the greater percentage of professional experts in ACBL-land (most Aussie experts are amateurs). If annoying others with slow play increases your own chance of an overtrick, and therefore increases the chance of a performance bonus from your sponsor, then there is an incentive for you to redefine the parameters of Law 90B2. Best wishes Richard From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 22 03:55:14 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:55:14 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003101c3087a$9d69e120$0a9737d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 8:02 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > On 4/17/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >Perhaps you should read 73E and note that I merely said that the > >laws 'speak of unvarying tempo' > > Perhaps I should. In fact I have. Again. However, your > argument in this > thread seems to be that it is a violation of law *not* to > call and play > in "unvarying tempo", including the same tempo at trick one > as at every > other trick. That is *not* what the law says. And that was my > point. :-) No. My argument is that: 1. If you make an undue hesitation then that is your problem; 2. There is nothing in law that automatically protects a hesitation at trick one; 3. Since the laws specifically allow for regulation of a mandatory pause at trick one then the absence of such a regulation suggests that any hesitation be judged by the same standards as a hesitation at any other trick. (After all there is no regulation for trick 5 etc.) It is definitely not necessarily a violation of law not to call and play in unvarying tempo. Just that you may give information or deceive and the opponents will be entitled to redress. But it is certainly not the case that if you play in unvarying tempo that you are violating law as was suggested by some posters. That is the 'in tempo' play at trick one was blamed for the opponent's subsequent hesitation. Bollocks!!! Wayne > > Regards, > > Ed > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 03:54:03 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:54:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: Grattan wrote: >+=+ Just to reiterate the position maintained steadily by the >WBF Appeals Committee, through TACs, in my experience over >16+ years: > >1. No-one suggests that a question may not be asked at a player's >turn. >2. It is, however, always the case that in asking a question a >player may convey UI to partner; he also risks misleading an >opponent. Paragraph 2. is incomplete. Permit me to insert paragraph 2a. 2a. It is, however, always the case that in *not* asking a question a player may convey UI to partner; one also risks misleading an opponent. Reference: The words "not asked" in Law 73B1; and the words "a remark ... or the like" in Law 73F2. (The misleading absence of a remark/question is presumably covered by the catch-all phrase *or the like*.) >3. If an opponent is misled by a question asked, and is damaged >thereby, when the player has 'no demonstrable bridge reason' for >asking the question, opponent is entitled to an adjustment of the >score. [big snip] Incorrect. A further requirement is that the questioner "could have known" at the time of the question that the question could work to one's benefit. I agree with Grattan that a question with no demonstrable bridge reason is one of the four requirements necessary for an infraction of Law 73F2. But, mathematical logic states that a *necessary* condition is not always equivalent to a *sufficient* condition. Therefore, a player who has asked a question with no demonstrable bridge reason may not have sufficiently satisfied the other three Lawful conditions needed to rule an infraction of Law 73F2. And if a non-infraction of Law 73F2 is specifically authorised by Law 20F1, then such a question remains Lawful until the 2005 edition of the Laws reformulates Law 73F2. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 04:54:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:54:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? Message-ID: >From the thread "Bidding 1S two ways": Herman wrote: [snip] >I would not be adverse to a general regulation or >even law that says that it is an infraction to misbid >in certain simple situations. And that the infraction >is penalized as if it were a misinformation. > >In fact, I interpret the footnote requiring evidence >of misbid so harshly that it almost seems as if such >a regulation were already in place. > >But please WBF, if you go that way, make it a law, >not an authorisation to SOs to write regulations. Richard replied: However, if the 2005 Laws rules that misbids are infractions, then there would be consequential side effects. >From the thread "Godel, Escher and Bridge": Richard wrote: Making a misbid an infraction would include a bonus of making all psyches infractions, a concept definitely liked by a majority of players. And this new rule would make determining whether or not a pair "has lied about its methods" irrelevant, as the TD could simply compare cards with explanation. Implementation of the new rule would be straightforward. The WBF LC could borrow a concept from the EBU's Red Psyche reg, and order that as soon as a misbid occurs, an automatic Ave+/Ave- is awarded. A further advantageous consequence of the frequent Ave+/Ave- scores would be that bridge sessions would finish in jig time, as hardly anybody would actually play a hand. This obviates the need for the TD to decide whether to apply a slow play penalty. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Apr 22 07:57:58 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 07:57:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: Message-ID: <000901c3089c$a3aa8e50$3656e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 4:45 PM Subject: RE: [blml] treatment of questions > > My reading comprehension is notoriously poor, > judging by how often it's knocked here, but I don't > remember Grattan saying any such thing. His > argument, as far as my poor reading skills > interpret, goes along the lines that a player may > ask a question, but he's only without risk to a score > adjustment when he has a valid bridge reason. > > -Todd > +=+ Thank you. I am grateful to find that my use of the English language is intelligible to some. I have quoted my experience of the WBF Appeals Committee in the period when I have been a member of it. I have expressed my personal view that it is lawful for that committee to exercise bridge judgement to rule that a question asked at a time when the answer is of no immediate interest is an action without demonstrable bridge reason. My position is that the Laws Committee would trespass into the territory of an equal committee if it were so intrepid as to suggest the Appeals Committee does not have the power to make that judgement. I have got the message that ton does not agree with such a position and would like to impose his personal view on the Appeals Committee. I believe he should look again at the boundaries between the powers of the two committees. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Apr 22 07:51:08 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 08:51:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <003101c3087a$9d69e120$0a9737d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <002001c3089b$8f50dbe0$25b54351@noos.fr> Wayne, I go along with your 'complaint' that the laws are vague or worse. But you seem to consider it normal to play fast from dummy at trick one to see what effect this has on RHO. And you feel free to use his tempo and if you feel mislead you feel entiteled to a TD ruling. If this is correct we are not discussing bridge as most of us know it. Anyway, if the SO doesn't prescribe a mandatory pause this doesn't change the fact that from a dozen other sources it is clear that pausing at trick one as declarer or as RHO is completely normal (actually desired) behaviour whether or not you have a problem at that point. If the lawmakers are too lazy, too stupid or too whatever to cover this clearly in the laws shame on them, but this doesn't change reality. Another consideration, with this profileration of 'let the SO decide' rules nobody can be expected to know to local rules any more. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 4:55 AM Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 8:02 a.m. > > To: Bridge Laws > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > On 4/17/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > >Perhaps you should read 73E and note that I merely said that the > > >laws 'speak of unvarying tempo' > > > > Perhaps I should. In fact I have. Again. However, your > > argument in this > > thread seems to be that it is a violation of law *not* to > > call and play > > in "unvarying tempo", including the same tempo at trick one > > as at every > > other trick. That is *not* what the law says. And that was my > > point. :-) > > No. > > My argument is that: > > 1. If you make an undue hesitation then that is your problem; > > 2. There is nothing in law that automatically protects a hesitation > at trick one; > > 3. Since the laws specifically allow for regulation of a mandatory > pause at trick one then the absence of such a regulation suggests > that any hesitation be judged by the same standards as a hesitation > at any other trick. (After all there is no regulation for trick 5 > etc.) > > It is definitely not necessarily a violation of law not to call and play > in unvarying tempo. Just that you may give information or deceive and > the opponents will be entitled to redress. > > But it is certainly not the case that if you play in unvarying tempo > that > you are violating law as was suggested by some posters. That is the 'in > tempo' play at trick one was blamed for the opponent's subsequent > hesitation. > Bollocks!!! > > Wayne > > > > > Regards, > > > > Ed > > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is > called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin > Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Apr 22 07:43:15 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 08:43:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? References: Message-ID: <001f01c3089b$8f061740$25b54351@noos.fr> Richard, I know about these objections you mention. But I 'proposed' only that misbidding (in the sense of a system mixup) early conventional bids (needs a precise definition) should be treated as misinformation. Basically to protect opponents from players not knowing their obstructive conventional methods (like twosuited overcalls). We already tend to do that in The Netherlands. With the well known trick that if they fail to bid a simple 1S-2NT or such with the right twosuiter we might rule they have no system so the explanation cannot be right. But we would love to have this covered better by the laws. The price you pay is that the any workable definition also includes some constructive conventions (no big deal). And a few psyches are not possible anymore, those that cannot be distinguished from a misbid (in the sense of a system mixup). But only those because a psyche is not a misbid (in the sense of a system mixup). I have no hard feelings one way or another about a rule that states that you cannot psych conventional calls (that will be tricky to define). But such a rule has nothing to do with what I discussed above. Another interesting topic is the interaction between 'psyching' and legal/illegal system. Example, is it ok to open a multi in third green against red on a flat 2 count ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? > > From the thread "Bidding 1S two ways": > > Herman wrote: > > [snip] > > >I would not be adverse to a general regulation or > >even law that says that it is an infraction to misbid > >in certain simple situations. And that the infraction > >is penalized as if it were a misinformation. > > > >In fact, I interpret the footnote requiring evidence > >of misbid so harshly that it almost seems as if such > >a regulation were already in place. > > > >But please WBF, if you go that way, make it a law, > >not an authorisation to SOs to write regulations. > > Richard replied: > > However, if the 2005 Laws rules that misbids are > infractions, then there would be consequential side > effects. > > From the thread "Godel, Escher and Bridge": > > Richard wrote: > > Making a misbid an infraction would include a > bonus of making all psyches infractions, a > concept definitely liked by a majority of > players. > > And this new rule would make determining > whether or not a pair "has lied about its > methods" irrelevant, as the TD could simply > compare cards with explanation. > > Implementation of the new rule would be > straightforward. The WBF LC could borrow a > concept from the EBU's Red Psyche reg, and > order that as soon as a misbid occurs, an > automatic Ave+/Ave- is awarded. > > A further advantageous consequence of the > frequent Ave+/Ave- scores would be that > bridge sessions would finish in jig time, as > hardly anybody would actually play a hand. > This obviates the need for the TD to decide > whether to apply a slow play penalty. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Apr 22 07:59:53 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 08:59:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <000901c3089c$a3aa8e50$3656e150@endicott> Message-ID: <003801c3089c$c863a600$25b54351@noos.fr> Dear Grattan, I and others attacked 'your' position on this subject. Basically we say that the logic you described is flawed (see my previous e-mail). This has nothing to do with some conflict between you and Ton. And you stating the WBF-AC has decided so one day is no good. AC's are known to take ridiculous decisions from time to time (remember the Lightner case from Turku and there are dozen others, and yes I have made some crazy AC decisions myself). But AC's tend to overrule those flawed decisions from the past when they come to their senses. So please respond to my previous e-mail (and a couple of others) without dodging behind all kind of authorities or Ton being out of bounds or whatever. For the moment Herman is right, you are trying to wriggle out of an argument. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "All knowledge is vain and full of error > when not born of experience." > Leonardo da Vinci. > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 4:45 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] treatment of questions > > > > > > My reading comprehension is notoriously poor, > > judging by how often it's knocked here, but I don't > > remember Grattan saying any such thing. His > > argument, as far as my poor reading skills > > interpret, goes along the lines that a player may > > ask a question, but he's only without risk to a score > > adjustment when he has a valid bridge reason. > > > > -Todd > > > +=+ Thank you. I am grateful to find that > my use of the English language is intelligible > to some. > I have quoted my experience of the WBF > Appeals Committee in the period when > I have been a member of it. I have expressed > my personal view that it is lawful for that > committee to exercise bridge judgement to > rule that a question asked at a time when the > answer is of no immediate interest is an action > without demonstrable bridge reason. My > position is that the Laws Committee would > trespass into the territory of an equal committee > if it were so intrepid as to suggest the Appeals > Committee does not have the power to make > that judgement. > I have got the message that ton does not > agree with such a position and would like to > impose his personal view on the Appeals > Committee. I believe he should look again > at the boundaries between the powers of the > two committees. > . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 08:21:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:21:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes Message-ID: Gordon Bower asked: >The ACBL website, as many of you no doubt are already >aware, publishes the minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission's >meetings on the web. Those of their most recent meeting >(Philadelphia, March 8) can be viewed at > >http://66.147.103.154/lawscommission/lawscommission031.pdf > >Both this set of minutes and the ones from last fall >include intriguing references to specific proposals sent >to them by the WBF. This one, for instance, reports the >ACBLLC complaining about L70C4, L70C5, and L85B4(c). > >Frustratingly, the actual proposals themselves do not appear >in the minutes. > >Were they instructed by the WBF not to release the proposals >to the public? If not, is there anywhere on the web where >the proposals can be found by the curious? > >GRB As far as I can tell, the ACBL LC may have infracted protocol by publicly commenting on a confidential WBF draft of new Laws for 2005. (The ACBL Draft Minutes are appended to this post.) However, the ACBL LC has provided enlightenment on a number of 2005 Laws drafting issues. 1) The WBF LC is following the sensible policy of first getting the content of the new Laws right; and only when that process is complete will the WBF LC then renumber and reformat the 2005 Laws. [I sincerely hope that renumbering and reformatting does occur. Otherwise the Laws changes will make the average TD's job more difficult. The average TD will get even more lost hunting through what should be a logically organised and clearly written instruction manual.] 2) The WBF LC is proposing to incorporate parts of the merely *advisory* WBF Code of Practice as *binding* 2005 Laws. However, the ACBL LC objects to at least one such incorporation - the presumption that TDs know what they are doing, and a constraint upon ACs to have a good reason to overrule TDs. [Does this show a certain lack of confidence in the adequacy of TD training and certification in ACBL-land?] 3) Eric Rodwell has independently proposed my suggested modification to the claim laws - the non-claiming side being given an option post-2005 to either call the TD, or to play on. However, although the ACBL LC has given in principle support to the contested claim modification, there are serious technical hurdles to be resolved. [I am awaiting with interest David Burn's latest polemic on the claim laws, given that - from David's point of view - Eric Rodwell's suggestion would make the post-2005 claim laws even more nauseating.] Best wishes Richard D R A F T D R A F T D R A F T D R A F T D R A F T MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA, PA MARCH 8, 2003 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chip Martel, Co-Chairman Ralph Cohen, Co-Chairman Karen Allison Ray Raskin Bob Friend Eric Rodwell Ron Gerard John Solodar Dan Morse Roger Stern Jeff Polisner Bobby Wolff ALSO PRESENT: Gary Blaiss Alvin Levy Rich Colker Matt Smith Mike Flader The meeting was called to order at 9:30 A.M by Chip Martel. The minutes of the Phoenix meeting were approved. Ralph Cohen reported on the progress of Laws proposals resulting from World Bridge Federation Laws Revision Subcommittee meetings that were held in Montreal. He stressed that none of the draft laws were intended to be final and that the committee would welcome further input and advice. The balance of the meeting was devoted to discussing letters and suggestions received by the ACBL Laws Commission in response to the draft revisions from the WBF. Roger Stern's letter of February 4, 2003 was considered. Law 42 regarding whether dummy should be permitted to prevent an irregularity by declarer was discussed. No consensus emerged on what the philosophy of this law should be. Serious concerns were raised regarding the phrasing of the revisions to Law 16A. Reservations were expressed that by writing the law to specifically list what is authorized information there is a danger of inadvertently excluding items that the framers may otherwise intend to be authorized. As well, concerns were voiced regarding revisions to 16B and 16C. The desirability of defining "logical alternative" in numerical terms was discussed. Preference was expressed for a law that would allow the sponsoring organization to define the term if it wished but not for a law that itself defined the term as explicitly as does the draft proposal. There was a general consensus that the revisions to Law 16 need to be reexamined. Concern regarding the inclusion of the word "solely" in the draft of Law 23A was discussed. The draft wording of the proposed Law 26B2 insofar as lead penalties not applying if the suit is specified in the "subsequent auction" was discussed. There was some concern that this change from the current "legal auction" phrasing of the current law is not desirable. Finally, a consensus emerged that the wording of the proposed footnote to Law 85B4(c) regarding an appeals committee presuming the correctness of a director's ruling is decidedly too strong. The Commission prefers the current law and opposes a law that binds an appeals committee to any standard for overturning a director's ruling. The Commission believes that this kind of standard is more appropriate for regulation by sponsoring organizations. Eric Rodwell's proposal for changing the claim laws to allow for play to continue after a claim was discussed. The Commission supports in principle such a change even if reservations exist to some of the specifics of the proposal. The Commission also supports the principle that the non-claiming side may decide either to play on or to call the director immediately when a disputed claim occurs. As for the changes in the claim laws in the WBF proposal, the Commission opposes the inclusion of 70C4 and 70C5 mandating the allowable order of cards played after a claim. Two meetings are planned for the Long Beach NABC on the first Friday and Saturday mornings. The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 A.M.= From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Apr 22 09:44:01 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:44:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <001901c307f8$60b73890$05def1c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20030421161555.00a05590@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3EA500D1.20504@skynet.be> Thank you, Eric, Eric Landau wrote: > At 11:45 AM 4/21/03, Todd wrote: > >> My reading comprehension is notoriously poor, judging by how >> often it's knocked here, but I don't remember Grattan saying any >> such thing. His argument, as far as my poor reading skills >> interpret, goes along the lines that a player may ask a question, >> but he's only without risk to a score adjustment when he has a >> valid bridge reason. > > > I think we're in unanimous agreement on that. > > The debate is over what may constitute a "valid bridge reason". Grattan > and others argue for the English view: you have a legitimate reason for > asking only if the answer might affect your next action. Ton, Herman, I > and others argue that attempting to follow the opponents' auction call > by call is by itself a legitimate reason for asking, whether it might > affect your next action or not. > > As Mr. Colker suggests, it seems absurd that holding a worthless hand > should mean that you can't legally find out what your opponents are doing. > Now my point was not that this needs to be resolved. My point was that Grattan was wrong in believing it is up to the individual AC to decide upon this. The individual AC can decide what the reason for the question was: legitimate interest and an action dependent on it, or a general desire to know what opponents are doing. But it is not up to the individual AC to decide whether or not such a general desire is a valid bridge reason in the sense of L73F2. That is up to the WBFLC to decide. And Grattan should not have put that ball into the AC camp. And sorry Ton, I should not have tagged my personal opinion onto that message. It cluttered the issue. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 22 11:43:55 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:43:55 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <002001c3089b$8f50dbe0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <003f01c308bc$16195a60$0a9737d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 6:51 p.m. > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; 'Bridge Laws' > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > Wayne, > > I go along with your 'complaint' that the laws are vague or worse. > > But you seem to consider it normal Not normal but sanctioned by the laws... >to play fast from dummy at > trick one Not fast but in an unvarying tempo... > to > see what effect this has on RHO. No this is not the motive. > And you feel free to use his > tempo and if > you feel mislead you feel entiteled to a TD ruling. If this > is correct we > are not discussing bridge as most of us know it. > > Anyway, if the SO doesn't prescribe a mandatory pause this > doesn't change > the fact that from a dozen other sources ...but not in the laws... > it is clear that > pausing at trick > one as declarer or as RHO is completely normal Maybe locally but not universally. My point is that a player that does not break tempo at trick one should not be penalized and that player may be entitled to redress when his opponent does break tempo - the law makes that clear. >(actually > desired) behaviour > whether or not you have a problem at that point. If the > lawmakers are too > lazy, too stupid or too whatever to cover this clearly in the > laws shame on > them, but this doesn't change reality. > > Another consideration, with this profileration of 'let the SO > decide' rules > nobody can be expected to know to local rules any more. > I agree this is a major problem. I do not favour such regulations. Wayne > Jaap > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "'Bridge Laws'" > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 4:55 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 8:02 a.m. > > > To: Bridge Laws > > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > On 4/17/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > >Perhaps you should read 73E and note that I merely said that the > > > >laws 'speak of unvarying tempo' > > > > > > Perhaps I should. In fact I have. Again. However, your > > > argument in this > > > thread seems to be that it is a violation of law *not* to > > > call and play > > > in "unvarying tempo", including the same tempo at trick one > > > as at every > > > other trick. That is *not* what the law says. And that was my > > > point. :-) > > > > No. > > > > My argument is that: > > > > 1. If you make an undue hesitation then that is your problem; > > > > 2. There is nothing in law that automatically protects a hesitation > > at trick one; > > > > 3. Since the laws specifically allow for regulation of a mandatory > > pause at trick one then the absence of such a regulation suggests > > that any hesitation be judged by the same standards as a > hesitation > > at any other trick. (After all there is no regulation > for trick 5 > > etc.) > > > > It is definitely not necessarily a violation of law not to > call and play > > in unvarying tempo. Just that you may give information or > deceive and > > the opponents will be entitled to redress. > > > > But it is certainly not the case that if you play in unvarying tempo > > that > > you are violating law as was suggested by some posters. > That is the 'in > > tempo' play at trick one was blamed for the opponent's subsequent > > hesitation. > > Bollocks!!! > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Ed > > > > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > > pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE > > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > > > What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is > > called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin > > Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 22 12:38:54 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:38:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <003f01c308bc$16195a60$0a9737d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000d01c308c3$c1137a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> One problem with you Wayne is that you do not listen to all those = sources who report that in their environments the reference tempo to be used = when determining "break of tempo" for trick one is different from the = reference tempo for all the other tricks. And it appears to me that the sources informing that they "normally" have their pause during trick one far outnumbers those who do not.=20 It is quite true that the laws do not mention trick one especially = except that Law 73A2 mentions a variety of situations where SO may require mandatory pauses, but even when no such requirement exists the = hesitation (or haste) itself does not break any law unless there is reason to = suspect a communication of unauthorized information or an attempt of illegal deception. Thus, in environments where a pause for planning the game is "normal" = during trick one a play to that trick in the (faster) tempo "normal" for later tricks is as much a "break of tempo" as would be huge hesitation at any other time. This includes the declarer who for whatever reason plays "immediately" to trick one (i.e. in the same tempo he would normally use = in later tricks) with the result that RHO could be deprived of his expected time to plan his play.=20 The consequence is that "break of tempo" in trick one must be ruled by comparing to what is "normal" for the involved players when they play to trick one, not by what is "normal" when they play to other tricks. =20 The laws do not say this explicitly, nor do they say anything explicitly against it, but as the intention (as explained in the commentaries) is = to avoid communication of unauthorized information including illegal = deception it must be the deviation from what is normal for the actual situation = that is important. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Wayne Burrows > Sent: 22. april 2003 12:44 > To: 'Jaap van der Neut'; 'Bridge Laws' > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws >=20 >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 6:51 p.m. > > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; 'Bridge Laws' > > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > I go along with your 'complaint' that the laws are vague or worse. > > > > But you seem to consider it normal >=20 > Not normal but sanctioned by the laws... >=20 > >to play fast from dummy at > > trick one >=20 > Not fast but in an unvarying tempo... >=20 > > to > > see what effect this has on RHO. >=20 > No this is not the motive. >=20 > > And you feel free to use his > > tempo and if > > you feel mislead you feel entiteled to a TD ruling. If this > > is correct we > > are not discussing bridge as most of us know it. > > > > Anyway, if the SO doesn't prescribe a mandatory pause this > > doesn't change > > the fact that from a dozen other sources >=20 > ...but not in the laws... >=20 > > it is clear that > > pausing at trick > > one as declarer or as RHO is completely normal >=20 > Maybe locally but not universally. >=20 > My point is that a player that does not break tempo at trick one > should not be penalized and that player may be entitled to redress > when his opponent does break tempo - the law makes that clear. >=20 > >(actually > > desired) behaviour > > whether or not you have a problem at that point. If the > > lawmakers are too > > lazy, too stupid or too whatever to cover this clearly in the > > laws shame on > > them, but this doesn't change reality. > > > > Another consideration, with this profileration of 'let the SO > > decide' rules > > nobody can be expected to know to local rules any more. > > >=20 > I agree this is a major problem. I do not favour such regulations. >=20 > Wayne >=20 > > Jaap > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > To: "'Bridge Laws'" > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 4:55 AM > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 8:02 a.m. > > > > To: Bridge Laws > > > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/17/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > > >Perhaps you should read 73E and note that I merely said that = the > > > > >laws 'speak of unvarying tempo' > > > > > > > > Perhaps I should. In fact I have. Again. However, your > > > > argument in this > > > > thread seems to be that it is a violation of law *not* to > > > > call and play > > > > in "unvarying tempo", including the same tempo at trick one > > > > as at every > > > > other trick. That is *not* what the law says. And that was my > > > > point. :-) > > > > > > No. > > > > > > My argument is that: > > > > > > 1. If you make an undue hesitation then that is your problem; > > > > > > 2. There is nothing in law that automatically protects a = hesitation > > > at trick one; > > > > > > 3. Since the laws specifically allow for regulation of a mandatory > > > pause at trick one then the absence of such a regulation = suggests > > > that any hesitation be judged by the same standards as a > > hesitation > > > at any other trick. (After all there is no regulation > > for trick 5 > > > etc.) > > > > > > It is definitely not necessarily a violation of law not to > > call and play > > > in unvarying tempo. Just that you may give information or > > deceive and > > > the opponents will be entitled to redress. > > > > > > But it is certainly not the case that if you play in unvarying = tempo > > > that > > > you are violating law as was suggested by some posters. > > That is the 'in > > > tempo' play at trick one was blamed for the opponent's subsequent > > > hesitation. > > > Bollocks!!! > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > > > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > > > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > > > pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE > > > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > > > > > What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is > > > called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin > > > Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Apr 22 12:34:37 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:34:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <003f01c308bc$16195a60$0a9737d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001201c308c3$2fda81c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Wayne, Thanks for the answer. There remain some details: > My point is that a player that does not break tempo at trick one > should not be penalized and that player may be entitled to redress > when his opponent does break tempo - the law makes that clear. Nobody is going to penalize a quick declarer although you risk some remarks about bad education and such in certain circles. But I am not going to give any redress about RHO tempo because pausing at this moment (declarer didn't at trick one) is not consider as breaking tempo by me (not relevant) and almost anybody else (quite relevant). But whether or not this can be supported by twisting the current laws is a question a prefer to leave to the law twisting experts. > > > to see what effect this has on RHO. > No this is not the motive. Well maybe not your motive but it is the motive for lots of fast 'please small' players and the only rationale. You need some upside to compensate for the downside that you will go wrong from time to time playing (too) quickly. Anyway motive or not, playing fast has the effect to put pressure on RHO. Your logic requires RHO 'to tell' you whether or not he can defer his defensive planning or not at this moment. Whatever is wrong with the laws, a lot and then some, this is not the intention of the law according to me and almost anybody else. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "'Bridge Laws'" Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 12:43 PM Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 6:51 p.m. > > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; 'Bridge Laws' > > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > I go along with your 'complaint' that the laws are vague or worse. > > > > But you seem to consider it normal > > Not normal but sanctioned by the laws... > > >to play fast from dummy at > > trick one > > Not fast but in an unvarying tempo... > > > to > > see what effect this has on RHO. > > No this is not the motive. > > > And you feel free to use his > > tempo and if > > you feel mislead you feel entiteled to a TD ruling. If this > > is correct we > > are not discussing bridge as most of us know it. > > > > Anyway, if the SO doesn't prescribe a mandatory pause this > > doesn't change > > the fact that from a dozen other sources > > ...but not in the laws... > > > it is clear that > > pausing at trick > > one as declarer or as RHO is completely normal > > Maybe locally but not universally. > > My point is that a player that does not break tempo at trick one > should not be penalized and that player may be entitled to redress > when his opponent does break tempo - the law makes that clear. > > >(actually > > desired) behaviour > > whether or not you have a problem at that point. If the > > lawmakers are too > > lazy, too stupid or too whatever to cover this clearly in the > > laws shame on > > them, but this doesn't change reality. > > > > Another consideration, with this profileration of 'let the SO > > decide' rules > > nobody can be expected to know to local rules any more. > > > > I agree this is a major problem. I do not favour such regulations. > > Wayne > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > To: "'Bridge Laws'" > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 4:55 AM > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 8:02 a.m. > > > > To: Bridge Laws > > > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/17/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > > >Perhaps you should read 73E and note that I merely said that the > > > > >laws 'speak of unvarying tempo' > > > > > > > > Perhaps I should. In fact I have. Again. However, your > > > > argument in this > > > > thread seems to be that it is a violation of law *not* to > > > > call and play > > > > in "unvarying tempo", including the same tempo at trick one > > > > as at every > > > > other trick. That is *not* what the law says. And that was my > > > > point. :-) > > > > > > No. > > > > > > My argument is that: > > > > > > 1. If you make an undue hesitation then that is your problem; > > > > > > 2. There is nothing in law that automatically protects a hesitation > > > at trick one; > > > > > > 3. Since the laws specifically allow for regulation of a mandatory > > > pause at trick one then the absence of such a regulation suggests > > > that any hesitation be judged by the same standards as a > > hesitation > > > at any other trick. (After all there is no regulation > > for trick 5 > > > etc.) > > > > > > It is definitely not necessarily a violation of law not to > > call and play > > > in unvarying tempo. Just that you may give information or > > deceive and > > > the opponents will be entitled to redress. > > > > > > But it is certainly not the case that if you play in unvarying tempo > > > that > > > you are violating law as was suggested by some posters. > > That is the 'in > > > tempo' play at trick one was blamed for the opponent's subsequent > > > hesitation. > > > Bollocks!!! > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > > > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > > > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > > > pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE > > > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > > > > > What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is > > > called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin > > > Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 gester@lineone.net Tue Apr 22 11:52:27 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:52:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <000901c3089c$a3aa8e50$3656e150@endicott> <003801c3089c$c863a600$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <003e01c308c4$9e65f4c0$381e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > > So please respond to my previous e-mail > (and a couple of others) without dodging > behind all kind of authorities or Ton being > out of bounds or whatever. For the moment > Herman is right, you are trying to wriggle > out of an argument. > +=+ I have merely defended the right of the WBF Appeals Committee (standing) to decide that a question asked without interest in the answer is in principle an action without demonstrable bridge reason. What I have said on the matter is there for all to read. I have no inclination to pursue it. Someone pointed to the 'could have known' element which comes into judgements in individual 73F2 cases. True. My failing to quote it was not to deny it; my concentration was on the main point of principle that I have been addressing. On the subject of committee boundaries, the Laws Committee "shall interpret the Laws"; it does not apply them, this being the prerogative of the Appeals Committee as "a judicial body to rule on protests and appeals from the decisions of other contest authorities" (of the WBF or otherwise). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Tue Apr 22 12:26:53 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:26:53 +0100 Subject: Render unto Caesar - was Re: [blml] treatment of questions References: <001901c307f8$60b73890$05def1c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20030421161555.00a05590@pop.starpower.net> <3EA500D1.20504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003f01c308c4$9f2f5f40$381e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > > Now my point was not that this needs to be resolved. > My point was that Grattan was wrong in believing it > is up to the individual AC to decide upon this. The > individual AC can decide what the reason for the > question was:legitimate interest and an action dependent > on it, or a general desire to know what opponents are > doing. But it is not up to the individual AC to decide > whether or not such a general desire is a valid bridge > reason in the sense of L73F2. That is up to the WBFLC > to decide. And Grattan should not have put that ball into > the AC camp. > +=+ As I have said repeatedly it is a bridge judgement. Bridge judgements are not the coin of the WBFLC but of the standing WBF Appeals Committee*. On the subject of committee boundaries, the Laws Committee "shall interpret the Laws"; it does not apply them, this being the prerogative of the Appeals Committee as 'a judicial body to rule on protests and appeals from the decisions of other contest authorities' (of the WBF or otherwise).. ~ Grattan ~ *For the record: Robert S. Wolff (President); Jens Auken (Vice Chairman), Joan Gerard (Vice Chairman), John Wignall (Vice Chairman), Jaime Ortiz-Patino (Chairman Emeritus), Jean-Claude Beineix, Naki Bruni, Jose Damiani, Grattan Endicott, Mazhar Jafri, Alan LeBendig, Jim Kirkham, Jean-Paul Meyer, Dan Morse, Steen Moller, Barbara Nudelman, Ernesto d'Orsi. +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Apr 22 13:05:04 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:05:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: <5884186.1051013104108.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Japp wrote: >But I am not going to give any redress about RHO tempo because pausing at this moment (declarer didn't at trick one) is not consider as breaking tempo by me (not relevant) and almost anybody else (quite relevant). But whether or not this can be supported by twisting the current laws is a question a prefer to leave to the law twisting experts. There is no question of "twisting" the laws. The laws are quite clear. At no time (including trick one) should a player so act as to convey extraneous information to partner, nor should he so act as to deceive an opponent other than by a call or play. If a player does the former, and it is considered that his partner has acted on the information, redress may be due. If a player does the latter, and it is considered that an opponent has drawn a false inference, redress may be due. No amount of "regulation" can alter the fact that if a player plays slowly to trick one when this is not his invariable practice, extraneous information may be conveyed or a false inference created. The same is true of a player who plays quickly to trick one when this is not his invariable practice. Despite the protestations of some contributors, there is no difference between trick one and any other point in the auction or play as far as Law 16 and Law 73 are concerned. Regulation to the effect that the first two plays to trick one shall be made after a pause of specified duration would go some way to resolving the issue. But such regulation is nowhere implied by the laws. "Regulation" to the effect that all pauses at trick one should be regarded as "information free" is deeply misguided (which is why we have it in England). David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Apr 22 13:39:20 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:39:20 +0200 Subject: Render unto Caesar - was Re: [blml] treatment of questions References: <001901c307f8$60b73890$05def1c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20030421161555.00a05590@pop.starpower.net> <3EA500D1.20504@skynet.be> <003f01c308c4$9f2f5f40$381e2850@pacific> Message-ID: <3EA537F8.9020407@skynet.be> No Grattan, it is not. gester@lineone.net wrote: >> > +=+ As I have said repeatedly it is a bridge judgement. No it is not. It starts as one, true, but then it goes on as an interpretation. The AC can rule that the player had as sole reason for asking the question "keeping up with what opponents are doing without immediate interest in bidding". But I don't believe it is up to the AC to decide whether or not such a reason is a "demonstrable bridge reason". I don't know who has to decide on this if you say that the WBFLC is not the correct organ to decide upon this issue. > Bridge judgements are not the coin of the WBFLC but > of the standing WBF Appeals Committee*. > On the subject of committee boundaries, > the Laws Committee "shall interpret the Laws"; > it does not apply them, this being the prerogative > of the Appeals Committee as 'a judicial body to > rule on protests and appeals from the decisions > of other contest authorities' (of the WBF or > otherwise).. > ~ Grattan ~ > > *For the record: Robert S. Wolff (President); > Jens Auken (Vice Chairman), Joan Gerard (Vice Chairman), > John Wignall (Vice Chairman), Jaime Ortiz-Patino (Chairman > Emeritus), Jean-Claude Beineix, Naki Bruni, Jose > Damiani, Grattan Endicott, Mazhar Jafri, Alan LeBendig, > Jim Kirkham, Jean-Paul Meyer, Dan Morse, Steen > Moller, Barbara Nudelman, Ernesto d'Orsi. +=+ > > > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 22 14:19:47 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:19:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] What a claim! In-Reply-To: <3EA10B77.40109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422151820.02689b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:40 19/04/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >6NT: > >dummy : KQ4 95 T65 AQT53 >opps: >T853 832 J87 762 / J62 JT74 K932 K8 >decl : A97 AKQ6 AQ4 J94 > >Spade lead, taken in hand. Club jack run, to the king. >Claim : "12 top tricks". > >The most difficult part of the ruling is to find the normal line that does >NOT lead to 12 tricks. > >Can you find one? (a _normal_ line, David) AG : opponent returns a spade ; you cash your 4 top tricks in the reds. Seems to be covered by the definition of 'normal'. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 22 14:40:14 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:40:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: [Flags] Re: Flag-icons for languages In-Reply-To: <3EA38704.8060805@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030419142714.00a0dd00@shawmail> <5.1.0.14.2.20030420140048.016c0868@ficcao.online.pt> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422153830.0268c2d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:52 21/04/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jorge Candeias wrote: >(about Mozambique) > >>1994). It is not even the only country not speaking english in the >>Commonwealth. > > >Yes it is, if by "speaking English" you interpret that English is one of >the languages in common use. >Another country that joined around the same date is Cameroon, of which a >(small) part used to be a British protectorate. >Of course most countries in the Commonwealth have languages other than >English. I'm even trying to find a country where no other languages are >spoken, and the best I can come up with is Gibraltar. AG : try Isle of Man. The Manx language is now extinct, alas. And IOM is considered a country within a Commonwealth setting (eg Commowealth Games) From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 22 14:46:15 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:46:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <002001c3089b$8f50dbe0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <003101c3087a$9d69e120$0a9737d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422154304.0268ecf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:51 22/04/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Wayne, > >I go along with your 'complaint' that the laws are vague or worse. > >But you seem to consider it normal to play fast from dummy at trick one to >see what effect this has on RHO. And you feel free to use his tempo and if >you feel mislead you feel entiteled to a TD ruling. If this is correct we >are not discussing bridge as most of us know it. > >Anyway, if the SO doesn't prescribe a mandatory pause this doesn't change >the fact that from a dozen other sources it is clear that pausing at trick >one as declarer or as RHO is completely normal (actually desired) behaviour >whether or not you have a problem at that point. If the lawmakers are too >lazy, too stupid or too whatever to cover this clearly in the laws shame on >them, but this doesn't change reality. AG : I'd guess they found it too obvious, since even books for beginners mention it explicitly. Well, once again, what goes without saying should better be said. Nevertheless, I share Jaap's position that the relative silence of the Lawmakers about the fairness of a pause at trick one means that they didn't care to mention it, not that they disapproved with the idea. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Apr 22 14:34:55 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:34:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] What a claim! References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422151820.02689b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3EA544FF.3080801@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 10:40 19/04/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> 6NT: >> >> dummy : KQ4 95 T65 AQT53 >> opps: >> T853 832 J87 762 / J62 JT74 K932 K8 >> decl : A97 AKQ6 AQ4 J94 >> >> Spade lead, taken in hand. Club jack run, to the king. >> Claim : "12 top tricks". >> >> The most difficult part of the ruling is to find the normal line that >> does NOT lead to 12 tricks. >> >> Can you find one? (a _normal_ line, David) > > > AG : opponent returns a spade ; you cash your 4 top tricks in the reds. > Seems to be covered by the definition of 'normal'. > Not really. I prefer the one with the diamond return. Taking the ace without thinking looks like "careless" to me. But cashing top tricks randomly without recounting them doesn't. After all, claimer did count his tricks (clumsily), but he did not yet determine the order in which he would play them off. I find it quite within the bounds of normality to claim after counting tricks, but before actually working out the blockage issues. Thus, if opponent returns a spade, this will be taken on the table (ace in hand was taken in the first trick), after which claimer should work out his strategy. I might well rule that he would recognise the problem, and find that there is only one solution (or two, both of which require the DK to be to the right). So no, I don't buy that one as a normal line. But the cashing of the DA when opponent returns a diamond, yes. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 22 14:52:50 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:52:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <001201c308c3$2fda81c0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <003f01c308bc$16195a60$0a9737d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422154651.0268eec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:34 22/04/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Wayne, > >Thanks for the answer. There remain some details: > > > My point is that a player that does not break tempo at trick one > > should not be penalized and that player may be entitled to redress > > when his opponent does break tempo - the law makes that clear. > >Nobody is going to penalize a quick declarer although you risk some remarks >about bad education and such in certain circles. AG : then one may be penalized (L74A). >But I am not going to give >any redress about RHO tempo because pausing at this moment (declarer didn't >at trick one) is not consider as breaking tempo by me (not relevant) and >almost anybody else (quite relevant). But whether or not this can be >supported by twisting the current laws is a question a prefer to leave to >the law twisting experts. AG : perhaps the fact that fast play from dummy at trick one creates problems that can only be solved wy law twisting experts is a reason to disallow it. And there is another nitpicking to be done : the players that think for a while at trick one aren't the same who think for a while thereafter. Thus, a player's generally quick tempo may not be used as proof that he has broken tempo at trick one. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 22 14:54:54 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:54:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030417104007.00ac62d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422155349.02684400@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:10 21/04/2003 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 4/17/03, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >Nah, perhaps we'd better consider it AI, if only to make things easier. > >Oh, goody. "It's too hard to figure out if I should rule in favor of the >NOS, so I'll rule in favor of the OS." That's just *great*. :( AG : not on a case per case basis. But perhaps (only perhaps) we could *for once* devise a Law that make things *less* complicated. From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Apr 22 13:55:04 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:55:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: > > There is no question of "twisting" the laws. The laws are > quite clear. hear, hear At no time (including trick one) should a player > so act as to convey extraneous information to partner, as far as I understand the laws, not knowing much about interpretations made in the EBU, the laws do not say so nor > should he so act as to deceive an opponent other than by a > call or play. this is nowhere in the laws either. If a player does the former, and it is > considered that his partner has acted on the information, > redress may be due. this is also in my lawbook, with more considerations but ok for this purpose. The infraction comes from partner then. If a player does the latter, and it is > considered that an opponent has drawn a false inference, > redress may be due. this certainly needs more words, though with 'may be' you approach Grattanian truth. But the conditions 'no bridgetechnical reason' and 'could have known this to work to his benefit' are crucial. > > No amount of "regulation" can alter the fact that if a player > plays slowly to trick one when this is not his invariable > practice, extraneous information may be conveyed or a false > inference created. The same is true of a player who plays > quickly to trick one when this is not his invariable > practice. Despite the protestations of some contributors, > there is no difference between trick one and any other point > in the auction or play as far as Law 16 and Law 73 are concerned. Not when you don't touch the real problems and stick to phrases. But in practise AC's should be more lenient to pauses in the first trick than to pauses thereafter. ton > David Burn > London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 22 15:01:23 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:01:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: <200304212033.QAA09120@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422155817.0268ba90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:33 21/04/2003 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Ed Reppert > > Oh, goody. "It's too hard to figure out if I should rule in favor of the > > NOS, so I'll rule in favor of the OS." That's just *great*. :( > >I think the proposal was to change the Laws, not to rule wrong under >the current ones. Although no doubt some directors do.... AG : it was. It is a widespread disease on blml : to do everyhing is reasonable (or not) to understand another's contribution backwards, so that one can position oneself "against" :-/ Perhaps we should all vow to try and avoid this attitude. >What about six options: the classic five, except everything is AI to >everyone, and add a sixth: pick up the card, it is UI to partner, >correct leader leads? (This is the 1987 Laws plus option six plus >L72B1.) AG : the principle is fine. But It'll tend to create more problems, especially as we will now have to explain in length what UI is. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Apr 22 14:49:06 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:49:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Director's ethics Message-ID: <3EA54852.1060000@skynet.be> Yesterday the following happened: I'm directing and walking around the room when a dummy leaves the table and I sit down to play the cards. Near the end, declarer claims with the statement "I throw the H2 on the CJ". Nonthing particularly wrong with that statement, except that declarer also still held the C7. What should I have done? First of all, I am not the director there. I'm just a spectator. Of course, once either defender makes a remark, I can consider myself being called and rule on what I have seen with my own eyes. Secondly, it seems like I need to let the rules run their course, and I won't interfere before the deadline, which we know is the first call by non-offenders on the next board. But what should I do then? I think we should read the proprieties. I don't believe L72A2 is of application. To all intents and purposes, the claim which has been acquiesced to makes it a "won trick". L72B3 is of application. If the player subsequently discovers his claim was inadvertently faulty, he is under no obligation to call the TD. L72B4 is not being broken. The player showed all his cards, and he even admitted later on that he originally had 3 clubs (not even that was enough for opponents to discover that they had given away a trick). So I let him decide for himself. I took him away from the table after the next board and told him what had happened. He returned to the table and told his opponents to change the score from 2 down to 3 down. I'm quite certain not all of you will agree that I did the right thing. Just to be completely honest: if he had not changed the score, I would not have done so either, and I believe he had understood that I would not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 22 15:09:33 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:09:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422160311.0268d140@pop.ulb.ac.be> Perhaps I should further explain what I find wrong with the *there is still UI* principle after a LOOT. You overcalled 1S on KQxxx and whatever else you happen to hold. Partner leads the SA OOT against their suit contract. Declarer summons the TD, hears about the possibilities and decides that the card will remain penalized. Now, you have a perfectly normal spade lead, you would surely have done it absent the LOOT, but you can't make it ; for either you lead the normal SK and clash the honors, or you lead a small card and are penalized for use of UI (of course, the King was a LA). 'The purpose of the laws is to restore equity' I think that the principle that 'if the OOT card remains penalized, it is still UI' fails to achieve this goal. Best regards, Alain. From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Apr 22 14:57:33 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:57:33 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] What a claim! Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC9515E3@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 10:40 19/04/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >=20 >> 6NT: >> >> dummy : KQ4 95 T65 AQT53 >> opps: >> T853 832 J87 762 / J62 JT74 K932 K8 >> decl : A97 AKQ6 AQ4 J94 >> >> Spade lead, taken in hand. Club jack run, to the king. >> Claim : "12 top tricks". >> >> The most difficult part of the ruling is to find the normal line that=20 >> does NOT lead to 12 tricks. >> >> Can you find one? (a _normal_ line, David) >=20 >=20 > AG : opponent returns a spade ; you cash your 4 top tricks in the reds.= > Seems to be covered by the definition of 'normal'. >=20 Not really. I prefer the one with the diamond return. Taking the ace=20 without thinking looks like "careless" to me. But cashing top tricks=20 randomly without recounting them doesn't. After all, claimer did count=20 his tricks (clumsily), but he did not yet determine the order in which=20 he would play them off. I find it quite within the bounds of normality to claim after counting=20 tricks, but before actually working out the blockage issues. Thus, if opponent returns a spade, this will be taken on the table=20 (ace in hand was taken in the first trick), after which claimer should=20 work out his strategy. I might well rule that he would recognise the=20 problem, and find that there is only one solution (or two, both of=20 which require the DK to be to the right). So no, I don't buy that one as a normal line. But the cashing of the DA when opponent returns a diamond, yes. ---- Herman, you turn the laws upside down here. When declarer believes he's got twelve tricks on top, it's not irrational to cash these top tricks in whate= ver order. In the mentioned example, it's just as normal to cash the red suits = first as cashing the clubs first. If you don't understand the word irrational, then you have a problem. I don't know a single TD who wouldn't rule one down an this hand. Regards, Harald, Oslo ---- --=20 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 ********************************************************************** 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Apr 22 14:56:37 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:56:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: <6719005.1051019797759.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Ton wrote: >At no time (including trick one) should a player so act as to convey extraneous information to partner >as far as I understand the laws, not knowing much about interpretations made in the EBU, the laws do not say so What does this mean, Ton? "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves." "Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste." "Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them." >nor should he so act as to deceive an opponent other than by a call or play. >this is nowhere in the laws either. "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made." Now, if you are not allowed to hesitate before playing a singleton, you are not allowed to hesitate before playing a singleton to trick one. What "everybody knows" and what "everybody does" are not part of the laws. If "everybody" breaks the laws, that just means that everybody is acting illegally, not that the laws are other than they are. >But the conditions 'no bridge technical reason' and 'could have known this to work to his benefit' are crucial. Not really. Anyone could know anything - those words are meaningless for the most part. Nobody knows what a "demonstrable bridge reason" is - those words may mean something, but since the WBFLC will not tell us what it is, we are reduced to the usual guessing game. >But in practise AC's should be more lenient to pauses in the first trick than to pauses thereafter. In practice, ACs should follow the laws. The laws say nothing about leniency at the first trick. Unless there is a regulation that does say something about leniency at the first trick, ACs should make no allowance for it whatever. It should be said, lest people think otherwise, that I would approve of a regulation to the effect that both declarer and third hand must pause before playing to the first trick. Indeed, I would approve of a regulation to the effect that declarer may not play from dummy until third hand has indicated that he is ready for play to proceed. Such a regulation is authorised by law. But where it does not exist, then ACs should not blindly proceed as if it did. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 22 15:14:45 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:14:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] What a claim! In-Reply-To: <3EA544FF.3080801@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422151820.02689b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422161116.00acb2e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:34 22/04/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>At 10:40 19/04/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>>6NT: >>> >>>dummy : KQ4 95 T65 AQT53 >>>opps: >>>T853 832 J87 762 / J62 JT74 K932 K8 >>>decl : A97 AKQ6 AQ4 J94 >>> >>>Spade lead, taken in hand. Club jack run, to the king. >>>Claim : "12 top tricks". >>> >>>The most difficult part of the ruling is to find the normal line that >>>does NOT lead to 12 tricks. >>> >>>Can you find one? (a _normal_ line, David) >> >>AG : opponent returns a spade ; you cash your 4 top tricks in the reds. >>Seems to be covered by the definition of 'normal'. > > >Not really. I prefer the one with the diamond return. Taking the ace >without thinking looks like "careless" to me. But cashing top tricks >randomly without recounting them doesn't. AG : IMOBO it is exactly what "careless" means. If declarer thinks he has his top tricks, he also thinks that the order may be random. > After all, claimer did count his tricks (clumsily), but he did not yet > determine the order in which he would play them off. AG : in claiming without other information, he admitted that it could be any order. Why should he now think the opposite ? *This* would be irrational. From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Apr 22 15:06:27 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:06:27 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Director's ethics Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC9515E5@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Yesterday the following happened: I'm directing and walking around the room when a dummy leaves the=20 table and I sit down to play the cards. Near the end, declarer claims with the statement "I throw the H2 on=20 the CJ". Nonthing particularly wrong with that statement, except that declarer=20 also still held the C7. What should I have done? First of all, I am not the director there. I'm just a spectator. Of=20 course, once either defender makes a remark, I can consider myself=20 being called and rule on what I have seen with my own eyes. Secondly, it seems like I need to let the rules run their course, and=20 I won't interfere before the deadline, which we know is the first call=20 by non-offenders on the next board. But what should I do then? I think we should read the proprieties. I don't believe L72A2 is of application. To all intents and purposes,=20 the claim which has been acquiesced to makes it a "won trick". L72B3 is of application. If the player subsequently discovers his=20 claim was inadvertently faulty, he is under no obligation to call the=20 TD. L72B4 is not being broken. The player showed all his cards, and he=20 even admitted later on that he originally had 3 clubs (not even that=20 was enough for opponents to discover that they had given away a trick). So I let him decide for himself. I took him away from the table after the next board and told him what=20 had happened. He returned to the table and told his opponents to=20 change the score from 2 down to 3 down. I'm quite certain not all of you will agree that I did the right thing. Just to be completely honest: if he had not changed the score, I would=20 not have done so either, and I believe he had understood that I would not. ----- I believe the approved interpretation of Law 81C6 is that you should in fact correct the score wether or not any of the players become aware of the erro= r. Regards, Harald, Oslo ----- --=20 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 ********************************************************************** 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 Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Tue Apr 22 15:16:17 2003 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:16:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Director's ethics Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040463C7@hotel.npl.co.uk> Herman "I'm direction and ... " "First of all, I am not the director there. I'm just a spectator." Were you a director or a spectator? Do you mean your are not (normally) a director at the club/event/venue, or that you are not a director when you sit down to play dummy. If you were a TD at the event (appointed by SO or TD i/c) then you are always more than a spectator. Law 81C6 applies and you should "rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner". If you were just a spectator, law 76B applies and you "may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake". This is not fair on tables where the director becomes aware of errors because they are watching play or playing dummy. So the director should not do those things. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@skynet.be] Sent: 22 April 2003 14:49 To: blml Subject: [blml] Director's ethics Yesterday the following happened: I'm directing and walking around the room when a dummy leaves the table and I sit down to play the cards. Near the end, declarer claims with the statement "I throw the H2 on the CJ". Nonthing particularly wrong with that statement, except that declarer also still held the C7. What should I have done? First of all, I am not the director there. I'm just a spectator. Of course, once either defender makes a remark, I can consider myself being called and rule on what I have seen with my own eyes. Secondly, it seems like I need to let the rules run their course, and I won't interfere before the deadline, which we know is the first call by non-offenders on the next board. But what should I do then? I think we should read the proprieties. I don't believe L72A2 is of application. To all intents and purposes, the claim which has been acquiesced to makes it a "won trick". L72B3 is of application. If the player subsequently discovers his claim was inadvertently faulty, he is under no obligation to call the TD. L72B4 is not being broken. The player showed all his cards, and he even admitted later on that he originally had 3 clubs (not even that was enough for opponents to discover that they had given away a trick). So I let him decide for himself. I took him away from the table after the next board and told him what had happened. He returned to the table and told his opponents to change the score from 2 down to 3 down. I'm quite certain not all of you will agree that I did the right thing. Just to be completely honest: if he had not changed the score, I would not have done so either, and I believe he had understood that I would not. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Apr 22 15:21:08 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:21:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: <000201c30842$ae413a80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven writes: I would like to add just one point to this summary: Whenever I have referred the options available to declarer I ALWAYS ask him (or her) before I let him choose: Have you understood all your options? You would be surprised how often I experience polite-looking players who seem to have, but on my question come up with some remark telling me that they are more or less confused. Most often they need some elaboration on the two main options they must first choose between: Either accept the OLOOT with the two options that gives, or not accept with the three options that gives. And if I can spare the time (non-playing director) I always remain at the table until the situation is completely resolved. If not I at least tell them what to be particularly aware of. _______________________________________________________________________ Yep. Most of the time, I repeat options two or three times....trying to be as clear as possible. Most of the time, players seems to be confused and really do not know what to do. I am not sure speaking of UI is a good idea at this level. When they ask me what to do, my favourite joke is saying: "When I am a TD, I do not know how to play bridge." I then add: "Some of my friends say I do not know more when playing...". Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 22 15:49:00 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:49:00 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Director's ethics In-Reply-To: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC9515E5@nifexch.idrettsforb undet.no> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422163525.02681ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:06 22/04/2003 +0200, Skjaran, Harald wrote: >Yesterday the following happened: > >I'm directing and walking around the room when a dummy leaves the >table and I sit down to play the cards. >Near the end, declarer claims with the statement "I throw the H2 on >the CJ". > >Nonthing particularly wrong with that statement, except that declarer >also still held the C7. > >What should I have done? > >First of all, I am not the director there. I'm just a spectator. Of >course, once either defender makes a remark, I can consider myself >being called and rule on what I have seen with my own eyes. > >Secondly, it seems like I need to let the rules run their course, and >I won't interfere before the deadline, which we know is the first call >by non-offenders on the next board. > >But what should I do then? > >I think we should read the proprieties. >I don't believe L72A2 is of application. To all intents and purposes, >the claim which has been acquiesced to makes it a "won trick". >L72B3 is of application. If the player subsequently discovers his >claim was inadvertently faulty, he is under no obligation to call the >TD. L72B4 is not being broken. The player showed all his cards, and he >even admitted later on that he originally had 3 clubs (not even that >was enough for opponents to discover that they had given away a trick). > >So I let him decide for himself. >I took him away from the table after the next board and told him what >had happened. He returned to the table and told his opponents to >change the score from 2 down to 3 down. > >I'm quite certain not all of you will agree that I did the right thing. > >Just to be completely honest: if he had not changed the score, I would >not have done so either, and I believe he had understood that I would not. >Harald : >I believe the approved interpretation of Law 81C6 is that you should in fact >correct the score wether or not any of the players become aware of the error. AG : I agree with Harald. Consider two situations : 1) Dummy leaves the table, and declarer asks a nondescript kibitzer to act as a substitute dummy. Herman, the TD, hears this and acquiesces. He also sees that declarer's claim is absolutely flawed. He then uses L81C6 and corrects the score. 2) Dummy leaves the table, and declarer asks a kibitzer (Herman) to act as a substitute dummy. Herman acquiesces. The TD, who happens to be the same person, sees that declarer's claim is absolutely flawed. He should use 81C6 and correct the score. Your error, IMONSHO, was to consider the kibitzer and the TD as the same person, while they were more like two different roles by the same actor. I know this situation very well : when, several days before the exams, I acted as an assessor for the elections in a student circle, I heard several of them discuss about one of their exams, and develop wrong ideas about how it would be organized. I felt it my duty to tell them that they were wrong and why. My acting as an assessor didn't change the fact that I was their teacher, too. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Apr 22 15:57:01 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:57:01 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] What a claim! References: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC9515E3@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <3EA5583D.8040704@skynet.be> Skjaran, Harald wrote: > Thus, if opponent returns a spade, this will be taken on the table > (ace in hand was taken in the first trick), after which claimer should > work out his strategy. I might well rule that he would recognise the > problem, and find that there is only one solution (or two, both of > which require the DK to be to the right). > So no, I don't buy that one as a normal line. > > But the cashing of the DA when opponent returns a diamond, yes. > > ---- > Herman, you turn the laws upside down here. When declarer believes he's got > twelve tricks on top, it's not irrational to cash these top tricks in whatever > order. In the mentioned example, it's just as normal to cash the red suits first > as cashing the clubs first. > > If you don't understand the word irrational, then you have a problem. > > I don't know a single TD who wouldn't rule one down an this hand. > Neither do I, but not for the reason Alain gave. Yes, it is normal for a player to cash suits in any order. But no, it is not normal for a player to start cashing suits without checking if there aren't any that might block. And having checked this, it is usually not normal for the player not to play the suits in a correct order. That much is sufficiently certain to me. The next bit is a bit less certain, but I do believe that it can be considered non-normal to not notice that there are in fact still tricks out. And then to find the only possible solution: the diamond finesse. Which is why I don't agree that a line starting with a spade return can be normal yet end up with only 11 tricks. Now maybe I am going a bit too far here, but it's all academical anyway, since a line exists which leads to 11 tricks. Playing the ace on a diamond return seems perfectly normal to me. Remember the strange claim from Nizhny Novgorod? > > Regards, > Harald, Oslo > ---- > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Tue Apr 22 16:24:36 2003 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:24:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SV: [blml] What a claim! In-Reply-To: from "Herman De Wael" at Apr 22, 2003 04:57:01 PM Message-ID: <200304221524.h3MFOaLB005485@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > From: Herman De Wael > Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:57:01 +0200 > > Skjaran, Harald wrote: > > > Thus, if opponent returns a spade, this will be taken on the table > > (ace in hand was taken in the first trick), after which claimer should > > work out his strategy. I might well rule that he would recognise the > > problem, and find that there is only one solution (or two, both of > > which require the DK to be to the right). > > So no, I don't buy that one as a normal line. > > > > But the cashing of the DA when opponent returns a diamond, yes. > > > > ---- > > Herman, you turn the laws upside down here. When declarer believes he's got > > twelve tricks on top, it's not irrational to cash these top tricks in whatever > > order. In the mentioned example, it's just as normal to cash the red suits first > > as cashing the clubs first. > > > > If you don't understand the word irrational, then you have a problem. > > > > I don't know a single TD who wouldn't rule one down an this hand. > > > > > Neither do I, but not for the reason Alain gave. > > Yes, it is normal for a player to cash suits in any order. > But no, it is not normal for a player to start cashing suits without > checking if there aren't any that might block. > And having checked this, it is usually not normal for the player not > to play the suits in a correct order. > That much is sufficiently certain to me. > The next bit is a bit less certain, but I do believe that it can be > considered non-normal to not notice that there are in fact still > tricks out. And then to find the only possible solution: the diamond > finesse. > > Which is why I don't agree that a line starting with a spade return > can be normal yet end up with only 11 tricks. > Now maybe I am going a bit too far here, but it's all academical > anyway, since a line exists which leads to 11 tricks. Playing the ace > on a diamond return seems perfectly normal to me. > > Remember the strange claim from Nizhny Novgorod? > L70E specifically does not allow a declarer to take or rely on a finesse when a claim has been made. Declarer could easily cash the four club tricks and while the defender in front was pitching spades, could pitch either the fourth heart or D-Qx and not end up with a squeeze. Since declarer is barred from taking a finesse declarer could pitch early and solve defender's situation. Since that is possible, I think down one should be awarded. And I think L70D specifically precludes allowing declarer to cash tricks in the correct order over an incorrect order. I think that the alternative normal line of play is to cash the tricks in the least favorable order and I think L70A justifies this. So there are several ways to cash tricks so that declarer ends up with 11 tricks without taking any finesses or playing tricks in the right order to get the red suit squeeze. Hence, I think that L70 rules that declarer does not cash in the right order and goes down. -Ted. From ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Tue Apr 22 16:27:54 2003 From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:27:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SV: [blml] What a claim! Message-ID: <200304221527.h3MFRs613486@freenet10.carleton.ca> > > >Neither do I, but not for the reason Alain gave. > >Yes, it is normal for a player to cash suits in any order. >But no, it is not normal for a player to start cashing suits without >checking if there aren't any that might block. I would think "start cashing suits without checking if there aren't any that might block" would fall squarely under careless, not irrational. Tony (aka ac342) From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Apr 22 18:09:16 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:09:16 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] What a claim! References: <200304221524.h3MFOaLB005485@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: <3EA5773C.6030302@skynet.be> I am no longer commenting on the main case here, just on something Ted said which is completely wrong: Ted Ying wrote: > > L70E specifically does not allow a declarer to take or rely on a > finesse when a claim has been made. Declarer could easily cash Sorry, L70E says no such thing. If there is only one normal line, then that line shall be followed, even if it contains a finesse. It is only when the alternative line (say the drop) is also normal, that a claimer shall not be allowed to finesse. And when the alternative normal line happens to work, the claimer shall even be forced to take the losing finesse! > the four club tricks and while the defender in front was pitching > spades, could pitch either the fourth heart or D-Qx and not end > up with a squeeze. Since declarer is barred from taking a finesse > declarer could pitch early and solve defender's situation. Since > that is possible, I think down one should be awarded. > I think you are going far too far. Since the DA could well be played on the very next trick, 1 down is the right ruling. > And I think L70D specifically precludes allowing declarer to cash > tricks in the correct order over an incorrect order. I think that > the alternative normal line of play is to cash the tricks in the > least favorable order and I think L70A justifies this. So there Again, no. With AKQ xxxx opp Jxxx AKQ the two lines are not both normal. > are several ways to cash tricks so that declarer ends up with 11 > tricks without taking any finesses or playing tricks in the right > order to get the red suit squeeze. Hence, I think that L70 rules > that declarer does not cash in the right order and goes down. > > -Ted. correct ruling for all the wrong reasons. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Apr 22 18:13:02 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:13:02 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] What a claim! References: <200304221527.h3MFRs613486@freenet10.carleton.ca> Message-ID: <3EA5781E.4040500@skynet.be> I think we disagree here. A. L. Edwards wrote: >> >>Neither do I, but not for the reason Alain gave. >> >>Yes, it is normal for a player to cash suits in any order. >>But no, it is not normal for a player to start cashing suits without >>checking if there aren't any that might block. >> > > I would think "start cashing suits without checking if there aren't > any that might block" would fall squarely under careless, not irrational. > Tony (aka ac342) > I think a player that starts playing without making a plan is acting irrationally. If he has already made his plan (and told us what it was in the claim statement) then to act on it without reconsidering is normal. But when a part of the plan has not yet been made (I believe I have 12 top tricks) then to not plan before playing is IMHO, irrational. As to the carelesness or irrationality of the finding of the correct solution, that is a problem that depends on the difficulty of the hands. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Apr 22 18:16:37 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:16:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Director's ethics References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040463C7@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <3EA578F5.5040806@skynet.be> Robin Barker wrote: > Herman > > "I'm direction and ... " > "First of all, I am not the director there. I'm just a spectator." > > Were you a director or a spectator? > I was the director at the event. I was considering myself a spectator at the table. > Do you mean your are not (normally) a director at the club/event/venue, > or that you are not a director when you sit down to play dummy. > > If you were a TD at the event (appointed by SO or TD i/c) then you are > always more than a spectator. Law 81C6 applies and you should "rectify > > an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner". > Yes, I know what the lawbook says, but: > If you were just a spectator, law 76B applies and you "may not call > attention to any irregularity or mistake". > > This is not fair on tables where the director becomes aware of errors > because they are watching play or playing dummy. So the director should > > not do those things. > Indeed - and deprive himself of a little distraction? I prefer to consider myself as a spectator for the duration. Or I'll be sent from any table I wish to sit at. And I really don't sit at tables all that much. But a friendly swiss teams in rural West Flanders (and I was sitting at a bottom table at that - with lots of female players, usually - if not in this particular case). > Robin > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From HarrisR@missouri.edu Tue Apr 22 19:55:02 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:55:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422160311.0268d140@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422160311.0268d140@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >Perhaps I should further explain what I find wrong with the *there >is still UI* principle after a LOOT. > >You overcalled 1S on KQxxx and whatever else you happen to hold. >Partner leads the SA OOT against their suit contract. >Declarer summons the TD, hears about the possibilities and decides >that the card will remain penalized. >Now, you have a perfectly normal spade lead, you would surely have >done it absent the LOOT, but you can't make it ; for either you lead >the normal SK and clash the honors, or you lead a small card and are >penalized for use of UI (of course, the King was a LA). > >'The purpose of the laws is to restore equity' >I think that the principle that 'if the OOT card remains penalized, >it is still UI' fails to achieve this goal. > >Best regards, > > Alain. This is almost impossible to explain and enforce at the club level. The average player knows that a card in plain sight is known to him. Any other view is crazy. The idea that a card once exposed is unknown after it has been picked up is also nuts. Laws that seem to contradict common sense are really hard to apply at the club level. If the players decide the Director is a looney, they will either stop coming to play or they will simply refuse to call the Director for rulings and hash things out for themselves. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Apr 22 20:41:10 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:41:10 +0200 Subject: Render unto Caesar - was Re: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: <3EA537F8.9020407@skynet.be> References: <001901c307f8$60b73890$05def1c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20030421161555.00a05590@pop.starpower.net> <3EA500D1.20504@skynet.be> <003f01c308c4$9f2f5f40$381e2850@pacific> <3EA537F8.9020407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4f4bavk51e234738jjunjbajqd2b62kvcs@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:39:20 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >gester@lineone.net wrote: > >> +=3D+ As I have said repeatedly it is a bridge judgement. > >No it is not. >It starts as one, true, but then it goes on as an interpretation. >The AC can rule that the player had as sole reason for asking the=20 >question "keeping up with what opponents are doing without immediate=20 >interest in bidding". > >But I don't believe it is up to the AC to decide whether or not such a=20 >reason is a "demonstrable bridge reason". I must agree with Grattan that it is a bridge judgement to determine whether or not some action (such as asking) is of sufficient importance to a player in a specific situation to constitute a "demonstrable bridge reason". Since this situation ("I like to follow opponents' bidding as it develops, so I am prepared when the time may come for action") is very common, it is eminently suitable for guidance from authorities. My own point of view, which I believe is in agreement with normal practice in Denmark, is that in general it is a demonstrable bridge reason. I consider the right to know what is going on in opponents' auction very important. Otherwise, players who use unusual methods have a significant unreasonable advantage over other players. Avoiding UI completely is only possible by always asking about any call whose meaning you do not already know; but that is impractical. The EBU style of only asking when you really want to know is IMO not very good either: it provides UI whether you ask or not. Personally I prefer to be inconsistent (it comes quite naturally to me, as the Rabbit would say): sometimes I ask just in order to know what is going on, and sometimes I ask only when I really need to know. As long as there is no pattern to it that partner can recognize, there are rarely UI problems. This may not be the perfect solution at the highest levels of the game, but it works quite well at lower levels. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Apr 22 20:41:18 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:41:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] What a claim! In-Reply-To: <3EA5781E.4040500@skynet.be> References: <200304221527.h3MFRs613486@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3EA5781E.4040500@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:13:02 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >>>Yes, it is normal for a player to cash suits in any order. >>>But no, it is not normal for a player to start cashing suits without=20 >>>checking if there aren't any that might block. If I look at each suit of that hand to check that they do not block, I can very easily establish that they can be cashed in any order without blocking, and I certainly don't need to count tricks while doing it. On the other hand, if I count the tricks, as claimer has done before claiming, I can hardly avoid noticing at the same time that there are no problems with blocking - so I assume declarer has noticed that. >I think a player that starts playing without making a plan is acting=20 >irrationally.=20 I think a player that starts claiming without making a plan is acting extremely irrationally. He has no business claiming before he knows how he is going to get his tricks, and we must thus assume that he has discovered that all his (11-12) top tricks can be cashed in any suit order. I find it very surprising that anyone could even consider for a moment giving him 12 tricks; and that would be my opinion even if a spade had actually been returned before he claimed. But this is not the first time we've encountered different attitudes to claims. In the places where Herman plays and directs it seems to be normal and acceptable to claim with just a vague idea of where the tricks are coming from; that is not the case here. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Apr 22 20:41:44 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:41:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Director's ethics In-Reply-To: <3EA578F5.5040806@skynet.be> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D9040463C7@hotel.npl.co.uk> <3EA578F5.5040806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0n6bavs02nfl035o8kn1du7lr16krvper6@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:16:37 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Robin Barker wrote: >> This is not fair on tables where the director becomes aware of errors >> because they are watching play or playing dummy. So the director = should >> not do those things. > >Indeed - and deprive himself of a little distraction? I prefer to=20 >consider myself as a spectator for the duration. Or I'll be sent from=20 >any table I wish to sit at. While I certainly understand Robin's point of view, I think Herman's point of view is also fine - provided that it is obvious that the players will not be confused about his double role and assume that the TD is present at the table. But if you were clearly in the role of just a kibitzer, Herman, then I think you should have said nothing about it at all to anybody until the correction period had elapsed. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From jens@alesia.dk Tue Apr 22 21:11:13 2003 From: jens@alesia.dk (Jens Brix Christiansen) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:11:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Irrational, wild or gambling - subsequent to the infraction Message-ID: <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> This is a digest from an appeals case handled by the Danish National authority. The case is published in Danish here: http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/sager/02/au-10.htm club tournament, imps, players of average strength E/All 10 9 7 5 A 9 A K Q J 10 9 7 A K 7 5 4 2 A J 10 4 3 6 2 Q J 6 5 K 10 8 4 2 8 6 3 2 Q J 8 6 3 K Q 9 8 7 3 5 4 S W N E p p 1H 3NT p p 4D ..p 5D X p p p South explains 3NT as "don't know". North thinks for at least 30 seconds before passing to 4D. EW score 9 tricks for a loss of 500. The TD, the appeals committee, and the National Authority all agree that the break in tempo is unauthorized for South, that it indicates that some action is appropriate, and that passing 5D is a logical alternative for a player who has admitted that he does not know what 3NT means. EW were damaged by the double, so the score is adjusted to 5D undoubled, 9 tricks. All of this is routine in BLML (although some of you will probably disagree with the judgement leading to the ruling), so let me get to the point. 5D can be construed as a wild or gambling action that has sent EW overboard. In a broad sense, it is a bid that deserves to be punished by a double. So the national authority considered whether redress could be denied EW, with the score being adjusted only for NS, based on the "wild or gambling" clause in the Code of Practice. We stopped that consideration on a simple legal point: For "wild or gambling" to be considered, it must refer to an action taken after the infraction. The infraction is South's double and 5D was bid before that double. Still, in a sense, East's shot at 5D turns out to be protected by North's pause, even though the pause is not in itself an infraction. So my point for debate is this: Would we prefer a code of practice where "subsequent to the infraction" was made slightly less restrictive so that it covered a case like this? Oh, by the way, in order to keep the debate from getting lost in the bridge judgement of whether East's action is wild enough to merit loss of redress, think of his King of diamonds as transmogrified into a spot card. And while I am at it, it would be neat if the "irrational, wild or gambling" line would be included in Law 12, not just in the CoP. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 22 21:38:23 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:38:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] What a claim! In-Reply-To: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC9515E3@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000001c3090f$1f000400$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Skjaran, Harald > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> 6NT: > >> > >> dummy : KQ4 95 T65 AQT53 > >> opps: > >> T853 832 J87 762 / J62 JT74 K932 K8 > >> decl : A97 AKQ6 AQ4 J94 > >> > >> Spade lead, taken in hand. Club jack run, to the king. > >> Claim : "12 top tricks". ......... > Herman, you turn the laws upside down here. When declarer believes = he's > got > twelve tricks on top, it's not irrational to cash these top tricks in > whatever > order. In the mentioned example, it's just as normal to cash the red = suits > first > as cashing the clubs first. >=20 > If you don't understand the word irrational, then you have a problem. >=20 > I don't know a single TD who wouldn't rule one down an this hand. Being one of the Directors Harald knows I fully agree, but in addition I have a problem: There must be something "obvious" that I simply cannot = see because when I add the top tricks available I never get more than = eleven: Three in Spades, three in Hearts, one in Diamonds and four in Clubs. Please enlighten me from my blindness - where is the twelfth top trick? Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 22 21:53:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:53:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Director's ethics In-Reply-To: <3EA578F5.5040806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c30911$44bb5e90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael=20 > > "I'm direction and ... " > > "First of all, I am not the director there. I'm just a spectator." > > > > Were you a director or a spectator? > > >=20 >=20 > I was the director at the event. I was considering myself a spectator > at the table. This case has been discussed in general here in Norway. When I was = trained to become a Director some 23 years ago we were told to distinguish = between what the Director became aware of in his role as the Director and what = in his role as spectator. I have not checked if the laws at that time = contained anything comparable to the current Law 81C6, but the consensus today in Norway seems to be that the appointed Director always maintains his = capacity as the Director even when he is just kibitzing. Thus, being the Director at the event you were bound by Law 81C6 - = period. Regards Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Apr 22 22:01:01 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] What a claim! References: <000001c3090f$1f000400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c30912$47c8a920$7fa323d9@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: KQ4 95 T65 AQ1053 10853 J62 832 J1074 J87 K932 762 K8 A97 AKQ6 AQ4 J94 Contract: 6NT by South Spade lead, taken in hand. Club jack run, to the king. Claim : "12 top tricks". >Being one of the Directors Harald knows I fully agree, but in addition I have a problem: There must be something "obvious" that I simply cannot see because when I add the top tricks available I never get more than eleven: >Three in Spades, three in Hearts, one in Diamonds and four in Clubs. >Please enlighten me from my blindness - where is the twelfth top trick? There isn't one. That was declarer's mistake, you see. But in the world according to Herman, declarer cashes hearts, runs the blacks, and "knows" that he has a show-up squeeze on East. Or, of course, he simply takes the diamond finesse. Either way, because he would have made twelve tricks had he played the hand out "normally", that is the number he makes. Crazy, of course, but there you are. David Burn London, England From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 22 22:14:29 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:14:29 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422154304.0268ecf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001301c30914$2f440a50$cde436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2003 1:46 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > At 08:51 22/04/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >Wayne, > > > >I go along with your 'complaint' that the laws are vague or worse. > > > >But you seem to consider it normal to play fast from dummy > at trick one to > >see what effect this has on RHO. And you feel free to use > his tempo and if > >you feel mislead you feel entiteled to a TD ruling. If this > is correct we > >are not discussing bridge as most of us know it. > > > >Anyway, if the SO doesn't prescribe a mandatory pause this > doesn't change > >the fact that from a dozen other sources it is clear that > pausing at trick > >one as declarer or as RHO is completely normal (actually > desired) behaviour > >whether or not you have a problem at that point. If the > lawmakers are too > >lazy, too stupid or too whatever to cover this clearly in > the laws shame on > >them, but this doesn't change reality. > > AG : I'd guess they found it too obvious, since even books > for beginners > mention it explicitly. I am not going to try and guess their intention but what you say is nonsense given what is written. The lawmakers clearly allowed for a pause at trick one by specifically allowing SO to make such a regulation. The only assumption fair to all players is that if the SO does not make such a regulation then it is neither required nor are those who hestitate at trick one protected as if such a regulation were in place. Wayne > Well, once again, what goes without saying should better be said. > Nevertheless, I share Jaap's position that the relative > silence of the > Lawmakers about the fairness of a pause at trick one means I am sorry but you are reading a different lawbook than me. The laws specifically mention a pause at trick one and they make it a matter for individual SO. Wayne > that they didn't > care to mention it, not that they disapproved with the idea. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam@irvine.com Tue Apr 22 22:12:45 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:12:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] What a claim! In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 19 Apr 2003 17:46:27 EDT." <5.2.0.9.0.20030419172720.00a7b540@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200304222112.OAA04882@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric Landau wrote: > >6NT: > > > >dummy : KQ4 95 T65 AQT53 > >opps: > >T853 832 J87 762 / J62 JT74 K932 K8 > >decl : A97 AKQ6 AQ4 J94 > > > >Spade lead, taken in hand. Club jack run, to the king. > >Claim : "12 top tricks". > Oddly, this ruling would be less obvious had declarer tabled his hand > saying nothing. > > Which might score a point for David, were it not for the fact that > David would have this declarer down five. If I understand David's proposed method of dealing with claims, it's that no play of claimer's cards is to be considered irrational, which means that we award declarer the worst possible result he could have gotten with any line of play that is not inconsistent with his claim statement. If I understand it correctly, then David would score it as down 7, not down 5. (Declarer wins the diamond return, leads a low diamond allowing the defense to run that suit, pitches spades from both hands on the fourth round of the suit, lets them cash a club, wins the spade jack return and ducks a heart . . .) I can't find a way to put him down any more (assuming that he already played a low club from dummy at trick 2). Can anyone else? -- Adam From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 22 22:48:00 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:48:00 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <000d01c308c3$c1137a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001401c30918$dbd43b10$cde436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 11:39 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > One problem with you Wayne is that you do not listen to all > those sources > who report that in their environments the reference tempo to > be used when > determining "break of tempo" for trick one is different from > the reference > tempo for all the other tricks. I listen and I read. The laws specifically allow for what you say. However if the regulators have not so decreed then however many you are you are acting against the law. > And it appears to me that the sources > informing that they "normally" have their pause during trick one far > outnumbers those who do not. Who cares? > > It is quite true that the laws do not mention trick one > especially except > that Law 73A2 mentions a variety of situations where SO may require > mandatory pauses, but even when no such requirement exists > the hesitation > (or haste) itself does not break any law unless there is > reason to suspect a > communication of unauthorized information or an attempt of illegal > deception. I agree. > > Thus, in environments where a pause for planning the game is > "normal" during > trick one a play to that trick in the (faster) tempo "normal" > for later > tricks is as much a "break of tempo" as would be huge > hesitation at any > other time. This includes the declarer who for whatever reason plays > "immediately" to trick one (i.e. in the same tempo he would > normally use in > later tricks) with the result that RHO could be deprived of > his expected > time to plan his play. The laws specifically address this issue. Any player including declarer at trick one is entitled to play in 'unvarying tempo and manner' (L72E). Therefore lawfully any problems that are created after an unvarying play are RHO's. Also 'hesitating before playing a singleton' (L72D2) as an example is not allowed. Allowing players to have their own tempo to trick one is fraught with danger that maybe why the lawmakers made this the province of the SO. (Although I think they would have done better to make it law). > > The consequence is that "break of tempo" in trick one must be ruled by > comparing to what is "normal" for the involved players when > they play to > trick one, not by what is "normal" when they play to other tricks. This contradicts what you wrote above. If the involved player always plays in tempo at trick one when declarer then that player is entitled to keep doing so. > > The laws do not say this explicitly, nor do they say anything > explicitly > against it, but as the intention (as explained in the > commentaries) is to > avoid communication of unauthorized information including > illegal deception > it must be the deviation from what is normal for the actual > situation that > is important. The laws say much about it. They mention 'hesitating with a singleton'; 'being careful...when variations may work to your advantage'. The problem is that some players or groups of players are trying to justify their practice which is properly a matter for law or regulation. And when the laws and regulations do not allow for their particular habit then you act at the risk of giving UI or deceiving declarer. Of course many times no problems will be created but if on your own initiative or even the advice of others but not on the requirements of the law or regulations you cause a problem then a player with good sportsmanship would graciously accept the consequences of any problems so created. Wayne > > Sven > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of > > Wayne Burrows > > Sent: 22. april 2003 12:44 > > To: 'Jaap van der Neut'; 'Bridge Laws' > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 6:51 p.m. > > > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; 'Bridge Laws' > > > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > > > I go along with your 'complaint' that the laws are vague or worse. > > > > > > But you seem to consider it normal > > > > Not normal but sanctioned by the laws... > > > > >to play fast from dummy at > > > trick one > > > > Not fast but in an unvarying tempo... > > > > > to > > > see what effect this has on RHO. > > > > No this is not the motive. > > > > > And you feel free to use his > > > tempo and if > > > you feel mislead you feel entiteled to a TD ruling. If this > > > is correct we > > > are not discussing bridge as most of us know it. > > > > > > Anyway, if the SO doesn't prescribe a mandatory pause this > > > doesn't change > > > the fact that from a dozen other sources > > > > ...but not in the laws... > > > > > it is clear that > > > pausing at trick > > > one as declarer or as RHO is completely normal > > > > Maybe locally but not universally. > > > > My point is that a player that does not break tempo at trick one > > should not be penalized and that player may be entitled to redress > > when his opponent does break tempo - the law makes that clear. > > > > >(actually > > > desired) behaviour > > > whether or not you have a problem at that point. If the > > > lawmakers are too > > > lazy, too stupid or too whatever to cover this clearly in the > > > laws shame on > > > them, but this doesn't change reality. > > > > > > Another consideration, with this profileration of 'let the SO > > > decide' rules > > > nobody can be expected to know to local rules any more. > > > > > > > I agree this is a major problem. I do not favour such regulations. > > > > Wayne > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > To: "'Bridge Laws'" > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 4:55 AM > > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > > > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 8:02 a.m. > > > > > To: Bridge Laws > > > > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/17/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Perhaps you should read 73E and note that I merely > said that the > > > > > >laws 'speak of unvarying tempo' > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps I should. In fact I have. Again. However, your > > > > > argument in this > > > > > thread seems to be that it is a violation of law *not* to > > > > > call and play > > > > > in "unvarying tempo", including the same tempo at trick one > > > > > as at every > > > > > other trick. That is *not* what the law says. And that was my > > > > > point. :-) > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > My argument is that: > > > > > > > > 1. If you make an undue hesitation then that is your problem; > > > > > > > > 2. There is nothing in law that automatically protects > a hesitation > > > > at trick one; > > > > > > > > 3. Since the laws specifically allow for regulation of > a mandatory > > > > pause at trick one then the absence of such a > regulation suggests > > > > that any hesitation be judged by the same standards as a > > > hesitation > > > > at any other trick. (After all there is no regulation > > > for trick 5 > > > > etc.) > > > > > > > > It is definitely not necessarily a violation of law not to > > > call and play > > > > in unvarying tempo. Just that you may give information or > > > deceive and > > > > the opponents will be entitled to redress. > > > > > > > > But it is certainly not the case that if you play in > unvarying tempo > > > > that > > > > you are violating law as was suggested by some posters. > > > That is the 'in > > > > tempo' play at trick one was blamed for the opponent's > subsequent > > > > hesitation. > > > > Bollocks!!! > > > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > > > > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > > > > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > > > > pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE > > > > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > > > > > > > What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is > > > > called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin > > > > Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > blml mailing list > > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > blml mailing list > > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Apr 22 22:47:27 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:47:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Irrational, wild or gambling - subsequent to the infraction In-Reply-To: <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> References: <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:11:13 +0200, "Jens Brix Christiansen" wrote: >So my point for debate is this: Would we prefer a code of practice=20 >where "subsequent to the infraction" was made slightly less=20 >restrictive so that it covered a case like this? I would most definitely not prefer that. I have several reasons for that opinion: (a) It would mean that on Jens' example hand, South would be in the position at his turn of possibly judging that double would be illegal, and still know that if he doubled illegally, he would probably reduce his opponents' score while keeping his own. Yes, that would be a guess from South: but he would have nothing to lose by trying. On the other hand, if East really bid 5D trusting that South would not be allowed to double, then he has made a dangerous guess: South might have his double, and East's bid would then be duly penalized. My sympathy is with East here. Also, we should not have rules that tempt people to bid illegally. (b) Do we really in general want to have to judge the whole hand, also before the irregularity, in order to determine whether the NOS might at some point have taken an IWoG action that they might have suspected would be protected by some later irregularity? In the example hand, that judgement may be fairly easy, but I don't think it will always be easy. (c) It seems to me that it would be much too close to a ban on bidding badly. Assuming that East is not actually to be forbidden to bid 5D, which I suspect we all agree on, then, at the time he has bid 5D, EW is destined to play 5D undoubled and get a good score, and there has been no irregularity at all. Why should South be allowed to destroy that happy and legal situation by an infraction? (d) East may end up taking advantage of the information he got from North's pause and South's explanation. If he can judge, from that information, that South probably has a hand that will not be allowed to double after the pause, then East has shown a fine example of taking advantage of "mannerisms of opponents" - which is perfectly legal. (e) In general, it seems to be that there is way too much worry about non-offenders getting good scores. It is in the power of every bridge player to give his opponents a good score: all it takes is forgetting an outstanding trump, answering an ace too many to Blackwood, or one of a million other things. I do not in any way find it a problem that making a bid you have no agreement about followed by a hesitation and an illegal double, is also one of the ways of giving your opponent a good score. When NS makes mistakes, EW benefits: that is normal, natural, and good. (f) Personally I would prefer the whole IWoG action concept to be removed: I strongly suspect that the number of cases where the existence of that concept provides a benefit (in the sense that it leads to a more reasonable result) is much smaller than the number of cases where it is applied mistakenly to ordinary bad play and leads to an unreasonable result. That problem would only be worse if the principle were extended. >And while I am at it, it would be neat if the "irrational, wild or=20 >gambling" line would be included in Law 12, not just in the CoP. =46ortunately, we have already suggested that in a more formal way: http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L12C2 . --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Apr 22 22:16:45 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:16:45 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Director's ethics In-Reply-To: <3EA54852.1060000@skynet.be> Message-ID: Put me down as one more who thinks "becomes aware of in any manner" means just that, whether you are kibitzing or not. I think this does raise an interesting question about substitutes' rights, though. Suppose Herman was NOT directing, just someone wandering past who was asked to turn the cards. Does Herman *become* dummy for the rest of that deal? Or is he just an outsider turning over cards, while the real dummy is off somewhere else? This affects quite a number of things. Relevant to this case, any player including dummy can dispute a claim. And dummy is allowed to draw attention to an irregularity if he waits until play concludes to do so. If Herman has actually become the dummy, he should do so. (I have certainly pointed out deficiencies in my partner's claims before and he in mine... wouldn't be ethical to accept a trick we know we don't deserve even if the opponents don't notice.) If Herman has NOT actually become dummy ... do you also forbid him from exercising any of the other L42 rights (assuming he hasn't already seen the hand)? As for the claim law, it is odd that 68D instructs the director to apply law 70 or 71 when he is summoned, but the text of L70B3 overlooks the fact the the objection hasn't necessarily come from an opponent. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 22:53:03 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 07:53:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Director's ethics Message-ID: >This case has been discussed in general here in >Norway. When I was trained to become a Director >some 23 years ago we were told to distinguish >between what the Director became aware of in his >role as the Director and what in his role as >spectator. I have not checked if the laws at that >time contained anything comparable to the current >Law 81C6, but the consensus today in Norway seems >to be that the appointed Director always maintains >his capacity as the Director even when he is just >kibitzing. > >Thus, being the Director at the event you were >bound by Law 81C6 - period. > >Regards Sven There is another way of looking at the issue, which reaches the same conclusion as Sven. Law 76B does not absolutely prohibit a spectator calling attention to an irregularity; Law 76B has an escape clause "except by request of the Director". Therefore, Herman the Director can request Herman the Kibitzer to draw Herman the Director's attention to an irregularity that Herman the Kibitzer saw. :-) Best wishes Richard From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Apr 22 22:57:57 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:57:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Irrational, wild or gambling - subsequent to the infraction In-Reply-To: References: <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030422175650.00a9c720@pop.starpower.net> At 05:47 PM 4/22/03, Jesper wrote: >(f) Personally I would prefer the whole IWoG action concept to be >removed: I strongly suspect that the number of cases where the >existence of that concept provides a benefit (in the sense that it >leads to a more reasonable result) is much smaller than the number of >cases where it is applied mistakenly to ordinary bad play and leads to >an unreasonable result. That problem would only be worse if the >principle were extended. I don't normally post "me too's", but me too. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 22 23:02:44 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:02:44 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <001201c308c3$2fda81c0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001501c3091a$ebaa6bc0$cde436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 11:35 p.m. > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; 'Bridge Laws' > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > Wayne, > > Thanks for the answer. There remain some details: > > > My point is that a player that does not break tempo at trick one > > should not be penalized and that player may be entitled to redress > > when his opponent does break tempo - the law makes that clear. > > Nobody is going to penalize a quick declarer although you > risk some remarks > about bad education and such in certain circles. I hope that if those gratuitous comments were made by another player then that other player would be appropriately disciplined for his gamesmanship. >But I am not > going to give > any redress about RHO tempo because pausing at this moment > (declarer didn't > at trick one) is not consider as breaking tempo by me (not > relevant) and > almost anybody else (quite relevant). Insignificant if the law says otherwise. Or in this case if the SO has chosen not to regulate such a pause. > But whether or not this can be > supported by twisting the current laws is a question a prefer > to leave to > the law twisting experts. I find this attitude unbelievable. If what you do can not be supported by the laws then you simply may not do it and conversely as TD what you do must be supported by the law. Any TD that was not willing to support a ruling by what the law says is quite frankly fundamentally incompetent. > > > > > to see what effect this has on RHO. > > No this is not the motive. > > Well maybe not your motive but it is the motive for lots of > fast 'please > small' players and the only rationale. You need some upside > to compensate > for the downside that you will go wrong from time to time > playing (too) > quickly. Anyway motive or not, playing fast has the effect to > put pressure > on RHO. And this is sanctioned by the laws (L72E): 'It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner' > Your logic requires RHO 'to tell' you whether or not > he can defer > his defensive planning or not at this moment. Not at all. If RHO has a problem then RHO can solve it but RHO should accept any problems that have been caused by his own slow play. In third seat I would certainly accept the consequences of my slow play. Last week I tried to give my partner a ruff when I knew she held a doubleton and not a singleton because of her slow play to trick one when a more successful defense was available. >Whatever is > wrong with the > laws, a lot and then some, this is not the intention of the > law according to > me and almost anybody else. I am not privy to the actual intention but as long as the law says specifically that the SO is entitled to regulate a pause at trick one then whenever I am playing and there is no such regulation I will assume that the lawmakers and regulators intention was that I do not pause. Wayne > > Jaap > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "'Bridge Laws'" > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 12:43 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 6:51 p.m. > > > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; 'Bridge Laws' > > > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > > > I go along with your 'complaint' that the laws are vague or worse. > > > > > > But you seem to consider it normal > > > > Not normal but sanctioned by the laws... > > > > >to play fast from dummy at > > > trick one > > > > Not fast but in an unvarying tempo... > > > > > to > > > see what effect this has on RHO. > > > > No this is not the motive. > > > > > And you feel free to use his > > > tempo and if > > > you feel mislead you feel entiteled to a TD ruling. If this > > > is correct we > > > are not discussing bridge as most of us know it. > > > > > > Anyway, if the SO doesn't prescribe a mandatory pause this > > > doesn't change > > > the fact that from a dozen other sources > > > > ...but not in the laws... > > > > > it is clear that > > > pausing at trick > > > one as declarer or as RHO is completely normal > > > > Maybe locally but not universally. > > > > My point is that a player that does not break tempo at trick one > > should not be penalized and that player may be entitled to redress > > when his opponent does break tempo - the law makes that clear. > > > > >(actually > > > desired) behaviour > > > whether or not you have a problem at that point. If the > > > lawmakers are too > > > lazy, too stupid or too whatever to cover this clearly in the > > > laws shame on > > > them, but this doesn't change reality. > > > > > > Another consideration, with this profileration of 'let the SO > > > decide' rules > > > nobody can be expected to know to local rules any more. > > > > > > > I agree this is a major problem. I do not favour such regulations. > > > > Wayne > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > To: "'Bridge Laws'" > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 4:55 AM > > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > > > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 8:02 a.m. > > > > > To: Bridge Laws > > > > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/17/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Perhaps you should read 73E and note that I merely > said that the > > > > > >laws 'speak of unvarying tempo' > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps I should. In fact I have. Again. However, your > > > > > argument in this > > > > > thread seems to be that it is a violation of law *not* to > > > > > call and play > > > > > in "unvarying tempo", including the same tempo at trick one > > > > > as at every > > > > > other trick. That is *not* what the law says. And that was my > > > > > point. :-) > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > My argument is that: > > > > > > > > 1. If you make an undue hesitation then that is your problem; > > > > > > > > 2. There is nothing in law that automatically protects > a hesitation > > > > at trick one; > > > > > > > > 3. Since the laws specifically allow for regulation of > a mandatory > > > > pause at trick one then the absence of such a > regulation suggests > > > > that any hesitation be judged by the same standards as a > > > hesitation > > > > at any other trick. (After all there is no regulation > > > for trick 5 > > > > etc.) > > > > > > > > It is definitely not necessarily a violation of law not to > > > call and play > > > > in unvarying tempo. Just that you may give information or > > > deceive and > > > > the opponents will be entitled to redress. > > > > > > > > But it is certainly not the case that if you play in > unvarying tempo > > > > that > > > > you are violating law as was suggested by some posters. > > > That is the 'in > > > > tempo' play at trick one was blamed for the opponent's > subsequent > > > > hesitation. > > > > Bollocks!!! > > > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > > > > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > > > > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > > > > pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE > > > > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > > > > > > > What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is > > > > called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin > > > > Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > blml mailing list > > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > blml mailing list > > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 23:29:28 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:29:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? Message-ID: Jaap wrote: >But I 'proposed' only that misbidding (in the >sense of a system mixup) early conventional >bids (needs a precise definition) should be >treated as misinformation. Basically to protect >opponents from players not knowing their >obstructive conventional methods (like twosuited >overcalls). We already tend to do that in The >Netherlands. With the well known trick that if >they fail to bid a simple 1S-2NT or such with >the right twosuiter we might rule they have no >system so the explanation cannot be right. But >we would love to have this covered better by the >laws. [snip] I suspect that The Netherlands regulation may be in accordance with the current Laws. The principle is consistent with that used by the WBF CoP to distinguish between real psyches and pseudo-psyches. The first time a particular attempt at a psyche occurs in a particular partnership, it is lawful under Law 40A. But repeated attempts convert it into a pseudo-psyche, an unlawful concealed partnership understanding under Law 40B. Similarly, a first misbid is a lawful forgetting of a partnership agreement. Consistent repetition of the same misbid converts the notional written partnership agreement into a misinforming mirage. Half-a-dozen years ago, I added a super-scientific gadget to my partnership's bidding system. Unfortunately, while the gadget theoretically improved my partnership's bidding accuracy, it was rare and hard to remember. Pard consistently forgot the gadget. After a few -500s, I began to have some doubts about the benefits of super-science, so my partnership has now reverted to a Neanderthal version of the Symmetric Relay system. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Apr 22 23:33:54 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:33:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] What a claim! References: <200304222112.OAA04882@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001901c3091f$41a870e0$7fa323d9@pbncomputer> Adam wrote: > If I understand it correctly, then David would score it as down 7, not > down 5. (Declarer wins the diamond return, leads a low diamond > allowing the defense to run that suit, pitches spades from both hands > on the fourth round of the suit, lets them cash a club, wins the spade > jack return and ducks a heart . . .) Well, the man has said that he has top tricks. A degree of shorthand is permitted even in Burn claims; top tricks he has announced, so top tricks he is assumed to cash (and he is not assumed to discard any top card). After DA and DQ to the king, he loses the jack of diamonds, but now he actually does have top tricks. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 22 23:53:39 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:53:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Director's ethics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c30922$042c5c60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Bower > Put me down as one more who thinks "becomes aware of in any manner" = means > just that, whether you are kibitzing or not. >=20 > I think this does raise an interesting question about substitutes' = rights, > though. Suppose Herman was NOT directing, just someone wandering past = who > was asked to turn the cards. Not really any problem: Becoming a substitute requires an approval by = the Director. A spectator who sits down as a "dummy" is just an assistant = for the declarer - his elongated arms. He is not a substitute and has no = more rights than as being a spectator. ......(snip - irrelevant) > If Herman has NOT actually become dummy ... do you also forbid him = from > exercising any of the other L42 rights (assuming he hasn't already = seen > the hand)? Yes of course, he is only a spectator assisting the declarer with the mechanical task of moving the cards belonging to dummy. >=20 > As for the claim law, it is odd that 68D instructs the director to = apply > law 70 or 71 when he is summoned, but the text of L70B3 overlooks the = fact > the the objection hasn't necessarily come from an opponent. Sorry? Who else? What is the problem? (L70 only handles claims, not concessions) Sven From john@asimere.com Wed Apr 23 00:00:02 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:00:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: References: <000201c30842$ae413a80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article , Laval Dubreuil writes > >Sven writes: > >I would like to add just one point to this summary: > >Whenever I have referred the options available to declarer I ALWAYS ask him >(or her) before I let him choose: Have you understood all your options? > >You would be surprised how often I experience polite-looking players who >seem to have, but on my question come up with some remark telling me that >they are more or less confused. Most often they need some elaboration on the >two main options they must first choose between: Either accept the OLOOT >with the two options that gives, or not accept with the three options that >gives. > Yep the OLOOT is very tough. I've revised my speech again. It would still fail an EBU Club Director's exam, but it works :) "Oh dear, who's idea was that? [OLOOTER; sheepishly; "Mine"] ..... well the first thing you could do is to accept it and then you could make your hand dummy or have partner be dummy ...... or you could say to LHO 'Lead a Heart' or 'Don't lead a heart' in which case RHO can put that card back in their hand and doesn't have to play it ..... or you could say 'Lead anything' in which case RHO will have to play that card as soon as they legally can and it in fact a penalty card." [pauses for breath] [aside to opening leader] "... and if you're told not to lead a heart you can't just cash an Ace and switch to a heart, you have to lose the lead before you can lead one, ok?" [back to declarer] "... of course if you say 'Lead anything' then each time he is on lead you could still tell him to Lead or not Lead a heart while the penalty card is still there" [back to opening leader] " ... this actually means if the card is still on the table you can't play until declarer has exercised his options" on selection of Lead or don't lead, I also say "You're not allowed to know partner has got that card by the way", which generates a giggle. >And if I can spare the time (non-playing director) I always remain at the >table until the situation is completely resolved. If not I at least tell >them what to be particularly aware of. >_______________________________________________________________________ > >Yep. > >Most of the time, I repeat options two or three times....trying to be >as clear as possible. > >Most of the time, players seems to be confused and really do not know >what to do. I am not sure speaking of UI is a good idea at this level. > >When they ask me what to do, my favourite joke is saying: "When I am >a TD, I do not know how to play bridge." I then add: "Some of my friends >say I do not know more when playing...". > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Apr 23 00:06:02 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:06:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? In-Reply-To: <001f01c3089b$8f061740$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <001f01c3089b$8f061740$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: In article <001f01c3089b$8f061740$25b54351@noos.fr>, Jaap van der Neut writes >Richard, > >I know about these objections you mention. > >But I 'proposed' only that misbidding (in the sense of a system mixup) early >conventional bids (needs a precise definition) should be treated as >misinformation. Basically to protect opponents from players not knowing >their obstructive conventional methods (like twosuited overcalls). We >already tend to do that in The Netherlands. With the well known trick that >if they fail to bid a simple 1S-2NT or such with the right twosuiter we >might rule they have no system so the explanation cannot be right. But we >would love to have this covered better by the laws. > you'd enjoy ruling this one: 1D (2D) on the card as H and C, followed by bidding spades 3 times, finally at the 4-level. Doubled, and making since the hand had psyched his two suiter with 9 solid spades :) >The price you pay is that the any workable definition also includes some >constructive conventions (no big deal). And a few psyches are not possible >anymore, those that cannot be distinguished from a misbid (in the sense of a >system mixup). But only those because a psyche is not a misbid (in the sense >of a system mixup). > >I have no hard feelings one way or another about a rule that states that you >cannot psych conventional calls (that will be tricky to define). But such a >rule has nothing to do with what I discussed above. > >Another interesting topic is the interaction between 'psyching' and >legal/illegal system. Example, is it ok to open a multi in third green >against red on a flat 2 count ? > >Jaap > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:54 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? > > >> >> From the thread "Bidding 1S two ways": >> >> Herman wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >I would not be adverse to a general regulation or >> >even law that says that it is an infraction to misbid >> >in certain simple situations. And that the infraction >> >is penalized as if it were a misinformation. >> > >> >In fact, I interpret the footnote requiring evidence >> >of misbid so harshly that it almost seems as if such >> >a regulation were already in place. >> > >> >But please WBF, if you go that way, make it a law, >> >not an authorisation to SOs to write regulations. >> >> Richard replied: >> >> However, if the 2005 Laws rules that misbids are >> infractions, then there would be consequential side >> effects. >> >> From the thread "Godel, Escher and Bridge": >> >> Richard wrote: >> >> Making a misbid an infraction would include a >> bonus of making all psyches infractions, a >> concept definitely liked by a majority of >> players. >> >> And this new rule would make determining >> whether or not a pair "has lied about its >> methods" irrelevant, as the TD could simply >> compare cards with explanation. >> >> Implementation of the new rule would be >> straightforward. The WBF LC could borrow a >> concept from the EBU's Red Psyche reg, and >> order that as soon as a misbid occurs, an >> automatic Ave+/Ave- is awarded. >> >> A further advantageous consequence of the >> frequent Ave+/Ave- scores would be that >> bridge sessions would finish in jig time, as >> hardly anybody would actually play a hand. >> This obviates the need for the TD to decide >> whether to apply a slow play penalty. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Apr 23 00:03:51 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:03:51 +0100 Subject: Render unto Caesar - was Re: [blml] treatment of questions References: <001901c307f8$60b73890$05def1c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20030421161555.00a05590@pop.starpower.net> <3EA500D1.20504@skynet.be> <003f01c308c4$9f2f5f40$381e2850@pacific> <3EA537F8.9020407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002501c30925$c370dee0$4eec193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 1:39 PM Subject: Re: Render unto Caesar - was Re: [blml] treatment of questions > No Grattan, it is not. > > gester@lineone.net wrote: > > >> > > As I have said repeatedly it is a bridge > > judgement. > > > No it is not. > It starts as one, true, but then it goes on as an > interpretation. The AC can rule that the player > had as sole reason for asking the question > "keeping up with what opponents are doing > without immediate interest in bidding". > > But I don't believe it is up to the AC to decide > whether or not such a reason is a "demonstrable > bridge reason". I don't know who has to decide > on this if you say that the WBFLC is not the > correct organ to decide upon this issue. > +=+ Well, Herman, it's like this ..... The remit of the WBFLC is Law. The ultimate authority in judicial matters - judgements - is the WBF Appeals Committee (as distinct from a WBF Tournament Appeals Committee which makes the judgement on the day). This is set out quite clearly in the By-Laws of the World Bridge Federation. The WBF Appeals Committee, like the WBFLC, is a standing committee; along with other standing committees, they exist in parallel, permanently and as equals, each to fulfil its own particular responsibilities. It is the judicial process that decides whether a player has shown that he had a 'demonstrable bridge reason' for asking a question. Incidentally, you say "it goes on as an interpretation". Interpretation is the explanation of a meaning; the function to which you refer is not interpretative but judicial - judging whether the player has a demonstrable bridge reason for his action, and of course whether he could have known...etc. etc. etc. .... Some people may get a bit confused about these distinctions, but what the WBFLC has noted it must not do is to muscle in on matters that are the affairs of another committee. ~ G ~ +=+ From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Apr 23 10:00:05 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel De Raeymaeker) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 02:00:05 -0700 Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? Message-ID: Teams N/S vul ...........North ...........S Axx ...........H QJxxx ...........D Kx ...........C xx S Txx...............S KJxx H xx................H Axxx D AJxx..............D xx C Kxxx..............C Axx ...........S Qxx ...........H Kx ...........D Qxxx ...........C QJxx Bidding N E S W 1C* P 1D% P 1NT! 2C& Dbl P P 2H P P Dbl P P 2S P P Dbl all pass * Carrot club either 10-12 balanced or 16+ % art 10+ ! 10-12 & Meant as the majors Result 2Sx making. TD called and was told that N/S were misinformed. Td changes the result to 2H-2x. E/W appeal. ---------------------------------------------- The AC determined that E/W had no agreement as to the meaning of 2C's on this auction or similar auctions. The defence to 2S's was not looked at. N/S felt that before W bid 2S he should have alerted the 2C bid as NOW showing the majors. E/W felt that from the bidding subsequent to the 2S bid it seemd quite clear that East's 2C bid was not natural but probably meant as the majors. This was East's reading of the bidding to that point. They had no agreement on this sequence. East by bidding 2S's may well have been quite wrong. E/W felt that N/S had got into a doubling momentum. E/W also felt the double of 2S's was a double shot. AC ruled 2S making. --------------------------------------- I thought this an interesting case. I felt the result should have been 2S doubled making. E/W didn't do anything wrong. They just applied a bit of common sense and got lucky in the final contract. K. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 23 02:18:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:18:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? Message-ID: I cannot answer the question - was the AC right? - until a question of mine is first answered. >The AC determined that E/W had no agreement as to the >meaning of 2C's on this auction or similar auctions. What is a similar auction? Take, for example, this common Standard American auction: NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST 1C (3+ clubs) Pass 1D (natural) Pass 1NT (12-14) 2C Do E/W have an agreement in this common situation whether 2C is natural or majors? If so, is their agreement majors? If it is majors, then EW can make an informed guess in the undiscussed actual situation. And the opponents are entitled to be aware of the informed guess in the actual case when East held both majors; rather than be misled to believe that the actual auction meant that East held clubs and hearts. Best wishes Richard From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 23 02:22:34 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:22:34 +1200 Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002001c30936$d4cc7940$cde436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Karel De Raeymaeker > Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2003 9:00 p.m. > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? > > > Teams N/S vul > > ...........North > ...........S Axx > ...........H QJxxx > ...........D Kx > ...........C xx > S Txx...............S KJxx > H xx................H Axxx > D AJxx..............D xx > C Kxxx..............C Axx > ...........S Qxx > ...........H Kx > ...........D Qxxx > ...........C QJxx > > Bidding > N E S W > 1C* P 1D% P > 1NT! 2C& Dbl P > P 2H P P > Dbl P P 2S > P P Dbl all pass > > * Carrot club either 10-12 balanced or 16+ > % art 10+ > ! 10-12 > & Meant as the majors > > Result 2Sx making. TD called and was told that N/S were > misinformed. Td > changes the result to 2H-2x. E/W appeal. > > ---------------------------------------------- > > The AC determined that E/W had no agreement as to the meaning > of 2C's on > this auction or similar auctions. The defence to 2S's was > not looked at. > > N/S felt that before W bid 2S he should have alerted the 2C bid as NOW > showing the majors. > > E/W felt that from the bidding subsequent to the 2S bid it > seemd quite clear > that East's 2C bid was not natural but probably meant as the > majors. This > was East's reading of the bidding to that point. They had no > agreement on > this sequence. East by bidding 2S's may well have been quite > wrong. E/W > felt that N/S had got into a doubling momentum. E/W also > felt the double of > 2S's was a double shot. > > AC ruled 2S making. > > --------------------------------------- > > I thought this an interesting case. I felt the result should > have been 2S > doubled making. E/W didn't do anything wrong. They just > applied a bit of > common sense and got lucky in the final contract. If indeed they had no partnership understanding then L40A protects East's right to call 2C. However I am suspicious as to why West with 4-card support and nice cards did not find a raise to 3C. This is not sufficient evidence to rule against E/W but I would be investigating the motive behind West's pass - perhaps South's double was penalties in which case something screwy is going on. Wayne > > K. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 23 02:56:10 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:56:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: Grattan wrote: >+=+ I have merely defended the right >of the WBF Appeals Committee (standing) >to decide that a question asked without interest >in the answer is in principle an action without >demonstrable bridge reason. What I have said >on the matter is there for all to read. I have no >inclination to pursue it. > Someone pointed to the 'could have >known' element which comes into judgements >in individual 73F2 cases. True. My failing to >quote it was not to deny it; my concentration >was on the main point of principle that I have >been addressing. [snip] In which case we have been debating at cross- purposes; I agree that a question asked without interest in the answer is in principle an action without a demonstrable bridge reason. I may have misunderstood your position as pushing the envelope further. I may have misread earlier posts by you as stating an extension of this principle to define that: *Deliberately acting without demonstrable bridge reason is automatically an infraction.* While I define: *An action without demonstrable bridge reason may merely be a precursor to a merely possible (not certain) later infraction.* And therefore: *A question asked without interest in the answer is not automatically illegal (except in England and Wales).* Best wishes Richard From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Apr 23 02:45:58 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:45:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422160311.0268d140@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030422213512.0225c1c0@mail.comcast.net> At 10:09 AM 4/22/2003, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Perhaps I should further explain what I find wrong with the *there is >still UI* principle after a LOOT. > >You overcalled 1S on KQxxx and whatever else you happen to hold. >Partner leads the SA OOT against their suit contract. >Declarer summons the TD, hears about the possibilities and decides that >the card will remain penalized. >Now, you have a perfectly normal spade lead, you would surely have done it >absent the LOOT, but you can't make it ; for either you lead the normal SK >and clash the honors, or you lead a small card and are penalized for use >of UI (of course, the King was a LA). > >'The purpose of the laws is to restore equity' >I think that the principle that 'if the OOT card remains penalized, it is >still UI' fails to achieve this goal. I believe that the fact that partner must play the SA on a spade trick is AI; thus, if you lead a spade, you may lead a low one. The fact that he chose to lead the SA is information arising from the infraction, and that is UI. For example, suppose that instead of the SA, partner, who never bid, leads the D2 (an unbid suit) OOT against a 4H contract. Declarer chooses to keep the DA a penalty card. Your overcall was on KQ986 75 AJ84 97. You may not lead the DA, because this lead was made considerably more attractive by the UI that partner has probably attempted to lead a singleton. If your diamonds are AK84, then you may lead the DA because you do not have a LA, and when partner plays the D2, it is AI to you that he was unable to signal, which may or may not allow you to continue with the DK. This doesn't solve all of the problems with UI, but it solves the particular problem here. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 21 21:27:54 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:27:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: <003001c3072e$564a3620$dd3587d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On 4/20/03, grandeval wrote: >+=+ Just to reiterate the position maintained steadily by the >WBF Appeals Committee, through TACs, in my experience over >16+ years: > >1. No-one suggests that a question may not be asked at a player's >turn. >2. It is, however, always the case that in asking a question a >player may convey UI to partner; he also risks misleading an >opponent. >3. If an opponent is misled by a question asked, and is damaged >thereby, when the player has 'no demonstrable bridge reason' for >asking the question, opponent is entitled to an adjustment of the >score. >4. It is not sufficient for the player to say "I always ask" or to say >"I wished to follow the auction along". The player must show that >he had a need to know the answer to the question at the time >when it was asked, and could not defer his curiosity until later. It seems to me a good argument was put forth by the player in question that he *did* need to know when he asked, because he was not permitted, under 20F2, to ask those questions later. >5. The WBF Appeals Committee has consistently maintained >that to ask a question when you do not need to know the answer >is to ask without a demonstrable bridge reason. This is a bridge >judgement and, as such, lies within the remit of the appeals >committee. In these circumstances, if opponent draws a rational >conclusion from the fact that the question was asked,and is >damaged by this, he gets a ruling in his favour. This presents me, as a club player in the ACBL, with an interesting dilemma, because the club TDs around here will *not* rule this way. In fact, the ACBL alert regulation specifically says "when an alert is given, ask, do not assume", and that *any* question should trigger a full dump of all relevant information (which, in theory, eliminates the need for amplifying questions, but in practice, IME, does not). So it would seem that the ACBL interpretation conflicts (is anyone surprised?) with the WBF's. And that if I draw an incorrect inference from a question which elsewhere would be deemed asked "without a demonstrable bridge reason", I'm stuffed. :-( >Turning to the case in point the fact that the questioner is about to >defend a contract does not create any need to know the answer >to his question before the final pass of the auction. It is wholly >'ludicrous' IMO to suggest otherwise. This does not say he may >not *ask* the question, but he does so at risk (see 2 above). If >the opponent was found to have been damaged because of the >question he would get a score adjustment. If it appeared the >player claiming to be damaged had created his own damage by >his unreasonable inference or action subsequent to the question >he would not get an adjustment. >------------------------------------------------------------------- >Without wishing to intrude on the grief of any person, it may be >remarked that Rich Colker is a sometime member of WBF >Tournament appeals committees, but not of the WBF Appeals >Committee. The WBF Appeals Committee is (sic) > "a standing committee, as distinct from the Tournament > Appeals Committee which is appointed by the WBF > President to serve at each WBF Tournament. > The (standing) Committee functions as a judicial body to > rule on protests and appeals from the decisions of other > contest authorities, to determine disputed facts, and to act > as an investigative body in its discretion". >Ton has no place in the anatomy of WBF appeals committees, >tournament or standing, except when there is reference to the >Laws Committee on a point of law. It is not the remit of the Laws >Committee to determine what is a 'demonstrable bridge reason', >although - as ton does - it may always express an opinion. > With respect, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 23 07:08:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:08:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 Message-ID: ACBL LC Draft minutes: [snip] >Serious concerns were raised regarding the phrasing of the >revisions to Law 16A. >Reservations were expressed that by writing the law to >specifically list what is authorized information there is a >danger of inadvertently excluding items that the framers may >otherwise intend to be authorized. >As well, concerns were voiced regarding revisions to 16B and >16C. The desirability of defining "logical alternative" in >numerical terms was discussed. Preference was expressed for a >law that would allow the sponsoring organization to define the >term if it wished but not for a law that itself defined the term >as explicitly as does the draft proposal. There was a general >consensus that the revisions to Law 16 need to be reexamined. [snip] I applaud the idea of an exhaustive listing of what "authorised information" is defined as; I believe that the ACBL LC reservations of an AI item being overlooked are groundless, given that the current Law 16 and Law 73A1 already narrowly define what is currently Lawful AI. I also find peculiar that a key concept like Logical Alternative is not already listed in the Chapter 1 Definitions. Therefore, the conservative view of the ACBL LC may be justified for a *specific* numerical definition of an LA, but is (in my opinion) not a justification for splintered definitions of LA between various NCBOs. Best wishes Richard From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Apr 23 07:09:40 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:09:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <5884186.1051013104108.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <00c101c30960$44716b60$25b54351@noos.fr> David: > "Regulation" to the effect that all pauses at trick one should be regarded as "information > free" is deeply misguided (which is why we have it in England). But David, of course I agree (and to almost everything else you say, the above is just a rather random quote) . And there are many more situations where all kind of UI can be transmitted without breaking any interpretation of any existing law. The current laws are simply no good because they don't adress the real problem. Of course you should not mislead opps and use UI and try not to generate UI etc. But as long as normal procedure is undefined, we will disagree about everything and we will get nowhere. The law should describe normal procedure at trick one. And in many more situations. Breaking normal procedure should be an infraction. Another favorite of mine is that al cards should be played with a small hesitation (say 1 sec). A small hesitation is considered normal tempo. So it should be illegal to play very fast as many people often do SOME OF THE TIME. It can convey just as much info as slow play does. But how rarely have I seen adjusted scores because of lightning speed info. The idea is simply. You cannot stop people from thinking (breaking tempo by playing too slow), but you can stop people from breaking tempo by playing too quick. The same holds true for the bidding. Normal procedure should be to bid with a small pause (say 2-3 seconds), maybe always but definitely in the first round of the bidding and in competitive situations. Otherwise there are two types of normal tempo and all the UI that comes with it. To finish let me quote David Burn (there was a context): > .... As I have said before, when the rules are > stupid, the top players just ignore them and get on with the game ...... Two examples of this. Super-Alerts. Playing high-level competition with screens it has become 'normal' to make a clear difference between real alerts (seriously pressing the guy to ask) and the frequent meaningless alerts that are just required by local or this years laws/regulations. Makes the game much more playable. ACBL annoucements and pre-alerts (I don't know a lot about them) adress the same issue. Sub-Claims (I hope that David can stand this). Playing high-level teams 'we' sometimes make claim statements that are not claims like 'game always makes'. The obvious goal is not to waste too much time about an overtrick and to prevent a defender from spending 10 minutes or so thinking about how to defeat a game or slam. Quite usefull, so far there have been no problems (I have never seen a ruling on such a sub-claim), but completely 'illegal'. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > Japp wrote: > > >But I am not going to give any redress about RHO tempo because pausing at this moment (declarer didn't at trick one) is not consider as breaking tempo by me (not relevant) and almost anybody else (quite relevant). But whether or not this can be > supported by twisting the current laws is a question a prefer to leave to the law twisting experts. > > There is no question of "twisting" the laws. The laws are quite clear. At no time (including trick one) should a player so act as to convey extraneous information to partner, nor should he so act as to deceive an opponent other than by a call or play. If a player does the former, and it is considered that his partner has acted on the information, redress may be due. If a player does the latter, and it is considered that an opponent has drawn a false inference, redress may be due. > > No amount of "regulation" can alter the fact that if a player plays slowly to trick one when this is not his invariable practice, extraneous information may be conveyed or a false inference created. The same is true of a player who plays quickly to trick one when this is not his invariable practice. Despite the protestations of some contributors, there is no difference between trick one and any other point in the auction or play as far as Law 16 and Law 73 are concerned. > > Regulation to the effect that the first two plays to trick one shall be made after a pause of specified duration would go some way to resolving the issue. But such regulation is nowhere implied by the laws. "Regulation" to the effect that all pauses at trick one should be regarded as "information free" is deeply misguided (which is why we have it in England). > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Apr 23 07:26:21 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:26:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: <00c201c30961$42b8f080$25b54351@noos.fr> OK Grattan, You don't get away that easily. Do you agree that your position (the AC's) on this issue forces the defense to supply UI to the opponents. So has this UI become (U)I. And can partner also use this (U)I ? The UI/(U)I I refer to is quite simple. In your logic posing a question (assume a complicated artificial sequence) means the answer must/might influence your bid at that moment. In your logic you deny a weak hand to know what is going on. In your logic you make it impossible to prepare for the next round of bidding against an artificial sequence. Brief, in your logic you make it impossible to defend against a artificial sequence without giving away all kind of info. Grattan: >> if it were so intrepid as to suggest the Appeals >> Committee does not have the power to make >> that judgement. The AC can also decide that spades are pumpkins. They have all the right to do so. But if they do so nobody will take them serious anymore. Anyway, even the best and most serious AC can take a decision on Saterday after which we discover on Sunday it contains a fatal flaw. In such a case the decision should be redone. And not you quoting a long list of (former) WBF presidents and the like to justify the authority of the AC. Actually your list does the opposite. Because this comittee is too large to be practical and there are too many names that have imho no business making bridge judgements. Or all this just because you are involved in some kind of turf war with Ton and some others. I would like you guys to stop that childish nonsense and start working on better laws. But that thought is probably very naive. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > Dear Grattan, > > I and others attacked 'your' position on this subject. Basically we say that > the logic you described is flawed (see my previous e-mail). > > This has nothing to do with some conflict between you and Ton. And you > stating the WBF-AC has decided so one day is no good. AC's are known to take > ridiculous decisions from time to time (remember the Lightner case from > Turku and there are dozen others, and yes I have made some crazy AC > decisions myself). But AC's tend to overrule those flawed decisions from the > past when they come to their senses. > > So please respond to my previous e-mail (and a couple of others) without > dodging behind all kind of authorities or Ton being out of bounds or > whatever. For the moment Herman is right, you are trying to wriggle out of > an argument. > > Jaap > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 8:57 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > "All knowledge is vain and full of error > > when not born of experience." > > Leonardo da Vinci. > > ============================= > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 4:45 PM > > Subject: RE: [blml] treatment of questions > > > > > > > > > > My reading comprehension is notoriously poor, > > > judging by how often it's knocked here, but I don't > > > remember Grattan saying any such thing. His > > > argument, as far as my poor reading skills > > > interpret, goes along the lines that a player may > > > ask a question, but he's only without risk to a score > > > adjustment when he has a valid bridge reason. > > > > > > -Todd > > > > > +=+ Thank you. I am grateful to find that > > my use of the English language is intelligible > > to some. > > I have quoted my experience of the WBF > > Appeals Committee in the period when > > I have been a member of it. I have expressed > > my personal view that it is lawful for that > > committee to exercise bridge judgement to > > rule that a question asked at a time when the > > answer is of no immediate interest is an action > > without demonstrable bridge reason. My > > position is that the Laws Committee would > > trespass into the territory of an equal committee > > if it were so intrepid as to suggest the Appeals > > Committee does not have the power to make > > that judgement. > > I have got the message that ton does not > > agree with such a position and would like to > > impose his personal view on the Appeals > > Committee. I believe he should look again > > at the boundaries between the powers of the > > two committees. > > . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Apr 23 07:39:40 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:39:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <001501c3091a$ebaa6bc0$cde436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <00cd01c30963$1f7cf100$25b54351@noos.fr> Wayne: > > But whether or not this can be > > supported by twisting the current laws is a question a prefer > > to leave to > > the law twisting experts. > > I find this attitude unbelievable. Calm down. I just tried to say that I am not too interested when people start quoting strings of Law-article-numbers to prove or disprove something. It has been done in this thread. Nobody seemed to win this argument so I just assume that the laws as usual are no good and that a smart lawyer can support the argument both ways. > If what you do can not be supported > by the laws then you simply may not do it and conversely as TD what you > do must be supported by the law. Any TD that was not willing to support > a ruling by what the law says is quite frankly fundamentally > incompetent. Most European TD's seem to do exactly that and they are not incompetent. Probably/maybe in most of Europe the SO has done something about the issue (or it is in some COC type of text). But even if not it is just the way we play the game down here. And in most (or at least some) European regular law systems such arguments (common practice, current law under discussion in parliament, etc.) might be as important as the letter of the law. Cultural differences like these might explain a lot. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "'Bridge Laws'" Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 12:02 AM Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 11:35 p.m. > > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; 'Bridge Laws' > > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > Thanks for the answer. There remain some details: > > > > > My point is that a player that does not break tempo at trick one > > > should not be penalized and that player may be entitled to redress > > > when his opponent does break tempo - the law makes that clear. > > > > Nobody is going to penalize a quick declarer although you > > risk some remarks > > about bad education and such in certain circles. > > I hope that if those gratuitous comments were made by another player > then that other player would be appropriately disciplined for his > gamesmanship. > > >But I am not > > going to give > > any redress about RHO tempo because pausing at this moment > > (declarer didn't > > at trick one) is not consider as breaking tempo by me (not > > relevant) and > > almost anybody else (quite relevant). > > Insignificant if the law says otherwise. Or in this case if the > SO has chosen not to regulate such a pause. > > > But whether or not this can be > > supported by twisting the current laws is a question a prefer > > to leave to > > the law twisting experts. > > I find this attitude unbelievable. If what you do can not be supported > by the laws then you simply may not do it and conversely as TD what you > do must be supported by the law. Any TD that was not willing to support > a ruling by what the law says is quite frankly fundamentally > incompetent. > > > > > > > > to see what effect this has on RHO. > > > No this is not the motive. > > > > Well maybe not your motive but it is the motive for lots of > > fast 'please > > small' players and the only rationale. You need some upside > > to compensate > > for the downside that you will go wrong from time to time > > playing (too) > > quickly. Anyway motive or not, playing fast has the effect to > > put pressure > > on RHO. > > And this is sanctioned by the laws (L72E): > 'It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the > opponents by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and > manner' > > > Your logic requires RHO 'to tell' you whether or not > > he can defer > > his defensive planning or not at this moment. > > Not at all. If RHO has a problem then RHO can solve it but RHO > should accept any problems that have been caused by his own slow > play. > > In third seat I would certainly accept the consequences of my slow > play. > > Last week I tried to give my partner a ruff when I knew she held a > doubleton and not a singleton because of her slow play to trick one > when a more successful defense was available. > > >Whatever is > > wrong with the > > laws, a lot and then some, this is not the intention of the > > law according to > > me and almost anybody else. > > I am not privy to the actual intention but as long as the law says > specifically that the SO is entitled to regulate a pause at trick > one then whenever I am playing and there is no such regulation I > will assume that the lawmakers and regulators intention was that I > do not pause. > > Wayne > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "'Bridge Laws'" > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 12:43 PM > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 6:51 p.m. > > > > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; 'Bridge Laws' > > > > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > > > > > I go along with your 'complaint' that the laws are vague or worse. > > > > > > > > But you seem to consider it normal > > > > > > Not normal but sanctioned by the laws... > > > > > > >to play fast from dummy at > > > > trick one > > > > > > Not fast but in an unvarying tempo... > > > > > > > to > > > > see what effect this has on RHO. > > > > > > No this is not the motive. > > > > > > > And you feel free to use his > > > > tempo and if > > > > you feel mislead you feel entiteled to a TD ruling. If this > > > > is correct we > > > > are not discussing bridge as most of us know it. > > > > > > > > Anyway, if the SO doesn't prescribe a mandatory pause this > > > > doesn't change > > > > the fact that from a dozen other sources > > > > > > ...but not in the laws... > > > > > > > it is clear that > > > > pausing at trick > > > > one as declarer or as RHO is completely normal > > > > > > Maybe locally but not universally. > > > > > > My point is that a player that does not break tempo at trick one > > > should not be penalized and that player may be entitled to redress > > > when his opponent does break tempo - the law makes that clear. > > > > > > >(actually > > > > desired) behaviour > > > > whether or not you have a problem at that point. If the > > > > lawmakers are too > > > > lazy, too stupid or too whatever to cover this clearly in the > > > > laws shame on > > > > them, but this doesn't change reality. > > > > > > > > Another consideration, with this profileration of 'let the SO > > > > decide' rules > > > > nobody can be expected to know to local rules any more. > > > > > > > > > > I agree this is a major problem. I do not favour such regulations. > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > > To: "'Bridge Laws'" > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 4:55 AM > > > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > > > > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2003 8:02 a.m. > > > > > > To: Bridge Laws > > > > > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/17/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >Perhaps you should read 73E and note that I merely > > said that the > > > > > > >laws 'speak of unvarying tempo' > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps I should. In fact I have. Again. However, your > > > > > > argument in this > > > > > > thread seems to be that it is a violation of law *not* to > > > > > > call and play > > > > > > in "unvarying tempo", including the same tempo at trick one > > > > > > as at every > > > > > > other trick. That is *not* what the law says. And that was my > > > > > > point. :-) > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > My argument is that: > > > > > > > > > > 1. If you make an undue hesitation then that is your problem; > > > > > > > > > > 2. There is nothing in law that automatically protects > > a hesitation > > > > > at trick one; > > > > > > > > > > 3. Since the laws specifically allow for regulation of > > a mandatory > > > > > pause at trick one then the absence of such a > > regulation suggests > > > > > that any hesitation be judged by the same standards as a > > > > hesitation > > > > > at any other trick. (After all there is no regulation > > > > for trick 5 > > > > > etc.) > > > > > > > > > > It is definitely not necessarily a violation of law not to > > > > call and play > > > > > in unvarying tempo. Just that you may give information or > > > > deceive and > > > > > the opponents will be entitled to redress. > > > > > > > > > > But it is certainly not the case that if you play in > > unvarying tempo > > > > > that > > > > > you are violating law as was suggested by some posters. > > > > That is the 'in > > > > > tempo' play at trick one was blamed for the opponent's > > subsequent > > > > > hesitation. > > > > > Bollocks!!! > > > > > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > > > > > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > > > > > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > > > > > pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE > > > > > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > > > > > > > > > What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is > > > > > called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin > > > > > Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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 hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 23 07:50:11 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:50:11 +0200 Subject: Render unto Caesar - was Re: [blml] treatment of questions References: <001901c307f8$60b73890$05def1c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20030421161555.00a05590@pop.starpower.net> <3EA500D1.20504@skynet.be> <003f01c308c4$9f2f5f40$381e2850@pacific> <3EA537F8.9020407@skynet.be> <002501c30925$c370dee0$4eec193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3EA637A3.7040001@skynet.be> grandeval wrote: >> >>But I don't believe it is up to the AC to decide >>whether or not such a reason is a "demonstrable >>bridge reason". I don't know who has to decide >>on this if you say that the WBFLC is not the >>correct organ to decide upon this issue. >> >> > +=+ Well, Herman, it's like this ..... > The remit of the WBFLC is Law. The ultimate > authority in judicial matters - judgements - is > the WBF Appeals Committee (as distinct from > a WBF Tournament Appeals Committee which > makes the judgement on the day). This is set out > quite clearly in the By-Laws of the World Bridge > Federation. The WBF Appeals Committee, like > the WBFLC, is a standing committee; along with > other standing committees, they exist in parallel, > permanently and as equals, each to fulfil its own > particular responsibilities. It is the judicial process > that decides whether a player has shown that he > had a 'demonstrable bridge reason' for asking a > question. > Incidentally, you say "it goes on as an > interpretation". Interpretation is the explanation > of a meaning; the function to which you refer is > not interpretative but judicial - judging whether > the player has a demonstrable bridge reason for > his action, and of course whether he could have > known...etc. etc. etc. .... Some people may get > a bit confused about these distinctions, but what > the WBFLC has noted it must not do is to muscle > in on matters that are the affairs of another > committee. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Quite rightly so Grattan, but you must agree that there are two seperate decisions to make. Firstly, the reasons for the question have to be determined. That is of course the task of the Tournament AC. It is a determination of fact. But we are considering here cases where this determination is simple, as the player already admits that his only reason is to "know what is going on". The second decision is to know whether or not we consider this reason to be a "demonstrable bridge reason" in the sense of L73F2. That is a decision which can be made without any reference to cards, bidding, individual statements and such. Since the main case is sufficiently common for us to have long threads on blml about, it is a decision which merits attention. That attention should not be given to individual ACs, or we shall never get consensus about this (remember Tenerife 41?). Rather, a WBF committee should make a pronouncement once and for all. I thought that could be the WBFLC, but you rather think it should be the WBFAC. Fine, but when do they meet? > > > > > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Apr 23 07:53:54 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 07:53:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: Message-ID: <004d01c30965$3b8b7d10$361de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 9:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > > >5. The WBF Appeals Committee has consistently maintained > >that to ask a question when you do not need to know the answer > >is to ask without a demonstrable bridge reason. This is a bridge > >judgement and, as such, lies within the remit of the appeals > >committee. In these circumstances, if opponent draws a rational > >conclusion from the fact that the question was asked,and is > >damaged by this, he gets a ruling in his favour. > > This presents me, as a club player in the ACBL, with an > interesting dilemma, because the club TDs around here > will *not* rule this way. In fact, the ACBL alert regulation > specifically says "when an alert is given, ask, do not > assume", and that *any* question should trigger a > full dump of all relevant information (which, in theory, > eliminates the need for amplifying questions, but in practice, > IME, does not). So it would seem that the ACBL > interpretation conflicts (is anyone surprised?) > with the WBF's. And that if I draw an incorrect inference > from a question which elsewhere would be deemed > asked "without a demonstrable bridge reason", I'm > stuffed. :-( > +=+ I am as inexperienced in ACBL appeals policies as some contributors to this discussion are in WBF appeals matters. Not for a minute would I pretend to know answers; the ACBL is recognized for its independence of mind and the WBF encourages by example but does not seek to impose. When in Rome.... It is my opinion that Law 20 allows of the same enquiries after the final pass as during the auction; the WBF is certainly urging that this is the time to ask when you do not need to know during the auction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 23 07:57:27 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:57:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT References: <000201c30842$ae413a80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EA63957.1020301@skynet.be> Some comments on John's "spiel". John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > [aside to opening leader] "... and if you're told not to lead a heart > you can't just cash an Ace and switch to a heart, you have to lose the > lead before you can lead one, ok?" > I don't say that one until the lead is expressely forbidden. I don't believe it matters, and they haven't thought about that yet, so ... > [back to declarer] "... of course if you say 'Lead anything' then each > time he is on lead you could still tell him to Lead or not Lead a heart > while the penalty card is still there" > I don't say that one either, unless that choice is actually taken, which is quite rare in my experience. > [back to opening leader] " ... this actually means if the card is still > on the table you can't play until declarer has exercised his options" > I stay at the table to tell that before trick two. > on selection of Lead or don't lead, I also say "You're not allowed to > know partner has got that card by the way", which generates a giggle. > Here I add an extra sentence: "nor that he wanted to lead it". I don't agree with the giggle, BTW, in my experience it's a round of laughter around the table. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 23 08:02:23 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:02:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] What a claim! References: <000001c3090f$1f000400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3EA63A7F.6080105@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Being one of the Directors Harald knows I fully agree, but in addition I > have a problem: There must be something "obvious" that I simply cannot see > because when I add the top tricks available I never get more than eleven: > > Three in Spades, three in Hearts, one in Diamonds and four in Clubs. > > Please enlighten me from my blindness - where is the twelfth top trick? > Nowhere! Did I ever say there was ? Yes, I did, once - at the table. This lunatic was none other than me myself and I. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 23 08:08:35 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:08:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Director's ethics References: Message-ID: <3EA63BF3.5030303@skynet.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Law 76B does not absolutely prohibit a spectator > calling attention to an irregularity; Law 76B has > an escape clause "except by request of the Director". > > Therefore, Herman the Director can request Herman > the Kibitzer to draw Herman the Director's attention > to an irregularity that Herman the Kibitzer saw. > no he cannot. Because Herman the Director does not know that Herman the Kibitzer saw anything. Of course when the opponents say anything which might be construed as "drawing attention to an irregularity", Herman the Director can assume he has been summoned, and ask Herman the Kibitzer what he saw. I thought I would be doing so when they started discussing the hand afterwards, but they failed to make the connection. > :-) > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 23 08:14:19 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:14:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Irrational, wild or gambling - subsequent to the infraction References: <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> Message-ID: <3EA63D4B.6030003@skynet.be> Well, there is one other way of looking at this. East acted very stupidly if he thought that 5D was protected by the pause. Yes indeed, a double by South might be taken away, but if South were a little smarter, surely North would have doubled anyway. So I feel that East, by acting wildly _before_ the infraction, did not severe the link with the damage. But I do see the point. BTW, I don't believe passing 5D is a LA on the South cards, given that he has had no chance yet to show his maximum passed hand. Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > This is a digest from an appeals case handled by the Danish > National authority. The case is published in Danish here: > > http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/sager/02/au-10.htm > > club tournament, imps, players of average strength > > E/All > 10 9 > 7 5 > A 9 > A K Q J 10 9 7 > A K 7 5 4 2 > A J 10 4 3 6 2 > Q J 6 5 K 10 8 4 2 > 8 6 3 2 > Q J 8 6 3 > K Q 9 8 > 7 3 > 5 4 > > S W N E > p > p 1H 3NT p > p 4D ..p 5D > X p p p > > South explains 3NT as "don't know". North thinks for at least 30 > seconds before passing to 4D. > > EW score 9 tricks for a loss of 500. > > The TD, the appeals committee, and the National Authority all > agree that the break in tempo is unauthorized for South, that it > indicates that some action is appropriate, and that passing 5D is a > logical alternative for a player who has admitted that he does not > know what 3NT means. EW were damaged by the double, so the > score is adjusted to 5D undoubled, 9 tricks. > > All of this is routine in BLML (although some of you will probably > disagree with the judgement leading to the ruling), so let me get to > the point. > > 5D can be construed as a wild or gambling action that has sent > EW overboard. In a broad sense, it is a bid that deserves to be > punished by a double. So the national authority considered > whether redress could be denied EW, with the score being > adjusted only for NS, based on the "wild or gambling" clause in the > Code of Practice. We stopped that consideration on a simple legal > point: For "wild or gambling" to be considered, it must refer to an > action taken after the infraction. The infraction is South's double > and 5D was bid before that double. Still, in a sense, East's shot at > 5D turns out to be protected by North's pause, even though the > pause is not in itself an infraction. > > So my point for debate is this: Would we prefer a code of practice > where "subsequent to the infraction" was made slightly less > restrictive so that it covered a case like this? > > Oh, by the way, in order to keep the debate from getting lost in the > bridge judgement of whether East's action is wild enough to merit > loss of redress, think of his King of diamonds as transmogrified into > a spot card. > > And while I am at it, it would be neat if the "irrational, wild or > gambling" line would be included in Law 12, not just in the CoP. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 23 08:28:24 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:28:24 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <00cd01c30963$1f7cf100$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000201c30969$edce9260$e72e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2003 6:40 p.m. > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; 'Bridge Laws' > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > Wayne: > > > If what you do can not be supported > > by the laws then you simply may not do it and conversely as > TD what you > > do must be supported by the law. Any TD that was not > willing to support > > a ruling by what the law says is quite frankly fundamentally > > incompetent. > > Most European TD's seem to do exactly that and they are not > incompetent. Do exactly what Jaap? Make rulings not based on the law? or Are unwilling to back up their rulings with the law? Wayne From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Apr 23 08:19:43 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:19:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? References: Message-ID: <010801c30968$b8453d20$25b54351@noos.fr> Table seems quite ok with me. 1. Playing such a system NS should be prepared that opps don't have much of a formal defence and will be guessing most of the time. This is one of the reasons this kind of systems have an advantage. I am not too fond of pairs using unusual methods complaining about opponents not knowing what they are doing and/or guessing right some of the time. Brief, I don't buy when EW claim not to know the meaning of 1NT-2C. I do buy the EW statement that they don't have a formal agreement on 2C in this situation (assuming carrot club is not some kind of local standard). 2. If NS choose to double a low partscore without a fourcard suit in one of their two hands they should not complain that EW have more spades than they do. 3. It depends a little on the missing 10 and 9 spots but on the obvious trump lead 2S is sure to go down (unless EW have all the missing intermediates). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 11:00 AM Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? > Teams N/S vul > > ...........North > ...........S Axx > ...........H QJxxx > ...........D Kx > ...........C xx > S Txx...............S KJxx > H xx................H Axxx > D AJxx..............D xx > C Kxxx..............C Axx > ...........S Qxx > ...........H Kx > ...........D Qxxx > ...........C QJxx > > Bidding > N E S W > 1C* P 1D% P > 1NT! 2C& Dbl P > P 2H P P > Dbl P P 2S > P P Dbl all pass > > * Carrot club either 10-12 balanced or 16+ > % art 10+ > ! 10-12 > & Meant as the majors > > Result 2Sx making. TD called and was told that N/S were misinformed. Td > changes the result to 2H-2x. E/W appeal. > > ---------------------------------------------- > > The AC determined that E/W had no agreement as to the meaning of 2C's on > this auction or similar auctions. The defence to 2S's was not looked at. > > N/S felt that before W bid 2S he should have alerted the 2C bid as NOW > showing the majors. > > E/W felt that from the bidding subsequent to the 2S bid it seemd quite clear > that East's 2C bid was not natural but probably meant as the majors. This > was East's reading of the bidding to that point. They had no agreement on > this sequence. East by bidding 2S's may well have been quite wrong. E/W > felt that N/S had got into a doubling momentum. E/W also felt the double of > 2S's was a double shot. > > AC ruled 2S making. > > --------------------------------------- > > I thought this an interesting case. I felt the result should have been 2S > doubled making. E/W didn't do anything wrong. They just applied a bit of > common sense and got lucky in the final contract. > > K. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Apr 23 08:32:59 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:32:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <000201c30969$edce9260$e72e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <010e01c3096a$9263c020$25b54351@noos.fr> Wayne: > Do exactly what Jaap? > > Make rulings not based on the law? > > or Are unwilling to back up their rulings with the law? Sorry Wayne, you have to ask Ton or Sven or ......... They also will know about relevant SO/COC etc info. But once again there are cultural differences. I consider The Netherlands a normal country with an adequate law system. Still this system is quite different from let's say the US. The bridge laws are (in theory not in reality) the same everywhere. Still it should come as no surprise that Dutch judges will consistently rule different from US judges on an identical case. I am not an active TD you know. Whenever I have to rule on AC I always let a senior TD explain the laws if relevant. I assume they know better than I do. I just pretend to know a little bit more about bridge judgement than they do. And maybe about what playing (top-level) bridge really is. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "'Bridge Laws'" Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 9:28 AM Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2003 6:40 p.m. > > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; 'Bridge Laws' > > Subject: Re: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > > > Wayne: > > > > > If what you do can not be supported > > > by the laws then you simply may not do it and conversely as > > TD what you > > > do must be supported by the law. Any TD that was not > > willing to support > > > a ruling by what the law says is quite frankly fundamentally > > > incompetent. > > > > Most European TD's seem to do exactly that and they are not > > incompetent. > > Do exactly what Jaap? > > Make rulings not based on the law? > > or Are unwilling to back up their rulings with the law? > > Wayne > > From toddz@att.net Wed Apr 23 08:41:11 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 03:41:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] What a claim! In-Reply-To: <3EA63A7F.6080105@skynet.be> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 3:02 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] What a claim! > > Nowhere! Did I ever say there was ? > Yes, I did, once - at the table. This lunatic was none > other than me myself and I. Of course the claim was disputed. How many tricks did the TD award you? ;) -Todd From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Apr 23 09:02:27 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:02:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? References: <001f01c3089b$8f061740$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <01d901c3096e$af683300$25b54351@noos.fr> John: > 1D (2D) on the card as H and C, followed by bidding spades 3 times, > finally at the 4-level. Doubled, and making since the hand had psyched > his two suiter with 9 solid spades :) I guess I already answered that in my original post. I cannot really imagine 1C-2D with 9 solid spades as a system mixup, so this is not covered by the 'ruling early conventional misbid as misinformation in system mixup cases' rule. So score stands. I am not against psyching. The above 'rule' is not meant as an anti psych measure. I am just a fed up AC member that had too many cases where the board was completely fucked up by people making mistakes with 'simple' two suited overcalls and the like (3C overcall as a twosuiter is the worst, holding 7 clubs they immediatly forget about the convention, conveniently green against red, partner knows this might happen so he doesn't bid too much, etc.). In those cases they should not be allowed to get away with a 'it was just a misbid defence'. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 1:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? > In article <001f01c3089b$8f061740$25b54351@noos.fr>, Jaap van der Neut > writes > >Richard, > > > >I know about these objections you mention. > > > >But I 'proposed' only that misbidding (in the sense of a system mixup) early > >conventional bids (needs a precise definition) should be treated as > >misinformation. Basically to protect opponents from players not knowing > >their obstructive conventional methods (like twosuited overcalls). We > >already tend to do that in The Netherlands. With the well known trick that > >if they fail to bid a simple 1S-2NT or such with the right twosuiter we > >might rule they have no system so the explanation cannot be right. But we > >would love to have this covered better by the laws. > > > you'd enjoy ruling this one: > > 1D (2D) on the card as H and C, followed by bidding spades 3 times, > finally at the 4-level. Doubled, and making since the hand had psyched > his two suiter with 9 solid spades :) > > >The price you pay is that the any workable definition also includes some > >constructive conventions (no big deal). And a few psyches are not possible > >anymore, those that cannot be distinguished from a misbid (in the sense of a > >system mixup). But only those because a psyche is not a misbid (in the sense > >of a system mixup). > > > >I have no hard feelings one way or another about a rule that states that you > >cannot psych conventional calls (that will be tricky to define). But such a > >rule has nothing to do with what I discussed above. > > > >Another interesting topic is the interaction between 'psyching' and > >legal/illegal system. Example, is it ok to open a multi in third green > >against red on a flat 2 count ? > > > >Jaap > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: > >To: > >Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:54 AM > >Subject: Re: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? > > > > > >> > >> From the thread "Bidding 1S two ways": > >> > >> Herman wrote: > >> > >> [snip] > >> > >> >I would not be adverse to a general regulation or > >> >even law that says that it is an infraction to misbid > >> >in certain simple situations. And that the infraction > >> >is penalized as if it were a misinformation. > >> > > >> >In fact, I interpret the footnote requiring evidence > >> >of misbid so harshly that it almost seems as if such > >> >a regulation were already in place. > >> > > >> >But please WBF, if you go that way, make it a law, > >> >not an authorisation to SOs to write regulations. > >> > >> Richard replied: > >> > >> However, if the 2005 Laws rules that misbids are > >> infractions, then there would be consequential side > >> effects. > >> > >> From the thread "Godel, Escher and Bridge": > >> > >> Richard wrote: > >> > >> Making a misbid an infraction would include a > >> bonus of making all psyches infractions, a > >> concept definitely liked by a majority of > >> players. > >> > >> And this new rule would make determining > >> whether or not a pair "has lied about its > >> methods" irrelevant, as the TD could simply > >> compare cards with explanation. > >> > >> Implementation of the new rule would be > >> straightforward. The WBF LC could borrow a > >> concept from the EBU's Red Psyche reg, and > >> order that as soon as a misbid occurs, an > >> automatic Ave+/Ave- is awarded. > >> > >> A further advantageous consequence of the > >> frequent Ave+/Ave- scores would be that > >> bridge sessions would finish in jig time, as > >> hardly anybody would actually play a hand. > >> This obviates the need for the TD to decide > >> whether to apply a slow play penalty. > >> > >> Best wishes > >> > >> Richard > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 Wed Apr 23 09:35:52 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:35:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <010e01c3096a$9263c020$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000001c30973$59b77470$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut > Wayne: >=20 > > Do exactly what Jaap? > > > > Make rulings not based on the law? > > > > or Are unwilling to back up their rulings with the law? >=20 >=20 > Sorry Wayne, you have to ask Ton or Sven or ......... OK, I had intended to having written my final entry on this thread but = on a direct question: I make my rulings based on the law and I back up my rulings with the = law. The laws do not explicitly define what is meant by "unvarying tempo"; a strong inference is of course that it means the same tempo in trick one = as in any other trick, but an equally strong inference from the life of = bridge, tutorials, literature and not the least: Official commentaries to the = laws; is that trick one is to be considered separately. "Unvarying tempo" to me is the tempo that in each particular case = conveys as little extraneous information as possible. Because of the frequent need = for some extra time to plan the play "before even playing the first card to trick one" this must be a different tempo in trick one compared to the similar tempo in other tricks. (Have you ever heard the comment: "As in = so many plays the error was made already in trick one"?) In trick one I allow and in fact expect some pause during which the = players are supposed to plan their play of the entire thirteen tricks as much as possible. During the later tricks I do not allow such pauses unless = there is a demonstrable bridge reason for it (or when dealing with inexperienced players). Until Wayne, and others with the same opinion can understand this logic instead of just hammering out "unvarying tempo means same tempo in all thirteen tricks because that are the letters in the laws" (which in fact = is not even true) this discussion serves no further purpose. Sven From toddz@att.net Wed Apr 23 10:05:27 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 05:05:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <000001c30973$59b77470$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Sven Pran > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 4:36 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > I make my rulings based on the law and I back up my > rulings with the law. > The laws do not explicitly define what is meant by > "unvarying tempo"; a > strong inference is of course that it means the same > tempo in trick one as > in any other trick, but an equally strong inference > from the life of bridge, > tutorials, literature and not the least: Official > commentaries to the laws; > is that trick one is to be considered separately. It could be considered that the lack of variance occurs hand-to-hand rather than trick-to-trick. This use of 'tempo' has some support from the musical community with composers like Luciano Berio*, where the tempo from beat-to-beat is different, but the performer should align the tempo from staff-to-staff, repeating the tempi chosen for the first. -Todd (* only some, not all, of his compositions employ this technique) From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Apr 23 10:58:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <001501c3091a$ebaa6bc0$cde436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > I am not privy to the actual intention but as long as the law says > specifically that the SO is entitled to regulate a pause at trick > one then whenever I am playing and there is no such regulation I > will assume that the lawmakers and regulators intention was that I > do not pause. The lawmakers have said that pausing at trick one can be made compulsory. That they have chosen not to do so does not imply that pausing at trick one is illegal, or even bad practice. Obviously plays should be made without "undue hesitation" but if one pauses at trick one to consider the play of the whole hand that is a "due hesitation" not an "undue" one. It is normal, but not required, for both sides to take a few seconds at trick one to consider the play of the hand - why is this a problem? Tim From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 23 11:33:37 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:33:37 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <000001c30973$59b77470$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000401c30983$cda64ea0$e72e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2003 8:36 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > Jaap van der Neut > > Wayne: > > > > > Do exactly what Jaap? > > > > > > Make rulings not based on the law? > > > > > > or Are unwilling to back up their rulings with the law? > > > > > > Sorry Wayne, you have to ask Ton or Sven or ......... > > OK, I had intended to having written my final entry on this > thread but on a > direct question: > > I make my rulings based on the law and I back up my rulings > with the law. > The laws do not explicitly define what is meant by "unvarying > tempo"; a > strong inference is of course that it means the same tempo in > trick one as > in any other trick, but an equally strong inference from the > life of bridge, > tutorials, literature and not the least: Official > commentaries to the laws; > is that trick one is to be considered separately. > > "Unvarying tempo" to me is the tempo that in each particular > case conveys as > little extraneous information as possible. Unvarying tempo always conveys no extraneous information. Unfortunately that ideal is seldom if ever achieved. > Because of the > frequent need for > some extra time to plan the play "before even playing the > first card to > trick one" this must be a different tempo in trick one compared to the > similar tempo in other tricks. (Have you ever heard the > comment: "As in so > many plays the error was made already in trick one"?) > > In trick one I allow and in fact expect some pause during > which the players > are supposed to plan their play of the entire thirteen tricks > as much as > possible. Law73A2 clearly implies that such a pause is an undue hesitation. A pause at trick one is given as an example of undue hesitation that may be allowed... ... but that law allows a SO and not the TD the right to mandate such a pause as a special case. In the absence of such a mandate a TD has no right to impose that pause on the players. To me an attitude where a TD imposes his own rule when the SO has chosen not to is one of unbelievable arrogance. I cannot see how you can reconcile this position with L73D2 nor can I see how you can reconcile this position with L73E. L73D2 tells us that hesitating with a singleton is unlawful. L73E tells us that it is proper to play in unvarying tempo. Specifically "all ... plays in unvarying tempo" is sanctioned as appropriate. Not some plays in one tempo and others in another tempo as some are arguing. > During the later tricks I do not allow such pauses > unless there is > a demonstrable bridge reason for it (or when dealing with > inexperienced > players). > > Until Wayne, and others with the same opinion can understand > this logic > instead of just hammering out "unvarying tempo means same tempo in all > thirteen tricks because that are the letters in the laws" > (which in fact is > not even true) this discussion serves no further purpose. I did not see an attempt at a logical argument about what the law says. What I see is merely an opinion of what you (and maybe others) think the practice should be. Wayne > > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 23 11:39:49 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:39:49 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c30984$ab257e40$e72e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2003 9:58 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > Wayne wrote: > > > I am not privy to the actual intention but as long as the law says > > specifically that the SO is entitled to regulate a pause at trick > > one then whenever I am playing and there is no such regulation I > > will assume that the lawmakers and regulators intention was that I > > do not pause. > > The lawmakers have said that pausing at trick one can be made > compulsory. > That they have chosen not to do so does not imply that > pausing at trick > one is illegal, or even bad practice. Obviously plays should be made > without "undue hesitation" but if one pauses at trick one to > consider the > play of the whole hand that is a "due hesitation" not an "undue" one. If one pauses at trick n to play a singleton that is an undue hesitation. Even n=1 !!! I do not claim that a pause is necessarily illegal. I merely claim that a pause at trick may give UI or deceive declarer and that the pauser is responsible for any problems created. > > It is normal, but not required, for both sides to take a few > seconds at > trick one to consider the play of the hand - why is this a problem? It is no problem to me. Well at least it is not necessarily a problem but it could cause a problem. The problem occurs when the pause is 'expected' as is the opinion of some here. Wayne > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 23 12:04:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:04:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <000401c30983$cda64ea0$e72e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000101c30988$2e3b3420$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows ....... > > "Unvarying tempo" to me is the tempo that in each particular > > case conveys as > > little extraneous information as possible. > > Unvarying tempo always conveys no extraneous information. "always"? It may convey the extraneous information that you have no problem with selecting your play! Sorry, I couldn't help it! Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Apr 23 12:26:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <000501c30984$ab257e40$e72e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > If one pauses at trick n to play a singleton that is an undue > hesitation. True. If that is one's purpose. However if one pauses to consider the whole hand before playing to trick one when one happens to hold a singleton then it is "due". If a declarer decides to draw an inference from trick one tempo and doesn't take into account that defender might be contemplating the whole hand he is doing so at his own risk. > I do not claim that a pause is necessarily illegal. > > I merely claim that a pause at trick may give UI or deceive declarer and > that the pauser is responsible for any problems created. If a pause creates UI, and (like a fast play) it can then the pauser's partner is responsible for dealing with it - not the pauser. If declarer is deceived by a pause because he draws the wrong conclusion regarding why the pause happened declarer is responsible. > > > > It is normal, but not required, for both sides to take a few > > seconds at > > trick one to consider the play of the hand - why is this a problem? > > It is no problem to me. Well at least it is not necessarily a problem > but it could cause a problem. > > The problem occurs when the pause is 'expected' as is the opinion of > some here. I don't recall anyone saying a pause is "expected" or "unexpected", merely that a pause is unsurprising and seldom communicates anything about the hand held. Tim From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Apr 23 12:46:22 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:46:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: > > >5. The WBF Appeals Committee has consistently maintained > > >that to ask a question when you do not need to know the answer > > >is to ask without a demonstrable bridge reason. This is a boring statement, something like: when 'a' then 'a'. The question to be answered is whether a player only is in need of an answer when his action depends on that answer. I had promised myself not to react on this subject anymore. But now the WBF gets more and more involved. So once again: I didn't see any proof for the statement Grattan repeats for weeks now, not even for his when 'a' then 'a'. Furthermore the WBF appeals committee is the authority to judge the existence of a demonstrable brdidge reason in accordance with the interpretation of the relevant laws given by the LC. It is my strong believe that the LC needs to interpret the laws in such way that questions about calls are not restricted by the 13 cards hold by the questioner. I wasn't aware of such need, since L20F is completely clear in this respect (I thought), and L 16 covers the potential UI arising from such questioning. This is a bridge > > >judgement and, as such, lies within the remit of the appeals > > >committee. In these circumstances, if opponent draws a rational > > >conclusion from the fact that the question was asked,and is > > >damaged by this, he gets a ruling in his favour. Nonsense (in my opinion) > > This presents me, as a club player in the ACBL, with an > > interesting dilemma, because the club TDs around here > > will *not* rule this way. In fact, the ACBL alert regulation > > specifically says "when an alert is given, ask, do not > > assume", and that *any* question should trigger a > > full dump of all relevant information (which, in theory, > > eliminates the need for amplifying questions, but in practice, > > IME, does not). So it would seem that the ACBL > > interpretation conflicts (is anyone surprised?) > > with the WBF's. At most with an opinion of the WBF AC, of which the facts can't be presented. Certainly not with the WBF LC up till now. The fact that I am reacting so strongly is because the way Grattan presents this view does more harm to bridge and the way it should be played then it helps the development of our sport. See your 'is anyone surprised?'. I can assure you that the Dutch Bridge Federation doesn't support the view given by Grattan either. So I support fulheartedly the ACBL in this respect. ton From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Apr 23 13:18:03 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:18:03 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951653@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> > > >5. The WBF Appeals Committee has consistently maintained > > >that to ask a question when you do not need to know the answer > > >is to ask without a demonstrable bridge reason.=20 This is a boring statement, something like: when 'a' then 'a'. The question to be answered is whether a player only is in need of an answer when his action depends on that answer. =20 I had promised myself not to react on this subject anymore. But now the WBF gets more and more involved. So once again: I didn't see any proof for the statement Grattan repeats for weeks now, not even for his when 'a' then 'a'.=20 Furthermore the WBF appeals committee is the authority to judge the existence of a demonstrable brdidge reason in accordance with the interpretation of the relevant laws given by the LC.=20 It is my strong believe that the LC needs to interpret the laws in such way that questions about calls are not restricted by the 13 cards hold by the questioner. I wasn't aware of such need, since L20F is completely clear in this respect (I thought), and L 16 covers the potential UI arising from such questioning.=20 This is a bridge > > >judgement and, as such, lies within the remit of the appeals > > >committee. In these circumstances, if opponent draws a rational > > >conclusion from the fact that the question was asked,and is > > >damaged by this, he gets a ruling in his favour. Nonsense (in my opinion) > > This presents me, as a club player in the ACBL, with an > > interesting dilemma, because the club TDs around here > > will *not* rule this way. In fact, the ACBL alert regulation=20 > > specifically says "when an alert is given, ask, do not=20 > > assume", and that *any* question should trigger a > > full dump of all relevant information (which, in theory, > > eliminates the need for amplifying questions, but in practice, > > IME, does not). So it would seem that the ACBL=20 > > interpretation conflicts (is anyone surprised?) > > with the WBF's.=20 At most with an opinion of the WBF AC, of which the facts can't be presented.=20 Certainly not with the WBF LC up till now.=20 The fact that I am reacting so strongly is because the way Grattan presents this view does more harm to bridge and the way it should be played then it helps the development of our sport. See your 'is anyone surprised?'. I can assure you that the Dutch Bridge Federation doesn't support the view given by Grattan either. So I support fulheartedly the ACBL in this respect.=20 --------- On this matter I wholehartedly agree with Ton, as do the Norwegian LC. I'm of the opinion that Grattan is mistaken here. That any question must imply willingness to act, regarding upon the reply, gives away far to much information, both to partner and opponents. The "only" way to avoid this problem is to always ask when you need the information, and randomly ask when the information is unimportant at the moment. Thus you create no UI for partner, and the opponents draws conclusions at their own risk. Harald --------- ton _______________________________________________ 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 gester@lineone.net Wed Apr 23 15:02:39 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:02:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: Message-ID: <003c01c309a5$a834eb00$ae1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 10:05 AM Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sven Pran > > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 4:36 AM > > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > The laws do not explicitly define what is meant by > > "unvarying tempo"; a > > strong inference is of course that it means the same > > tempo in trick one as in any other trick < +=+ Nor is it invariably required (Law 73D1). +=+ From gester@lineone.net Wed Apr 23 15:04:27 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:04:27 +0100 Subject: Render unto Caesar - was Re: [blml] treatment of questions References: <001901c307f8$60b73890$05def1c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20030421161555.00a05590@pop.starpower.net> <3EA500D1.20504@skynet.be> <003f01c308c4$9f2f5f40$381e2850@pacific> <3EA537F8.9020407@skynet.be> <002501c30925$c370dee0$4eec193e@4nrw70j> <3EA637A3.7040001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003d01c309a5$a8f52dc0$ae1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 7:50 AM Subject: Re: Render unto Caesar - was Re: [blml] treatment of questions > > Quite rightly so Grattan, but you must agree > that there are two seperate decisions to make. > Firstly, the reasons for the question have to > be determined. That is of course the task of > the Tournament AC. It is a determination of > fact. But we are considering here cases where > this determination is simple, as the player > already admits that his only reason is to "know > what is going on". > The second decision is to know whether or > not we consider this reason to be a "demonstrable > bridge reason" in the sense of L73F2. > +=+ Under tournament regulations this second decision would also be made on site by the TAC. If questions were raised about it the WBF AC would be the authority to review, in its discretion, the TAC's judgement. The By-Laws establish this to be so. The WBF AC would only meet if it thought fit to explore a matter; if held such a meeting would probably be found time at a world championship. A WBF TAC is normally chaired by a senior member of the standing committee, so it would be pretty rare for the latter body to find anything to review in a TAC judgement. ~ G ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 23 15:47:44 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:47:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: <200304231447.KAA26481@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > It could be considered that the lack of variance occurs > hand-to-hand rather than trick-to-trick. Please, "deal-to-deal," but otherwise I agree. So does, as far as I can tell, everyone except Wayne. Wayne: we know your opinion by now, but I doubt you will convince anyone. Certainly the plain text can be read either way, but the weight of both practice and logic is against your view. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 23 15:55:05 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:55:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? Message-ID: <200304231455.KAA26782@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" > The AC determined that E/W had no agreement as to the meaning of 2C's on > this auction or similar auctions. The writeup wasn't at all clear, so it's difficult to conclude anything. However, the 2C bid itself and the absence of a raise with four card support both suggest some partnership experience relating 2C bids to major suits. If such experience exists, the opponents are entitled to know about it. The TD ruling is more interesting than the AC one. Normally, absent UI, there would be nothing illegal about the 2S bid, which the TD cancelled to get to the 2H contract. Apparently the TD ruled that the 2S bid was illegal under L40B. My first reaction was that this was wrong, but on thinking it over, it seems quite possibly correct. Isn't this the best "likely" result for the NOS absent an infraction? And isn't the 2S bid an infraction if NS are not properly informed? Whole hand quoted below: ...........North ...........S Axx ...........H QJxxx ...........D Kx ...........C xx S Txx...............S KJxx H xx................H Axxx D AJxx..............D xx C Kxxx..............C Axx ...........S Qxx ...........H Kx ...........D Qxxx ...........C QJxx Bidding N E S W 1C* P 1D% P 1NT! 2C& Dbl P P 2H P P Dbl P P 2S P P Dbl all pass * Carrot club either 10-12 balanced or 16+ % art 10+ ! 10-12 & Meant as the majors Result 2Sx making. TD called and was told that N/S were misinformed. Td changes the result to 2H-2x. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 23 16:14:28 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:14:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Irrational, wild or gambling - subsequent to the infraction In-Reply-To: <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030423171108.02453140@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:11 22/04/2003 +0200, Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >This is a digest from an appeals case handled by the Danish >National authority. The case is published in Danish here: > > http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/sager/02/au-10.htm > > club tournament, imps, players of average strength > > E/All > 10 9 > 7 5 > A 9 > A K Q J 10 9 7 > A K 7 5 4 2 > A J 10 4 3 6 2 > Q J 6 5 K 10 8 4 2 > 8 6 3 2 > Q J 8 6 3 > K Q 9 8 > 7 3 > 5 4 > > S W N E > p > p 1H 3NT p > p 4D ..p 5D > X p p p > >South explains 3NT as "don't know". North thinks for at least 30 >seconds before passing to 4D. > >EW score 9 tricks for a loss of 500. > >The TD, the appeals committee, and the National Authority all >agree that the break in tempo is unauthorized for South, that it >indicates that some action is appropriate, and that passing 5D is a >logical alternative for a player who has admitted that he does not >know what 3NT means. EW were damaged by the double, so the >score is adjusted to 5D undoubled, 9 tricks. > >All of this is routine in BLML (although some of you will probably >disagree with the judgement leading to the ruling), so let me get to >the point. AG : sorry for not answering the point. But I think the decision was terrible. If we believe that NS have no convention about the bid, it is at least fairly strong (points or tricks). In this case, South's double is obvious. The 3NT bid, not the tempo, told South he should act. Period. Best regards, Alain. From gillp@bigpond.com Wed Apr 23 15:58:45 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 00:58:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Irrational, wild or gambling - subsequent to the infraction Message-ID: <02f601c309a8$dc657c20$0d8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >>So my point for debate is this: Would we prefer a code of practice >>where "subsequent to the infraction" was made slightly less >>restrictive so that it covered a case like this? > >I would most definitely not prefer that. I have several reasons for >that opinion: > >(a) ..... [big snip] ..... > > >(e) In general, it seems to be that there is way too much worry about >non-offenders getting good scores. I agree wholeheartedly. >It is in the power of every bridge player to give his opponents >a good score: all it takes is forgetting an outstanding trump, >answering an ace too many to Blackwood, or one of a million other >things. I do not in any way find it a problem that making a bid you >have no agreement about followed by a hesitation and >an illegal double, is also one of the ways of giving your opponent a >good score. When NS makes mistakes, EW benefits: that is normal, >natural, and good. > >(f) Personally I would prefer the whole IWoG action concept to be >removed: I strongly suspect that the number of cases where the >existence of that concept provides a benefit (in the sense that it >leads to a more reasonable result) is much smaller than the number >of cases where it is applied mistakenly to ordinary bad play and >leads to an unreasonable result. That problem would only be worse >if the principle were extended. Personally I agree with (f). For example, consider Jens Brix Christiansen's hand. The 5D bidder could easily be thinking that his partner has introduced a new suit vulnerable at the four level, presumably a five card suit almost always. Opposite a minimum such as -, AKxxx, AQ9xx, xxx, 5D is a near certainty (as is 4S the other way if you pass 4D). Opposite a slightly better hand such as Axx, AQJ10x, Axxxx, -, 12 tricks looks likely with 13 tricks possible. Opposite a 16 HCP maximum such as Ax, AKQxxx, AJxxx, -, 7D is worth bidding. What was wrong with 5D? Is the problem that the guy didn't make a slam try? :) That anyone would even think that 5D was IWoG staggers me. 4D on the flat hand looks misguided to me but is typical of how people bid, but 5D with the megafit in diamonds surely is beyond criticism. So should the IWoG thing be rolled back to actions after the hesitation rather than actions after the infraction? No, IMO that would only open another ugly can of worms. I do admit that I haven't given the matter much thought but I don't like the idea. Peter Gill Australia. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 23 16:28:57 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:28:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? In-Reply-To: <200304231455.KAA26782@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030423171941.02457a40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:55 23/04/2003 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" > > The AC determined that E/W had no agreement as to the meaning of 2C's on > > this auction or similar auctions. > >The writeup wasn't at all clear, so it's difficult to conclude anything. >However, the 2C bid itself and the absence of a raise with four card >support both suggest some partnership experience relating 2C bids to >major suits. If such experience exists, the opponents are entitled >to know about it. AG : I don't know why, having been penalty-doubled in 2C, West should bid 3C. As West, I would have reasoned as follows : "Well, what's partner's 2C ? Either artificial, in which case I'd rather not raise him, or natural, in which case South's double suits me. He probably *thinks* his double is for takeout. Don't let him out by raising" I insist on being well-prepared against all sorts of systems, but here I would have had a problem. I know what I play vs strong clubs, I know what I play vs non-strong, forcing clubs (Flodqvist's 13-16) but I don't know what I play vs Carrot. While risking looking conceited, I feel that I have no set defense, very few intermediate-level players will have. So I agree with Jaap : when your system creates havoc, don't be surprised. Best regards, Alain. From johnson@athena.ccrs.emr.ca Wed Apr 23 16:07:36 2003 From: johnson@athena.ccrs.emr.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:07:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Apr 21, 2003 04:27:54 PM Message-ID: <200304231507.h3NF7aD02401@athena.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> On 4/20/03, grandeval wrote: >+=+ Just to reiterate the position maintained steadily by the >WBF Appeals Committee, through TACs, in my experience over >16+ years: > >1. No-one suggests that a question may not be asked at a player's >turn. >2. It is, however, always the case that in asking a question a >player may convey UI to partner; he also risks misleading an >opponent. >3. If an opponent is misled by a question asked, and is damaged >thereby, when the player has 'no demonstrable bridge reason' for >asking the question, opponent is entitled to an adjustment of the >score. Exactly when has this happened? Seriously. I try to follow appeals quite closely. I can't find anything that backs this position and I can find at least one ruling that seems in direct contrast. Though the central issue in that appeal is not an opponent being misled but rather an allegation of possible use of unauthorized information. One thing that is absolutely clear is that the AC in question did not even delve into the issue of demonstable bridge reason for the question. In fact, the tone of the response by the AC makes it reasonably clear that they would have found the points you are advocating (unsupported by anything I can see -- though I'm quite prepared to be proved wrong on this point) to be absurd. >4. It is not sufficient for the player to say "I always ask" or to say >"I wished to follow the auction along". The player must show that >he had a need to know the answer to the question at the time >when it was asked, and could not defer his curiosity until later. This contadicts the AC at Albuquerque 13. A very strong one I might add. Appeals Report 13 from Albuquerque (Rosenblum Cup) 743 JT A984 KJ85 K65 AQ 764 A53 J63 KQT7 Q942 AT63 JT982 KQ982 52 7 West North East South - Pass 1C 2C Pass 2S 2NT Pass 3NT South's 2C was a Michaels Cuebid for the majors and West asked about the meaning of this direct cuebid before deciding to pass. There was no hesitation involved. The fact that West asked instead of looking at the convention card led N/S to maintain that East's bid of 2NT may have been influenced by West's questions. E/W scored +600. The director was called at the end of the board, ruling that the score stands. N/S felt that East's bid of 2NT was not routine, and was possibly influenced by partner's question. At the other table their teammates were in the same position and chose to double, because the latter would be too dangerous. In England a player cannot ask a question when not intending to bid without compromising partner. In this event with such strict requirements regarding convention cards, he could pass and then look at the convention card. The Committee: There was no hesitation, and you are allowed to ask when it is your turn to bid. It is the opinion of the Committee that you should always ask, for then nobody can find any pattern in asking. E/W were playing natural with five card majors, and the natural development with no interruption would be to jump to 2NT on the second round to show a balanced 18-19 count. The 2NT bid is therefore considered routine. Result stands, deposit forfeited. Committee: Tony Forrester (Chairman), Jens Auken, Bobby Goldman, Tommy Sandsmark. Tony Sowter includes the following note in the tournament book: This ruling illustrates the dangers of individual NCBO's adopting regulations that are inconsistent with the international view. So you have two leading EBU players who believe that a) the EBU regs say you can't ask questions when intending to pass without potential consequences and b) that those regs are wrong. >5. The WBF Appeals Committee has consistently maintained >that to ask a question when you do not need to know the answer >is to ask without a demonstrable bridge reason. When did has this happened? -- Ron From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 23 16:22:29 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:22:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? Message-ID: <000101c309ac$277a3090$6900a8c0@WINXP> I remembered this deal from one of my books, it is quite likely that = many will recognize it but anyway, here goes:=20 After the following auction ("natural"): South West North East 1 C pass 1 H 3 D pass pass 3 S pass 3 NT pass pass 4 D pass pass 4 NT all pass your partner leads the 3 D and you see: ...........S KQ72 ...........H AQ83 ...........D K ...........C Q532 S ..................S 543 H ..................H 65 D 3.................D AQJ8762 C ..................C T How much time do you need to figure out your defense against 4NT, how quickly do you play your first card, which card do you play to trick = one, how do you continue and why? (And did it have any influence on the answers that I presented the case = this way?) regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 23 16:32:01 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:32:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/22/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >A further requirement is that the questioner "could have known" at the >time of the question that the question could work to one's benefit. I hate that phrase. Mrs. Guggenheim "could have known", if she were Meckwell. But she's not. "Could have known" is one of those weasel worded things that allows somebody to interpret the laws however he would like. That sucks. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 23 16:28:27 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:28:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Slooow play Message-ID: On 4/22/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >This cultural difference may be because of the greater >percentage of professional experts in ACBL-land (most >Aussie experts are amateurs). If annoying others with >slow play increases your own chance of an overtrick, >and therefore increases the chance of a performance >bonus from your sponsor, then there is an incentive for >you to redefine the parameters of Law 90B2. That would, IMO, be unethical. If there are "professional experts" around here, they don't play where I do. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From cfgcs@eiu.edu Wed Apr 23 17:10:44 2003 From: cfgcs@eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:10:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Irrational, wild or gambling - subsequent to the infraction In-Reply-To: <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20030423110419.029ced90@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> At 10:11 PM 4/22/03 +0200, Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >5D can be construed as a wild or gambling action that has sent >EW overboard. In a broad sense, it is a bid that deserves to be >punished by a double. So the national authority considered >whether redress could be denied EW, with the score being >adjusted only for NS, based on the "wild or gambling" clause in the >Code of Practice. We stopped that consideration on a simple legal >point: For "wild or gambling" to be considered, it must refer to an >action taken after the infraction. The infraction is South's double >and 5D was bid before that double. Still, in a sense, East's shot at >5D turns out to be protected by North's pause, even though the >pause is not in itself an infraction. I don't think this is true, for three reasons I can think of off the top of my head: a) If S must legally not double 5D, it is quite clear that he could not legally double 4D. So East's shot will usually cost him an extra undertrick. While that will seldom matter, it will matter sometimes. b) S may very well have a hand that gives him a legitimate double of 5D. Indeed, I think it was quite lucky for EW that [the committee ruled that] he didn't. c) If S passes in tempo, then N will thrash 5D quite legally. >So my point for debate is this: Would we prefer a code of practice >where "subsequent to the infraction" was made slightly less >restrictive so that it covered a case like this? No, I don't think so. I think the cases where it was applied when it didn't belong would outweigh the cases where it remedied a real need. >Oh, by the way, in order to keep the debate from getting lost in the >bridge judgement of whether East's action is wild enough to merit >loss of redress, think of his King of diamonds as transmogrified into >a spot card. > >And while I am at it, it would be neat if the "irrational, wild or >gambling" line would be included in Law 12, not just in the CoP. >-- >Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark >http://www.alesia.dk/ Respectfully, Grant Sterling From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 23 17:00:16 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:00:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <003101c3087a$9d69e120$0a9737d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On 4/22/03, Wayne Burrows wrote: >My argument is that: > >1. If you make an undue hesitation then that is your problem; Okay, agreed. >2. There is nothing in law that automatically protects a hesitation > at trick one; Um, okay. >3. Since the laws specifically allow for regulation of a mandatory > pause at trick one then the absence of such a regulation suggests > that any hesitation be judged by the same standards as a hesitation > at any other trick. (After all there is no regulation for trick 5 > etc.) I disagree. >It is definitely not necessarily a violation of law not to call and >play in unvarying tempo. Just that you may give information or >deceive and the opponents will be entitled to redress. Giving information does not automatically entitle opponents to redress. Deception does not either, unless you "could have known" that it might give your side an advantage. (I still hate that phrase). >But it is certainly not the case that if you play in unvarying tempo >that you are violating law as was suggested by some posters. That is >the 'in tempo' play at trick one was blamed for the opponent's >subsequent hesitation. Bollocks!!! Not bollocks. Well, not entirely. Hesitation: (1) to hold back in doubt or indecision When a player is trying to determine how to defend against opponents' contract, he is not "hesitating" according to this meaning of the word. Hesitation: (2) to delay momentarily: pause. He *is* hesitating by this definition. However, my reading of the laws leads me to believe that the first is the intended meaning. If that is the correct interpretation, then 3rd hand's pause at trick one is not out of tempo, provided declarer did not allow him sufficient time* to decide on his line of play before his turn to play to trick one. IMNSHO, if the second is the intended meaning (and I'll grant that many, especially those of the "if it hesitates, shoot it" school, seem to think it is), then the law needs to be changed. *The laws specifically allow SOs to define "sufficient time" by regulation. However, the fact that an SO does not do so does *not* mandate that the value is 0 (or whatever is considered "in tempo" generally). If it did, the law would say so - or there would be a weasel law that says "anything not specifically allowed by these laws is prohibited". You also have to take into account the abilities of the players involved. Novice players have not learned to use every available second to think ahead. Instead, they wait until it's "their turn" and *then* start thinking. Since they also don't have the ingrained trained responses to many common situations that experienced players have, it *always* takes them longer to decide what to do. For such players, 17 seconds (or 30, or 3 days) may be "in tempo". A personally frustrating example: I have a novice partner (although we've been playing together for over a year). She has excellent card sense, which leads to a tendency to play too quickly to trick one (usually, but not always, as declarer). Then she tanks later in the play. I've tried to get her to think about the hand *before* she plays to trick one, and she's trying to do that, but she still often tanks later on, in situations where she shouldn't have a problem. I haven't figured out what to do about that yet. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 23 17:19:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:19:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <5884186.1051013104108.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: On 4/22/03, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >No amount of "regulation" can alter the fact that if a player plays >slowly to trick one when this is not his invariable practice, >extraneous information may be conveyed or a false inference created. >The same is true of a player who plays quickly to trick one when this >is not his invariable practice. Despite the protestations of some >contributors, there is no difference between trick one and any other >point in the auction or play as far as Law 16 and Law 73 are concerned. Worded this way, I agree. However, it leaves open the case that a "normal" pause at trick one is not "out of tempo". Amplifying, to see if I really understand this: 1. If a declarer *always* plays quickly to trick one, then playing quickly to trick one is not out of tempo *for him*. However, 3rd hand is still entitled to play "in tempo" *for that player* - which may, at trick one, include time to think about his overall defense. 2. If a declarer *always* takes time to plan his play at trick one, then doing so is not out of tempo. 3. If 3rd hand *always* takes time to plan his play at trick one, then doing so is not out of tempo, but time provided by *declarer's* tempo must be taken into account. 4. In all cases, if a player does not do what he "always" does, he is not playing in tempo. Have I got it right? Did I miss anything? Note that I didn't say anything about what "everybody", or "everybody in a given area," does. It occurs to me to wonder how players and TDs are supposed to keep track of the normal tempo of all the players they will meet in a lifetime of playing bridge. >Regulation to the effect that the first two plays to trick one shall >be made after a pause of specified duration would go some way to >resolving the issue. But such regulation is nowhere implied by the >laws. No. It *is* specifically allowed, of course. >"Regulation" to the effect that all pauses at trick one should be >regarded as "information free" is deeply misguided (which is why we >have it in England). Heh. English regulations may have their faults, but in general I think you do better than the ACBL does. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 23 17:26:17 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:26:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: <200304231626.MAA01421@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> From: Ed Reppert > I hate that phrase. Mrs. Guggenheim "could have known", if she were > Meckwell. But she's not. "Could have known" is one of those weasel > worded things that allows somebody to interpret the laws however he > would like. That sucks. Oh, come on, Ed. It's not as bad as that. There are lots of random ways things can turn out well, and even Meckwell can't predict those. Remember, what you have to be able to guess is that your action is _likely_ to help your side, not just that it might do so on a very lucky day. If somebody gets lucky, as opposed to having executed a villainous plan, they keep their score. What's wrong with that? The more interesting question is whether we will _ever_ rule that Mrs. Guggenheim "could have known." Suppose she executes an Alcatraz Coup, completely by accident. I'll still rule against her, just as I would against anyone else. What's wrong with that? In contrast to Ed, I quite like "could have known." It puts an end to all sorts of villainy at very little cost. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 23 17:33:46 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 04:33:46 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <000101c30988$2e3b3420$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001401c309b6$1d5148b0$d8b337d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2003 11:05 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > Wayne Burrows > ....... > > > "Unvarying tempo" to me is the tempo that in each particular > > > case conveys as > > > little extraneous information as possible. > > > > Unvarying tempo always conveys no extraneous information. > > "always"? It may convey the extraneous information that you > have no problem > with selecting your play! > > Sorry, I couldn't help it! I guess that is what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote: "It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner." Not!!! Haste implies no problem. Unvarying tempo is 'entirely appropriate'. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 23 17:49:05 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 04:49:05 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001501c309b8$412fccf0$d8b337d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2003 11:26 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > Wayne wrote: > > > If one pauses at trick n to play a singleton that is an undue > > hesitation. > > True. If that is one's purpose. However if one pauses to > consider the > whole hand before playing to trick one when one happens to hold a > singleton then it is "due". If a declarer decides to draw an > inference > from trick one tempo and doesn't take into account that > defender might be > contemplating the whole hand he is doing so at his own risk. > > > I do not claim that a pause is necessarily illegal. > > > > I merely claim that a pause at trick may give UI or deceive > declarer and > > that the pauser is responsible for any problems created. > > If a pause creates UI, and (like a fast play) it can then the > pauser's > partner is responsible for dealing with it - not the pauser. > If declarer > is deceived by a pause because he draws the wrong conclusion > regarding why > the pause happened declarer is responsible. > > > > > > > It is normal, but not required, for both sides to take a few > > > seconds at > > > trick one to consider the play of the hand - why is this > a problem? > > > > It is no problem to me. Well at least it is not > necessarily a problem > > but it could cause a problem. > > > > The problem occurs when the pause is 'expected' as is the > opinion of > > some here. > > I don't recall anyone saying a pause is "expected" or > "unexpected", Sven: "In trick one I allow and in fact expect some pause during which the players are supposed to plan their play of the entire thirteen tricks as much as possible." > merely > that a pause is unsurprising and seldom communicates anything > about the > hand held. > I agree that a pause is unsurprising and seldom communicates anything about the hand but if a problem occurs it is the responsibility of the side that breaks the tempo. This has been my position: "Of course many times no problems will be created..." Wayne > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 23 17:54:43 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 04:54:43 +1200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <200304231447.KAA26481@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001601c309b9$0a8eb430$d8b337d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: Thursday, 24 April 2003 2:48 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > > > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > It could be considered that the lack of variance occurs > > hand-to-hand rather than trick-to-trick. > > Please, "deal-to-deal," but otherwise I agree. So does, as far as I > can tell, everyone except Wayne. > > Wayne: we know your opinion by now, but I doubt you will convince > anyone. Certainly the plain text can be read either way, but the > weight of both practice and logic is against your view. I don't see a lot of logic ... Perhaps someone can logically explain what in the laws absolve a trick one pauser with a singleton from the responsibility of deceiving declarer. I see nothing. There is a weight of practice but that does not make that practice correct. Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 23 17:34:04 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:34:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030422155817.0268ba90@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 4/22/03, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >It is a widespread disease on blml : to do everyhing is reasonable (or >not) to understand another's contribution backwards, so that one can >position oneself "against" :-/ Perhaps we should all vow to try and >avoid this attitude. I am not at all sure that I understand this comment, but I assure you that it was not my intent simply to "position myself" against you. It seems I missed a salient part of your argument. I apologize for that, but it makes no difference either to my position on the question of "hesitations" at trick one under the current laws, nor to my reason for being on this list - which is to understand the laws, not to pick fights with other list members. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 23 17:27:38 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:27:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: <6719005.1051019797759.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: On 4/22/03, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >It should be said, lest people think otherwise, that I would approve >of a regulation to the effect that both declarer and third hand must >pause before playing to the first trick. Indeed, I would approve of a >regulation to the effect that declarer may not play from dummy until >third hand has indicated that he is ready for play to proceed. Such a >regulation is authorised by law. But where it does not exist, then ACs >should not blindly proceed as if it did. Nor, I submit, should they blindly proceed as if the lack of such regulation *requires* play to trick one at the same tempo as to other tricks. The question is, what is "normal tempo" *for the player in question*. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 23 18:13:09 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:13:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: On 4/23/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: > It is my opinion that Law 20 allows of the >same enquiries after the final pass as during >the auction; the WBF is certainly urging that >this is the time to ask when you do not need >to know during the auction. Heh. Yesterday, I ended up declarer in some contract or other, after a contested auction. LHO made the opening lead fact up. I said "I have a question about your auction". She replied "you're not allowed to ask that - the lead has been made". I called for the director. RHO said "I think you have to answer the question." Grudgingly, LHO did so (incompletely, but that is "standard" around here). The TD never showed up. (In TDs defense, I did not repeat the call, and she had an unexpectedly large number of tables to deal with.) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 23 17:59:35 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:59:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/23/03, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >[aside to opening leader] "... and if you're told not to lead a heart >you can't just cash an Ace and switch to a heart, you have to lose the >lead before you can lead one, ok?" Okay, this is confusing. Is simply losing and regaining the lead sufficient to obviate the UI about partner's heart holding? I had understood it is not, but I keep seeing this bit, which seems to say it is. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 23 18:29:29 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:29:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: <200304231626.MAA01421@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 4/23/03, Steve Willner wrote: >Oh, come on, Ed. It's not as bad as that. There are lots of random >ways things can turn out well, and even Meckwell can't predict those. >Remember, what you have to be able to guess is that your action is >_likely_ to help your side, not just that it might do so on a very >lucky day. If somebody gets lucky, as opposed to having executed a >villainous plan, they keep their score. What's wrong with that? Nothing. It assumes, however, that TDs will not rule a "could have known" violation by default. I'm not so sure they won't. >The more interesting question is whether we will _ever_ rule that Mrs. >Guggenheim "could have known." Suppose she executes an Alcatraz Coup, >completely by accident. I'll still rule against her, just as I would >against anyone else. What's wrong with that? If she could not have known, then you are ruling against her in violation of the law. >In contrast to Ed, I quite like "could have known." It puts an end to >all sorts of villainy at very little cost. I'm not so sure I agree with your assessment of the cost. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 23 18:42:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:42:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c309bf$ba537120$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On 4/23/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > It is my opinion that Law 20 allows of the > >same enquiries after the final pass as during > >the auction; the WBF is certainly urging that > >this is the time to ask when you do not need > >to know during the auction. > > Heh. Yesterday, I ended up declarer in some contract or other, after a > contested auction. LHO made the opening lead fact up. I said "I have a > question about your auction". She replied "you're not allowed to ask > that - the lead has been made". I called for the director. RHO said "I > think you have to answer the question." Grudgingly, LHO did so > (incompletely, but that is "standard" around here Next time you see this opponent you can open your law book and turn to the last part of Law 41B; the text that begins with the words: "Declarer or either defender may, at his first turn to play a card, require a review of the auction; ....." and read from there on to the end of Law 41B. Regards Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Apr 23 18:41:13 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:41:13 -0700 Subject: [blml] Irrational, wild or gambling - subsequent to the infraction References: <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> <5.2.0.9.0.20030422175650.00a9c720@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003601c309c0$230e0cc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> > Jesper wrote: > > >(f) Personally I would prefer the whole IWoG action concept to be > >removed: I strongly suspect that the number of cases where the > >existence of that concept provides a benefit (in the sense that it > >leads to a more reasonable result) is much smaller than the number of > >cases where it is applied mistakenly to ordinary bad play and leads to > >an unreasonable result. That problem would only be worse if the > >principle were extended. > Why not just make it clear that "bad play" is not IWoG? It is treated as such in some parts of ACBL-land, with no legal justification. It is difficult to accept that when, after an infraction, a pair throws away an excellent result by revoking, they were damaged by the infraction. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 23 19:12:58 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: <200304231812.OAA02712@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > It assumes, however, that TDs will not rule a "could have > known" violation by default. I'm not so sure they won't. Have you ever actually seen a "could have known" ruling (as opposed to reading about them here or elsewhere)? I haven't. From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Apr 23 19:19:56 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:19:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Irrational, wild or gambling - subsequent to the infraction In-Reply-To: <003601c309c0$230e0cc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> <5.2.0.9.0.20030422175650.00a9c720@pop.starpower.net> <003601c309c0$230e0cc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <1nldavgcqga3901bshhogpttirfp40qgp2@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:41:13 -0700, "Marvin French" wrote: >It is difficult to accept that when, after an infraction, a pair throws >away an excellent result by revoking, they were damaged by the = infraction. You are far from alone with that point of view. However, I don't share it. I don't find it difficult to accept: they revoked in a situation they would not have been in if there had been no infraction. It is the first offenders that have ruined the chances for a normal result on the board. Though, in the case of a revoke, I don't actually mind the IWoG concept, I also wouldn't mind the opposite: the attitude that the first infraction, which removed the possibility of the natural score, makes whatever happened afterwards irrelevant. On the other hand, I really wouldn't mind an IWoG rule that was changed to be an "infraction" rule: i.e., to apply only when the NOS ruined their score by an infraction - as opposed to just horrible, but legal, play. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 23 19:24:02 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:24:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT Message-ID: <200304231824.OAA02721@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > Is simply losing and regaining the lead > sufficient to obviate the UI about partner's heart holding? No. Take another look at L50D, which is, admittedly, complex. The mechanical penalty part -- declarer prohibits the lead of the penalty card suit -- expires when leader loses and regains the lead. Of course the penalty card is picked up, but as far as I can tell, both the fact that partner has that card and that he wanted to lead it are UI. Whatever the UI is, it never expires, although as play progresses there may be enough AI so the UI doesn't matter. In particular, once partner plays the former penalty card, the fact that he had it surely becomes AI. As (I think) others have said, the fact that declarer chose to prohibit a particular suit is also AI. The statements above about what is and is not UI are arguable. Indeed, we have discussed them on BLML before, and there is a WBFLC "minute" on the subject. The above are my best attempts at summarizing what I understand the rules to be, based on the minute and BLML discussion. However, there is certain to be disagreement. From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Apr 23 20:01:21 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:01:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:08:21 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >I applaud the idea of an exhaustive listing of what "authorised >information" is defined as; I believe that the ACBL LC >reservations of an AI item being overlooked are groundless, given >that the current Law 16 and Law 73A1 already narrowly define >what is currently Lawful AI. The problem is that the current listing is far from complete, and therefore not very useful. L16 says: "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents." I sometimes base my calls and plays on, for instance: * the vulnerability, * the state of the match, * my knowledge of the system I am playing, including partner's habits, * the time (do we need to hurry to avoid a penalty?), * opponents' illegal calls and plays. None of these are in the list of things L16 says I may base my calls and plays on. Am I breaking the law? I agree with whoever it was (the ACBL?) that an exhaustive list is just about impossible to create. But I'd like to take the opportunity to mention (not for the first time) that I would like the laws to say that any information that is legally available to a player just for the asking (opponents' system, vulnerability, the bidding so far, etc.) is always authorized, even if is it actually received through an infraction. If it is received through an infraction, then that infraction could be subject to penalty under L90 and/or L72B1, but the information should still be AI. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Apr 23 20:04:22 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:04:22 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] A ruling: OLOOT In-Reply-To: <200304231824.OAA02721@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Steve Willner wrote: > the penalty card is picked up, but as far as I can tell, both the fact > that partner has that card and that he wanted to lead it are UI. This is the 2nd or 3rd post to this thread suggesting both of these are UI. I had been under the impression that possession of the card was AI, but the desire to have that suit led (and whatever promises it made, e.g., the queen promised by an out-of-turn king) was UI. Of course, regardless of their actual holdings, my opponents always seem to go out of their way to immediately lead any suit I forbid, even if it was just a random spot card exposed... so the AI of declarer's choice seems to outweigh almost any UI. > However, there is certain to be disagreement. Not so much a disagreement, as a sense that it has been a long time since we discussed this, and that the law itself is a bit vague. Only 50D1 (when the card is still on the table, the fact that it must be played at first opportunity is AI), applying to offender's play of the card, even mentions UI.. 50D2 doesn't say a word about it. If we didn't have a WBF interpretation, someone could reasonably conclude from 50D2 that there isn't any UI restriction if offender's partner gains the lead before offender does. GRB From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Apr 23 20:44:29 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:44:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? In-Reply-To: <000101c309ac$277a3090$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c309ac$277a3090$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >I remembered this deal from one of my books, it is quite likely that many >will recognize it but anyway, here goes: > >After the following auction ("natural"): > >South West North East > >1 C pass 1 H 3 D > >pass pass 3 S pass > >3 NT pass pass 4 D > >pass pass 4 NT all pass > >your partner leads the 3 D and you see: > >...........S KQ72 >...........H AQ83 >...........D K >...........C Q532 >S ..................S 543 >H ..................H 65 >D 3.................D AQJ8762 >C ..................C T > >How much time do you need to figure out your defense against 4NT, how >quickly do you play your first card, which card do you play to trick one, >how do you continue and why? > >(And did it have any influence on the answers that I presented the case this >way?) > >regards Sven Total thinking time about 40 seconds. If partner has a stiff club, declairer has T954 and he always gets a diamond trick, if I let him. (If partner does not have a stiff diamond, why did he lead the 3, assuming we lead top of 2 small or 3 small?) We can keep declairer from getting a diamond trick by playing diamond A at trick one and shifting. I'm not sure what declairer has, I'd guess 2-2 or 3-1 in the majors, 5 clubs and 4 diamonds. So partner has some shape like 4=5=1=3 or 5=4=1=3 or 3=6=1=3. A spade shift looks safe, and if he does not have solid clubs he won't make over 9 tricks. I hope. Total keyboarding time more like 400 seconds. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 23 21:05:17 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:05:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c309d3$a95d9da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> So far I have received a personal answer in addition to this from = Robert. Tomorrow (Thursday) I am off to Sweden so I will disclose the whole deal with comments (from my source - I deserve no credit myself!) when I am = back on Sunday. All I want to say right now is that there is much deeper water here than discovered in the answers I have received. Regards Sven=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert E. Harris > Sent: 23. april 2003 21:44 > To: Sven Pran; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? >=20 > >I remembered this deal from one of my books, it is quite likely that = many > >will recognize it but anyway, here goes: > > > >After the following auction ("natural"): > > > >South West North East > >1 C pass 1 H 3 D > >pass pass 3 S pass > >3 NT pass pass 4 D > >pass pass 4 NT all pass > > > >your partner leads the 3 D and you see: > > > >...........S KQ72 > >...........H AQ83 > >...........D K > >...........C Q532 > >S ..................S 543 > >H ..................H 65 > >D 3.................D AQJ8762 > >C ..................C T > > > >How much time do you need to figure out your defense against 4NT, how > >quickly do you play your first card, which card do you play to trick = one, > >how do you continue and why? > > > >(And did it have any influence on the answers that I presented the = case > this > >way?) > > > >regards Sven >=20 > Total thinking time about 40 seconds. If partner has a stiff club, > declairer has T954 and he always gets a diamond trick, if I let him. > (If partner does not have a stiff diamond, why did he lead the 3, > assuming we lead top of 2 small or 3 small?) We can keep declairer > from getting a diamond trick by playing diamond A at trick one and > shifting. I'm not sure what declairer has, I'd guess 2-2 or 3-1 in > the majors, 5 clubs and 4 diamonds. So partner has some shape like > 4=3D5=3D1=3D3 or 5=3D4=3D1=3D3 or 3=3D6=3D1=3D3. A spade shift looks = safe, and if he > does not have solid clubs he won't make over 9 tricks. I hope. >=20 > Total keyboarding time more like 400 seconds. >=20 > REH > -- > Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 > Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia > Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Apr 23 21:55:42 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:55:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] Irrational, wild or gambling - subsequent to the infraction References: <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> <5.2.0.9.0.20030422175650.00a9c720@pop.starpower.net> <003601c309c0$230e0cc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <1nldavgcqga3901bshhogpttirfp40qgp2@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <001601c309da$b60afdc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Jesper Dybdal" > On the other hand, I really wouldn't mind an IWoG rule that was > changed to be an "infraction" rule: i.e., to apply only when the NOS > ruined their score by an infraction - as opposed to just horrible, but > legal, play. Sounds good to me. However, there are strong feelings in these parts that the "double shot" should not be permitted to gain. A limit raiser takes the push after partner's obvious hesitation, when passing is an obvious LA. So I push back with a bid I would never have made normally, judging that if it doesn't work I'll get redress. Why not just legalize this ploy, since it is usually hard to determine whether an action is a DS or merely a stupidity? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 23 23:25:56 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:25:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: Wayne wrote: >>If one pauses at trick n to play a singleton that is an undue >>hesitation. Tim replied: >True. If that is one's purpose. However if one pauses to >consider the whole hand before playing to trick one when one >happens to hold a singleton then it is "due". If a declarer >decides to draw an inference from trick one tempo and doesn't >take into account that defender might be contemplating the >whole hand he is doing so at his own risk. [big snip] I have been absent from this thread for a while, since Wayne has been doing an excellent job of arguing the Lawful issues, while his opponents have usually merely been arguing cultural issues. However, I remind Tim of the precedent from a World Championship Appeals Committee (Venice Cup, Perth 1989), which is directly contrary to his position that slow play at trick one with a singleton is "due". [Unless, of course, there is a specific SO regulation mandating a trick one pause, pursuant to the option granted to SOs by the bracketed clause of Law 73A2.] I further remind Tim that neither the WBF LC nor the WBF AC have issued a ruling overruling this precedent set by this highest-level Appeals Committee. Therefore, in a Bridge Laws Mailing List, Wayne is indisputably correct. Only if this were a Bridge Local Culture Mailing List would Tim be correct. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 00:26:42 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:26:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >The TD ruling is more interesting than the AC >one. Normally, absent UI, there would be >nothing illegal about the 2S bid, which the TD >cancelled to get to the 2H contract. Apparently >the TD ruled that the 2S bid was illegal under >L40B. My first reaction was that this was >wrong, but on thinking it over, it seems quite >possibly correct. Isn't this the best "likely" >result for the NOS absent an infraction? And >isn't the 2S bid an infraction if NS are not >properly informed? [snip] In my opinion, Steve should have retained his first reaction, because I believe that the TD's ruling was in fact based on a logical fallacy. The TD ruled that EW misinformed NS by not revealing that 2C showed both majors, a CPU contrary to Law 40B. But if the TD is ruling EW have an *agreement* that East's 2C shows both majors, how can the TD rule that West must elect to play in the *shorter* major after a penalty double, when an escape to the longer major does not increase the level of the contract? It is never the best "likely" result that the EW will bid irrationally, merely because they have a CPU. And if EW do not have a CPU, then there is no infraction, so the score cannot be adjusted to 2Hx. A valid adjustment by the TD would have been to 2H *undoubled* down two. This ruling would have been legal if the TD determined these facts: a) EW had an agreement that 2C showed majors, b) West had temporarily forgotten (as implied by West's Pass of 2H undoubled), and, c) South's Pass was not forcing. North would have been entitled to know the EW agreement, and would also have been entitled to know (from West's misexplanation and/or failure to Alert) that 2S would be a better spot for EW. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 01:38:40 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:38:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Could have known (was treatment of questions) Message-ID: Ed Reppert defaulted: >>It assumes, however, that TDs will not rule a "could have >>known" violation by default. I'm not so sure they won't. Steve Willner quested: >Have you ever actually seen a "could have known" ruling >(as opposed to reading about them here or elsewhere)? I >haven't. A "could have known" arose in the attached case, and there was _not_ a default ruling of an infraction. Apologies for a lengthy posting. Best wishes Richard + + + Australian Bridge Directors Bulletin, February 2003, discussion by a partially* expert panel (deal referred to in a previous blml post by Ton): *I was a panellist. :-) Hand 2: Teams. Bd. 5 / N / NS J A109732 KJ6 954 6543 K7 6 Q84 A10985 Q732 Q86 KJ102 AQ10982 KJ5 4 A73 West North East South 2D(1) Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3H(3) Pass 4H Pass(4) Pass Pass (1) Weak two in a major or 20-22 HCP balanced. (2) Inquiry (3) Minimum weak two in hearts (4) West now asked for an explanation of the entire auction. He then asked further questions about South's possible alternative actions in response to 2D. The Play: CJ - CA - C6 - C5 SA - S3 - SJ - S7 SQ - S4 - C9 - SK CK - C7 - C8 - C4 D7 - D4 - DA - D6 S5 - H9 - HQ - S2 Result: N/S - 100 North is upset and doubts the need for West's questions. He says he drew an inference that West had some valid reason to ask. Without the inquiry he says he may have played the spades differently. He also has the option of playing East for the trump queen at trick six. South points out that E/W are playing the same multi-2D as N/S. Snipped selections from panellists' comments: Court: "That North drew certain inferences from such questions is his own problem. In the context of the bidding, I cannot see that West could have known that the key cards that declarer needed to know about were in partner's hand, whenever the question might have been asked. I would allow the result to stand and I would want N/S to produce a more convincing argument if they appeal." Edler: "Law 73F2 covers an innocent player drawing a false inference, but did West have no demonstrable bridge reason for his questions and could West have known at the time of the questions that it could work to his benefit? I don't see both conditions applying, so I still conclude no adjustment." Geursen: "In any case before an adjusted score can even be considered, we need to be satisfied that West could have known that to ask these questions at the stage he did, would cause declarer to draw all those wrong inferences? The clear fact of the matter is that he couldn't - so there is no infraction upon which to base an adjusted score." Grenside: "Since when does every player of a similar 2D have exactly the same agreements and partnership understandings? West is most certainly permitted to make inquiries and has imparted no UI to partner. N/S are trying to suggest that West could know that questions asked could influence a declarer to adopt a losing line of play. I fail to see any connection. Appeal dismissed - procedural penalty to N/S for an appeal without merit." Colker: "It is difficult to make the case that West could have known at the time that simply asking about the auction and its implications could work to his benefit. And it is even more ludicrous to suggest that West had no demonstrable bridge reason for wanting an explanation of the auction and any negative inferences that might be available. After all, he was about to defend a game contract; has defending well suddenly been relegated only to those who hold significant high cards?" McManus: "I believe that directors should be reluctant to accept claims of deception from so-called innocent parties except in extreme circumstances." Nakatani: "Yet I don't judge these questions by West as particularly misleading; certainly not enough as to apply Laws 73D2/F2 and adjust the score. Rather it's only that North made a series of unfortunate judgements in finesse or ruffout and two-way finesse situations." Stevenson: "Should players ask during the auction when they have no interest in proceedings? This is a very general problem, with no obvious answer. Perhaps regulation would help: in England such questions are actively discouraged. ... Would I adjust under Law 73F2? Yes. His question is an action he knew could work to his benefit to ask. Has he a demonstrable bridge reason? No, not when compared with asking when the opening lead is face down." From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Apr 24 10:00:32 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel De Raeymaeker) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 02:00:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? In-Reply-To: <002001c30936$d4cc7940$cde436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: +++ Just to clarify a few points. - All of the doubles by N/S are penalties. - When the AC determined no agreement on this type of auction - the pair in question did not have any agreement for 1x P 1y P 1NT 2x. - Having talked to some of the AC members - The case by NS revolves around the fact that East knows West does not take him for the majors as there has been no alert of the 2C bid. As such should he be allowed to scramble to 2H which in turn tips off west that something is up ?? If there were screens what would the pass of 2C's doubled be ?? Presumably to play with no interest in the majors ?? With the correct information N/S claim the bidding would be different (S would not double and N seeing an E/W misunderstanding would pass 2C's). So should the result be changed to 2C-x ?? - Are N/S correct in alleging that before the 2S bid west is required to say something to the effect that it now seems likely that east meant 2C's as the majors ?? This seems odd to me as this information has only come to light from the obvious inconsistent bidding which is information available to all and surely doesn't require that the opps draw attention to it ... not to mind its only an inference drawn by west from the bidding (maybe from past experience) and may be incorrect. - I agree that Pairs playing unusual systems should be prepared for more scramble type auctions against them and not demand that the opps be prepared for any given sequence. K. > Teams N/S vul > > ...........North > ...........S Axx > ...........H QJxxx > ...........D Kx > ...........C xx > S Txx...............S KJxx > H xx................H Axxx > D AJxx..............D xx > C Kxxx..............C Axx > ...........S Qxx > ...........H Kx > ...........D Qxxx > ...........C QJxx > > Bidding > N E S W > 1C* P 1D% P > 1NT! 2C& Dbl P > P 2H P P > Dbl P P 2S > P P Dbl all pass > > * Carrot club either 10-12 balanced or 16+ > % art 10+ > ! 10-12 > & Meant as the majors > > Result 2Sx making. TD called and was told that N/S were > misinformed. Td > changes the result to 2H-2x. E/W appeal. > > ---------------------------------------------- > > The AC determined that E/W had no agreement as to the meaning > of 2C's on > this auction or similar auctions. The defence to 2S's was > not looked at. > > N/S felt that before W bid 2S he should have alerted the 2C bid as NOW > showing the majors. > > E/W felt that from the bidding subsequent to the 2S bid it > seemd quite clear > that East's 2C bid was not natural but probably meant as the > majors. This > was East's reading of the bidding to that point. They had no > agreement on > this sequence. East by bidding 2S's may well have been quite > wrong. E/W > felt that N/S had got into a doubling momentum. E/W also > felt the double of > 2S's was a double shot. > > AC ruled 2S making. > > --------------------------------------- > > I thought this an interesting case. I felt the result should > have been 2S > doubled making. E/W didn't do anything wrong. They just > applied a bit of > common sense and got lucky in the final contract. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 02:34:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:34:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? Message-ID: Karel wrote: [snip] >- Having talked to some of the AC members - The >case by NS revolves around the fact that East >knows West does not take him for the majors as >there has been no alert of the 2C bid. As such >should he be allowed to scramble to 2H which in >turn tips off west that something is up ?? [snip] Okay, now blml has a different set of facts to discuss. The original presentation was a potential MI case; the current facts depict an actual UI case. On the facts now presented, in my opinion there is a simple and obvious ruling. On AI available to East, West knows that East is showing both majors, but West is nevertheless showing willingness to play in a 2Cx contract. East has a highly suitable hand for a pard who is promising club length, so East has an automatic Pass of 2Cx. On UI available to East, West does not promise club length, so removal to 2H is demonstrably suggested. Therefore, if these facts were also available to the TD and the AC, then they both gave the wrong ruling - a Law 12C2 or 12C3 assessment of tricks taken in 2Cx should have been the adjustment. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 02:48:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:48:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws Message-ID: >The question is, what is "normal tempo" *for the player in >question*. > >Regards, > >Ed The question - if a player *always* takes exactly 42 seconds to play to trick one - is does that implicit agreement get announced in advance, in accordance with the "fully and freely available to the opponents" requirement of Law 75A? Best wishes Richard From kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Apr 24 03:45:54 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:45:54 -0700 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: Message-ID: > > >The question is, what is "normal tempo" *for the player in > >question*. > > > >Regards, > > > >Ed > > The question - if a player *always* takes exactly 42 seconds > to play to trick one - is does that implicit agreement get > announced in advance, in accordance with the "fully and > freely available to the opponents" requirement of Law 75A? K: Good point, and as a player, I'd like to know if such announcment would protect my generally accepted good bridge habit of ' thinking before playing trick 1 ' regardless of my holdings in suit led or anywhere???? Thanks for the advice I may get here. Kaima From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 04:43:44 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:43:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Comma Message-ID: The 1997 Law 76B is ambiguously written: "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director." If the WBF LC intends to give the Director broad exceptional powers under this Law, then the WBF LC should, in 2005, insert a comma between the words "law" and "except". If, alternatively, the WBF LC merely intends to give the Director limited exceptional powers under this Law, then the WBF LC should then split the 2005 Law into two or three sentences. For example - 2005 Law 76B1: "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake." 2005 Law 76B2: "A spectator may not speak on any question of fact or law. Exception: A spectator may speak on a question of fact or law by request of the Director." Another item for Grattan's notebook? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 05:07:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:07:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? Message-ID: Jaap wrote: [snip] >3C overcall as a twosuiter is the worst, >holding 7 clubs they immediately forget >about the convention, conveniently green >against red, partner knows this might >happen so he doesn't bid too much, etc. [snip] This problem has been around for decades; in a 1970s Bridge World Editorial, Edgar Kaplan dubbed it the Gooseschmitz Convention. The 1970s version of the Gooseschmitz Convention proceeded as follows: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT 2C(1) Pass(2) 2H Pass 3C(3) Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted and described as both majors. (2) Values to compete at the 2-level in a major, but not with North "promising" both majors. (3) Correct description of the implicit partnership agreement was both majors *or* a club single-suiter. Kaplan believed (and I concur) that the Gooseschmitz Convention does *not* force a change in the Laws outlawing misbids, merely to rectify the problems that the Gooseschmitz Convention causes. Rather, the Gooseschmitz Convention is *already* illegal, as it infracts the current Law 75B: "...habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed..." Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 05:33:29 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:33:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: Ron Johnson quoted an ACBL appeal report: [big snip] >The fact that West asked instead of looking at >the convention card led N/S to maintain that >East's bid of 2NT may have been influenced by >West's questions. [snip] >In this event with such strict requirements >regarding convention cards, he could pass and >then look at the convention card. [big snip] Incorrect assertion by N/S. It is illegal to look at an opponent's convention card except when it is your own turn to call or play. - Law 40E2. In this particular case, where the only N/S action has been South's 2C cuebid, asking a legal question or having a legal look at the CC would provide identical UI from West to East. Best wishes Richard From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Apr 24 07:37:46 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:37:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? References: Message-ID: <001f01c30a2c$057b20a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Richard: > This problem has been around for decades; > in a 1970s Bridge World Editorial, Edgar > Kaplan dubbed it the Gooseschmitz > Convention. Of course I know the issue is not an original one. It is just another example the lawmakers have never taken their job seriously. Richard: > "...habitual violations within a partnership > may create implicit agreements, which must > be disclosed..." Yes I know, but how are you going to prove it. Everybody will always say this really was the first time it happened, etc. Life is so much easier if there is a rule like 'mixup of early conventions always counts as misinformation'. Now we are forced to rule it as a habitual violation (or another legal trick) without any prove of such. And there is another problem here. Take once again 1S-3C. Lots of people (at least in Europe) play this as a specified twosuiter (normally the reds). Now you explain 'red suits but he sometimes has clubs'. First problem, how should opponents react to this. The only way to handle this is the infamous two-way defence, 3H without asking is natural, 3H with asking is a cuebid, etc. This is not really cheating. Suppose you hold xx KQJxxx AKxx x and 3C gets alerted. If you ask and they answer 'reds' you are cooked. Any practical player will just bid 3H. Does that make him a crook ? I don't think so. IMO the laws are crooked here. Second problem, this explanation seems illegal to me. You are not allowed to play multi meaning overcalls of a natural opening without the weak options having a known suit in common. You might argue that the system 'red suits' is legal. But the de facto meaning seems to be 'reds or clubs' which as a system is illegal. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 6:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? > > Jaap wrote: > > [snip] > > >3C overcall as a twosuiter is the worst, > >holding 7 clubs they immediately forget > >about the convention, conveniently green > >against red, partner knows this might > >happen so he doesn't bid too much, etc. > > [snip] > > This problem has been around for decades; > in a 1970s Bridge World Editorial, Edgar > Kaplan dubbed it the Gooseschmitz > Convention. > > The 1970s version of the Gooseschmitz > Convention proceeded as follows: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT 2C(1) Pass(2) 2H > Pass 3C(3) Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Alerted and described as both majors. > > (2) Values to compete at the 2-level in > a major, but not with North "promising" > both majors. > > (3) Correct description of the implicit > partnership agreement was both majors > *or* a club single-suiter. > > Kaplan believed (and I concur) that the > Gooseschmitz Convention does *not* force > a change in the Laws outlawing misbids, > merely to rectify the problems that the > Gooseschmitz Convention causes. > > Rather, the Gooseschmitz Convention is > *already* illegal, as it infracts the > current Law 75B: > > "...habitual violations within a partnership > may create implicit agreements, which must > be disclosed..." > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Apr 24 08:01:05 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:01:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Could have known (was treatment of questions) References: Message-ID: <003001c30a30$37390ea0$25b54351@noos.fr> Richard, Interesting. Still I miss something obvious in all this comments. Has west a reason to ask at this stage? Yes of course he does. He might consider a take-out double. West is green against red with an attractive shape. This also explains why he was asking about possible other responses. Agressive yes, but definitly within the realm of the normally possible. The actual hand is a good example. 5D is a 'good' save, 500 against 620. And partners hand can be much better for this purpose (also worse of course). If I would be on the AC I would have had a good laugh. West's asking gave away the trump position and indirectly a lot more (nothing 100% of course, but I would have played the guy for short hearts). Unfortunatly declarer was not smart enough to realise the implicatians of the vulnerability. The EBU should be proud of this west guy. He really had his asking (given certain answers he might have doubled satisfying 'Grattans rule'). If it was only about knowing how to defend he would have asked when the bidding was over. Interesting thought. Suppose I went down after finessing into a queen doubleton, do I have a case. A guy with Qx knows (yes, not 'might have known') that asking lots of questions improves the change of scoring that Queen a lot. By the way, for the rest I agree completly with the panel ex. David S. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Could have known (was treatment of questions) > > Ed Reppert defaulted: > > >>It assumes, however, that TDs will not rule a "could have > >>known" violation by default. I'm not so sure they won't. > > Steve Willner quested: > > >Have you ever actually seen a "could have known" ruling > >(as opposed to reading about them here or elsewhere)? I > >haven't. > > A "could have known" arose in the attached case, and there > was _not_ a default ruling of an infraction. Apologies > for a lengthy posting. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > + + + > > Australian Bridge Directors Bulletin, February 2003, > discussion by a partially* expert panel (deal referred to in > a previous blml post by Ton): > > *I was a panellist. :-) > > Hand 2: Teams. > Bd. 5 / N / NS > > J > A109732 > KJ6 > 954 > 6543 K7 > 6 Q84 > A10985 Q732 > Q86 KJ102 > AQ10982 > KJ5 > 4 > A73 > > West North East South > 2D(1) Pass 2NT(2) > Pass 3H(3) Pass 4H > Pass(4) Pass Pass > > (1) Weak two in a major or 20-22 HCP balanced. > (2) Inquiry > (3) Minimum weak two in hearts > (4) West now asked for an explanation of the entire > auction. He then asked further questions about > South's possible alternative actions in response > to 2D. > > The Play: > > CJ - CA - C6 - C5 > SA - S3 - SJ - S7 > SQ - S4 - C9 - SK > CK - C7 - C8 - C4 > D7 - D4 - DA - D6 > S5 - H9 - HQ - S2 > > Result: N/S - 100 > > North is upset and doubts the need for West's > questions. He says he drew an inference that West > had some valid reason to ask. Without the inquiry > he says he may have played the spades differently. > He also has the option of playing East for the trump > queen at trick six. South points out that E/W are > playing the same multi-2D as N/S. > > Snipped selections from panellists' comments: > > Court: > "That North drew certain inferences from such > questions is his own problem. In the context of > the bidding, I cannot see that West could have > known that the key cards that declarer needed to > know about were in partner's hand, whenever the > question might have been asked. I would allow the > result to stand and I would want N/S to produce a > more convincing argument if they appeal." > > Edler: > "Law 73F2 covers an innocent player drawing a > false inference, but did West have no demonstrable > bridge reason for his questions and could West > have known at the time of the questions that it > could work to his benefit? I don't see both > conditions applying, so I still conclude no > adjustment." > > Geursen: > "In any case before an adjusted score can even be > considered, we need to be satisfied that West could > have known that to ask these questions at the stage > he did, would cause declarer to draw all those wrong > inferences? The clear fact of the matter is that he > couldn't - so there is no infraction upon which to > base an adjusted score." > > Grenside: > "Since when does every player of a similar 2D have > exactly the same agreements and partnership > understandings? West is most certainly permitted to > make inquiries and has imparted no UI to partner. > N/S are trying to suggest that West could know that > questions asked could influence a declarer to adopt a > losing line of play. I fail to see any connection. > Appeal dismissed - procedural penalty to N/S for an > appeal without merit." > > Colker: > "It is difficult to make the case that West could have > known at the time that simply asking about the > auction and its implications could work to his benefit. > And it is even more ludicrous to suggest that West > had no demonstrable bridge reason for wanting an > explanation of the auction and any negative > inferences that might be available. After all, he was > about to defend a game contract; has defending well > suddenly been relegated only to those who hold > significant high cards?" > > McManus: > "I believe that directors should be reluctant to accept > claims of deception from so-called innocent parties > except in extreme circumstances." > > Nakatani: > "Yet I don't judge these questions by West as > particularly misleading; certainly not enough as to > apply Laws 73D2/F2 and adjust the score. Rather it's > only that North made a series of unfortunate judgements > in finesse or ruffout and two-way finesse situations." > > Stevenson: > "Should players ask during the auction when they have > no interest in proceedings? This is a very general > problem, with no obvious answer. Perhaps regulation > would help: in England such questions are actively > discouraged. > ... > Would I adjust under Law 73F2? Yes. His question > is an action he knew could work to his benefit to > ask. Has he a demonstrable bridge reason? No, not > when compared with asking when the opening lead > is face down." > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Apr 24 08:40:16 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:40:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Could have known (was treatment of questions) References: Message-ID: <3EA794E0.2030500@skynet.be> I'm actually with David S on this one, and he has a very valid point: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Australian Bridge Directors Bulletin, February 2003, > discussion by a partially* expert panel (deal referred to in > a previous blml post by Ton): > > *I was a panellist. :-) > > Hand 2: Teams. > Bd. 5 / N / NS > > J > A109732 > KJ6 > 954 > 6543 K7 > 6 Q84 > A10985 Q732 > Q86 KJ102 > AQ10982 > KJ5 > 4 > A73 > > West North East South > 2D(1) Pass 2NT(2) > Pass 3H(3) Pass 4H > Pass(4) Pass Pass > > (1) Weak two in a major or 20-22 HCP balanced. > (2) Inquiry > (3) Minimum weak two in hearts > (4) West now asked for an explanation of the entire > auction. He then asked further questions about > South's possible alternative actions in response > to 2D. > > The Play: > > CJ - CA - C6 - C5 > SA - S3 - SJ - S7 > SQ - S4 - C9 - SK > CK - C7 - C8 - C4 > D7 - D4 - DA - D6 > S5 - H9 - HQ - S2 > > Result: N/S - 100 > > North is upset and doubts the need for West's > questions. He says he drew an inference that West > had some valid reason to ask. Without the inquiry > he says he may have played the spades differently. > He also has the option of playing East for the trump > queen at trick six. South points out that E/W are > playing the same multi-2D as N/S. > > Snipped selections from panellists' comments: > [snips of people believing West could not have known that his actions could influence declarer - of course they could] > > Stevenson: > "Should players ask during the auction when they have > no interest in proceedings? This is a very general > problem, with no obvious answer. Perhaps regulation > would help: in England such questions are actively > discouraged. > ... > Would I adjust under Law 73F2? Yes. His question > is an action he knew could work to his benefit to > ask. Has he a demonstrable bridge reason? No, not > when compared with asking when the opening lead > is face down." > _not when compared with asking after the opening lead_ If he is merely planning defence, he could have asked one round later. Asking the normal question (Multi?) could have been done a round earlier. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Apr 24 08:57:20 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:57:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 18 - was Law 16A Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951699@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> There was just a few comments and a couple of questions to the original pos= ting. I therefore publish the whole case, from the European Ladies Teams at Tener= ife. See comments below the appeal posting. ------- Appeal No. 18 Italy v Spain Appeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England), Steen M=F8ller (Denmark) Ladies Teams Round 8 Board 6. E/W vul. Dealer East.=20 S A K 3 2 H K Q T 7 3 D T 4 3 C 2 S 8 6 5 S T H - H A 9 6 5 4 2 D A 6 5 D K Q 2 C A Q J 9 8 7 6 C K 5 4 S Q J 9 7 4 H J 8 D J 9 8 7 C T 3 West North East South Santos Manara Matut Ferlazzo - - 1H 1S 2C 4S 5C Pass 6C Pass Pass 6S Dble All Pass =20 Comments: 2C was forcing Contract: Six Spades Doubled, played by South Result: 8 tricks, NS -800 The Facts: The tray had come back with the two passes after some delay. West said it had taken a minute, while South agreed it was more than 30 seconds. West called the Director after the bid of 6S. The Director: Decided that the break in tempo had been established and that this constituted unauthorized information to South. After consultation of his colleagues and some players, he considered passing a logical alternative for South. There are 12 tricks available to East/West. Ruling: Score adjusted to 6C by West, making, NS -1370 Relevant Laws: Law 16A, 12C2 North/South appealed. Present: All players, both Captains, and a Spanish translator The players: North/South's captain explained that he had given his players the instruction to always sacrifice on big boards. South explained she had decided to bid 6S even before the tray had come back. She had not bid 5S because she did not feel the need to sacrifice against Game, but she did need to do so against Slams. The Committee: Stressed that when a player is in the possession of unauthorized information, she should bend over backwards not to take advantage of it. It was suggested in Committee, that North might have been thinking about doubling, in which case the sacrifice was less suggested than the pass. For this reason the appeal was not judged to be without merit, although this was a close call. The Committee's Decision: Director's ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned ------- The TD establishes, correctly, that pass is a LA. He makes no asessment of whether pass or 6S was demonstrably suggested over the other by the hesitat= ion, merely awards the most favourable result for EW. The AC say next to nothing on the matter. The only comment is that North mi= ght have been thinking of doubling, and that's the only reason the deposit wasn= 't forfeited. Indeed!!! If I were south, I would be quite confident that partner was thinking of do= ubling 6C. After having overcalled 1S, it shold not come as a big surprise to anyone i= f I had some defensive strength. I certainly have no offensive strenght. Of course partn= er could be thinking of bidding 6S, but is that likely? Not to me. In my opinion, if south had any UI, it suggested passing, not bidding 6S. I= n that case, South did what Law 16A tells her to do. (Obviously she didn't know that.) I know some will disagree with me on what north most likely was thinking of= . But I don't believe it is possible to conclude that south was in posession og UI that d= emonstrably suggested that bidding 6S was the winning action compared to passing 6C. So= in any case, the ruling of the TD and AC is lunatic to me - and even considering forfeit= ing the=20 deposit.... Those in the who are strong bridge players, probably haven't got enough kno= wledge of the Law, and vice verca. And they seem unable to combine their knowledge to the= best effect. Or maybe they think the rule cases like this correctly, and nobody ever und= erstood the meening of Law 16A. Regards, Harald ************************************************************************** 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 wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Apr 24 09:38:40 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:38:40 +1200 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? In-Reply-To: <001f01c30a2c$057b20a0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000801c30a3c$e903ed10$ba2d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > Sent: Thursday, 24 April 2003 6:38 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org; richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Subject: Re: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? > > > Richard: > > This problem has been around for decades; > > in a 1970s Bridge World Editorial, Edgar > > Kaplan dubbed it the Gooseschmitz > > Convention. > > Of course I know the issue is not an original one. It is just another > example the lawmakers have never taken their job seriously. > > Richard: > > "...habitual violations within a partnership > > may create implicit agreements, which must > > be disclosed..." > > Yes I know, but how are you going to prove it. Everybody will > always say > this really was the first time it happened, etc. Life is so > much easier if > there is a rule like 'mixup of early conventions always counts as > misinformation'. Now we are forced to rule it as a habitual > violation (or > another legal trick) without any prove of such. Bridge is a game of mistakes so in general I am pleased when my opponent's make a mistake. Of course occasionally I get fixed. I am against an automatic penalty for making a mistake. That is like a double penalty - you are a bad player so you get poor scores anyway but on top of that we are going to penalize you for being a bad player. I think that in many cases (but not all) the laws provide sufficient redress for these misbids and their subsequent recovery. The problem is in my experience that TD and AC too often allow these people to recover from their blunders by using UI. > > And there is another problem here. Take once again 1S-3C. > Lots of people (at > least in Europe) play this as a specified twosuiter (normally > the reds). Now > you explain 'red suits but he sometimes has clubs'. > > First problem, how should opponents react to this. The only > way to handle > this is the infamous two-way defence, 3H without asking is > natural, 3H with > asking is a cuebid, etc. This is not really cheating. I think it is, see L74C1 and L73B1. This player is deliberately using different designations for the same call. And the player is communicating with his partner by asking or not asking a question. If this is discussed then L73B2 applies and such a pair "risk expulsion". > Suppose > you hold xx > KQJxxx AKxx x and 3C gets alerted. If you ask and they answer > 'reds' you are > cooked. Any practical player will just bid 3H. Does that make > him a crook ? Absolutely!!! > I don't think so. IMO the laws are crooked here. Maybe you think the laws are not the best but that does not give you immunity if you deliberately break them. > > Second problem, this explanation seems illegal to me. You are > not allowed to > play multi meaning overcalls of a natural opening without the > weak options > having a known suit in common. You might argue that the > system 'red suits' > is legal. But the de facto meaning seems to be 'reds or > clubs' which as a > system is illegal. I think a key here is that you are not automatically entitled to recover from this error simply because partner has been mixed up before. L75A addresses this by saying that "Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal". Wayne > > Jaap > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 6:07 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? > > > > > > Jaap wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > >3C overcall as a twosuiter is the worst, > > >holding 7 clubs they immediately forget > > >about the convention, conveniently green > > >against red, partner knows this might > > >happen so he doesn't bid too much, etc. > > > > [snip] > > > > This problem has been around for decades; > > in a 1970s Bridge World Editorial, Edgar > > Kaplan dubbed it the Gooseschmitz > > Convention. > > > > The 1970s version of the Gooseschmitz > > Convention proceeded as follows: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 1NT 2C(1) Pass(2) 2H > > Pass 3C(3) Pass Pass > > Pass > > > > (1) Alerted and described as both majors. > > > > (2) Values to compete at the 2-level in > > a major, but not with North "promising" > > both majors. > > > > (3) Correct description of the implicit > > partnership agreement was both majors > > *or* a club single-suiter. > > > > Kaplan believed (and I concur) that the > > Gooseschmitz Convention does *not* force > > a change in the Laws outlawing misbids, > > merely to rectify the problems that the > > Gooseschmitz Convention causes. > > > > Rather, the Gooseschmitz Convention is > > *already* illegal, as it infracts the > > current Law 75B: > > > > "...habitual violations within a partnership > > may create implicit agreements, which must > > be disclosed..." > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Apr 24 09:47:04 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:47:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Could have known (was treatment of questions) References: <003001c30a30$37390ea0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3EA7A488.8020404@skynet.be> Interesting. Which only goes to show that Jaap and I approach the ruling from different points of view. I don't think we are in disagreement therefor, despite our completely opposite outcomes. I'm sure Jaap agrees with me that the player could have known that his questions could be to his advantage. And I OTOH am quite willing to accept Jaap's verdict that the player DID have a valid bridge reason. In that sense, Jaap - you should NOT agree with the majority of panelists, who all maintain that the player could not have known that the questions would be to his advantage. Your POV, and it seems quite valid to me, is that the player did have a valid bridge reason. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > [snip] > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Apr 24 11:06:42 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:06:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 18 - was Law 16A References: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951699@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <3EA7B732.7070609@skynet.be> Hello Harald, I checked my notes from the time just to make certain: Skjaran, Harald wrote: > There was just a few comments and a couple of questions to the original posting. > I therefore publish the whole case, from the European Ladies Teams at Tenerife. > See comments below the appeal posting. > > > The TD establishes, correctly, that pass is a LA. He makes no asessment of > whether pass or 6S was demonstrably suggested over the other by the hesitation, > merely awards the most favourable result for EW. > OK, maybe the TD did not do his job fully. > The AC say next to nothing on the matter. The only comment is that North might > have been thinking of doubling, and that's the only reason the deposit wasn't forfeited. > Indeed!!! > "next to nothing" is not nothing. > If I were south, I would be quite confident that partner was thinking of doubling 6C. > After having overcalled 1S, it shold not come as a big surprise to anyone if I had some > defensive strength. I certainly have no offensive strenght. Of course partner could be > thinking of bidding 6S, but is that likely? Not to me. > In my opinion, if south had any UI, it suggested passing, not bidding 6S. In that case, > South did what Law 16A tells her to do. (Obviously she didn't know that.) > I know some will disagree with me on what north most likely was thinking of. But I don't > believe it is possible to conclude that south was in posession og UI that demonstrably > suggested that bidding 6S was the winning action compared to passing 6C. So in any case, > the ruling of the TD and AC is lunatic to me - and even considering forfeiting the > deposit.... > Don't you think that in order for this point to be taken into serious consideration by the AC - the appealing side ought to have brought it up? There was no mention by North about what she was thinking about, and no mention by South that she considered her L16 obligations before deciding that she could not tell whether 6S or pass were the suggested alternative. You have quoted the only defence: "the captain told the players always to sacrifice at the six-level". I'm sure you agree that this is not a defence and the deposit ought to have been forfeited for that reason. > Those in the who are strong bridge players, probably haven't got enough knowledge of the > Law, and vice verca. And they seem unable to combine their knowledge to the best effect. > Or maybe they think the rule cases like this correctly, and nobody ever understood the > meening of Law 16A. > That is a little harsh, IMHO. > > Regards, > Harald > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 24 11:32:38 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:32:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Irrational, wild or gambling - subsequent to the infraction In-Reply-To: <1nldavgcqga3901bshhogpttirfp40qgp2@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <003601c309c0$230e0cc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> <5.2.0.9.0.20030422175650.00a9c720@pop.starpower.net> <003601c309c0$230e0cc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030424122632.02453680@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:19 23/04/2003 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:41:13 -0700, "Marvin French" > wrote: > > >It is difficult to accept that when, after an infraction, a pair throws > >away an excellent result by revoking, they were damaged by the infraction. > >You are far from alone with that point of view. > >However, I don't share it. I don't find it difficult to accept: they >revoked in a situation they would not have been in if there had been >no infraction. AG : North does something markedly unappropriate (let's say it's a case of slow BW). East calls for the TD. North throws liters of verbal abuse on East. Later in the deal, East, still shocked by North's words, does some silly mistake, or even revokes. It is obvious that he wouldn't have, absent the infractions. Correct the score. However, East would probably not be led by the nefarious atmosphere to do domething really wild, like defending in a non-suit over NS's 6H. >It is the first offenders that have ruined the chances for a normal >result on the board. Though, in the case of a revoke, I don't >actually mind the IWoG concept, I also wouldn't mind the opposite: the >attitude that the first infraction, which removed the possibility of >the natural score, makes whatever happened afterwards irrelevant. AG : dangerous : it would lead to many "double shoots". That's the motive bihind the IWG principle. To allow NOS to do only what they could have done in other circumstances. Of course, bad play is covered. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 24 11:44:22 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:44:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Could have known (was treatment of questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030424123906.02451360@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:38 24/04/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > J > A109732 > KJ6 > 954 >6543 K7 >6 Q84 >A10985 Q732 >Q86 KJ102 > AQ10982 > KJ5 > 4 > A73 > >West North East South > 2D(1) Pass 2NT(2) >Pass 3H(3) Pass 4H >Pass(4) Pass Pass > >(1) Weak two in a major or 20-22 HCP balanced. >(2) Inquiry >(3) Minimum weak two in hearts >(4) West now asked for an explanation of the entire >auction. He then asked further questions about >South's possible alternative actions in response >to 2D. AG : while I agree that West could hardly have known it would serve him to ask, it is also obvious that, if he knew he was about to defend a 4H contract (and he should be), he chose the wrong moment to ask. To get all information after his partner's lead would be just as good. I would have let the score stand, according to he 'own risk' principle in L73D, but West deserves a notice about asking at the right time. Perhaps a PP in more obvious cases. (note that in my system, 3H shows *spades* and 4H is now a cue, which makes it possible that the bidding isn't done yet, so don't be too harsh in this specific case) From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Apr 24 11:21:16 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:21:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Could have known (was treatment of questions) References: <003001c30a30$37390ea0$25b54351@noos.fr> <3EA7A488.8020404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002501c30a4b$3ecaaa00$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman: > In that sense, Jaap - you should NOT agree with the majority of > panelists, who all maintain that the player could not have known that > the questions would be to his advantage. Your POV, and it seems quite > valid to me, is that the player did have a valid bridge reason. 1. The panel is not so smart. Of course he has a valid bridge reason, at the moment of asking it is more than conceivable he might make a bid. What amazes me is that the complete panel missed this rather obvious issue. But then it is always difficult to snif out the dog that didn't bark. Another thought, if this was an AC case the AC (or TD for that matter) should have asked the guy why he made the questions at that moment. Why is his answer not on record? 2. I agree with the panel (leaving out the above). Of course he couldn't have know that the questions would be to his advantage (unless you consider could have known statements true by default). Actually the questions might easily have been to his disadvantage. I would not be very happy to ask questions with this type of hand at this vul. The singleton heart sticks out like a sore tumb. At a certain level of play willingness to bid indicates shape rather than points. Or should west 'could have known' that declarer was stupid enough to play him for some random high cards rather than nice shape. Come on, get real, we play bridge, not the 'find some weird interpretation of whatever law article to shoot them' game. So please answer my previous question, would I have a case as declarer if the guy asking questions had a flathish hand with Qx of hearts. My position is that it is well known (forget about that could have know stuff) that that will increase your chance of making the HQ by a lot. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Could have known (was treatment of questions) > Interesting. > Which only goes to show that Jaap and I approach the ruling from > different points of view. > I don't think we are in disagreement therefor, despite our completely > opposite outcomes. > I'm sure Jaap agrees with me that the player could have known that his > questions could be to his advantage. > And I OTOH am quite willing to accept Jaap's verdict that the player > DID have a valid bridge reason. > > In that sense, Jaap - you should NOT agree with the majority of > panelists, who all maintain that the player could not have known that > the questions would be to his advantage. Your POV, and it seems quite > valid to me, is that the player did have a valid bridge reason. > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 24 11:50:40 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:50:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? In-Reply-To: <001f01c30a2c$057b20a0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030424124713.024514b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:37 24/04/2003 +0200, Jaap wrote: >Take once again 1S-3C. Lots of people (at >least in Europe) play this as a specified twosuiter (normally the reds). Now >you explain 'red suits but he sometimes has clubs'. > >First problem, how should opponents react to this. The only way to handle >this is the infamous two-way defence, 3H without asking is natural, 3H with >asking is a cuebid, etc. This is not really cheating. Suppose you hold xx >KQJxxx AKxx x and 3C gets alerted. If you ask and they answer 'reds' you are >cooked. Any practical player will just bid 3H. Does that make him a crook ? >I don't think so. IMO the laws are crooked here. > >Second problem, this explanation seems illegal to me. You are not allowed to >play multi meaning overcalls of a natural opening without the weak options >having a known suit in common. You might argue that the system 'red suits' >is legal. But the de facto meaning seems to be 'reds or clubs' which as a >system is illegal. AG : who said it's weak ? I know of a pair who plays : 1S - 2NT : either weak with clubs or strong (ca 4 LT) with reds 1S - 3C : either weak with diamonds or strong with rounded suits 1S - 3D : either weak with hearts or strong with minors And it has received a seal of approval as non-BSC. Surely, if 2NT "clubs or reds" is right, then 3C also is - albeit inferior. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 24 11:54:49 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:54:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Could have known (was treatment of questions) In-Reply-To: <3EA7A488.8020404@skynet.be> References: <003001c30a30$37390ea0$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030424125347.02457d10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:47 24/04/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Interesting. >Which only goes to show that Jaap and I approach the ruling from different >points of view. >I don't think we are in disagreement therefor, despite our completely >opposite outcomes. >I'm sure Jaap agrees with me that the player could have known that his >questions could be to his advantage. >And I OTOH am quite willing to accept Jaap's verdict that the player DID >have a valid bridge reason. > >In that sense, Jaap - you should NOT agree with the majority of panelists, >who all maintain that the player could not have known that the questions >would be to his advantage. Your POV, and it seems quite valid to me, is >that the player did have a valid bridge reason. AG : OK, the synthesis seems fair and complete, but remember that to get a redress, *both* conditions should be satisfied - here, only one, thus no redress. From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Apr 24 12:29:15 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:29:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030424124713.024514b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <007201c30a55$74ab7f00$25b54351@noos.fr> Alain, This is not very helpfull. Of course you can play that kind of system if one of the two options is strong enough. But in my misbid/MI example of 3C (= reds but sometimes clubs) you end up with two weak options. You know as well is I do on what kind of hands they might overcall. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? > At 08:37 24/04/2003 +0200, Jaap wrote: > > > > >Take once again 1S-3C. Lots of people (at > >least in Europe) play this as a specified twosuiter (normally the reds). Now > >you explain 'red suits but he sometimes has clubs'. > > > >First problem, how should opponents react to this. The only way to handle > >this is the infamous two-way defence, 3H without asking is natural, 3H with > >asking is a cuebid, etc. This is not really cheating. Suppose you hold xx > >KQJxxx AKxx x and 3C gets alerted. If you ask and they answer 'reds' you are > >cooked. Any practical player will just bid 3H. Does that make him a crook ? > >I don't think so. IMO the laws are crooked here. > > > >Second problem, this explanation seems illegal to me. You are not allowed to > >play multi meaning overcalls of a natural opening without the weak options > >having a known suit in common. You might argue that the system 'red suits' > >is legal. But the de facto meaning seems to be 'reds or clubs' which as a > >system is illegal. > > AG : who said it's weak ? I know of a pair who plays : > 1S - 2NT : either weak with clubs or strong (ca 4 LT) with reds > 1S - 3C : either weak with diamonds or strong with rounded suits > 1S - 3D : either weak with hearts or strong with minors > > And it has received a seal of approval as non-BSC. > > Surely, if 2NT "clubs or reds" is right, then 3C also is - albeit inferior. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Apr 24 13:01:40 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:01:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? References: <000801c30a3c$e903ed10$ba2d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <007b01c30a59$44e2fec0$25b54351@noos.fr> Wayne, I understand you are upset about this issue. So lets make some things clear. 1. I have very little experience with this myself as a player since I play most of my serious bridge which screens where both this problem and this 'solution' don't exist. 2. I have a lot of experience with this as a AC member because in Holland (and probably Belgium as well) this problem comes up frequently because almost everybody even complete beginners like to play al kind of advanced conventions. Which creates all kind of problems because they often have no idea what they are doing. No wonder that the other two big federations (France and the ACBL) have regulations to limit this problem. 3. From a purely theoretical point of view you are right that the 'two-way defence' is illegal or worse. Of course it is. But there are a lot of practical buts. The problem is that by now everybody knows that you risk not to be protected by the TD or AC in this kind of situations. Although the Dutch national AC nowadays tends to rule against this type of misbids on a rather dubious legal construct, all kind of obscure details do matter, and it is for players rather unpredictable what will be the ruling of a local AC. So people adapt and have learned to make their obvious bids without asking. This is a well known solution and not based on partnership discussion or such. Now you can (like you Wayne obviously do) condem this solution as cheating, but then an awful lot of common players in Holland should be considered cheaters. Do you realise that nobody can tell them how to solve the problem (opponents playing disruptive conventions and getting them wrong all the time) otherwise and that nobody can guarantee them TD protection (if by asking they create an impossible situation for themselves). So the only practical solution is to offer them this protection. Which means treating this kind of misbids as MI (there are some variants). Or do you know something better. And don't bother telling me what are the relevant laws and what kind of options these laws offer. After ruling at least 50 odd cases like this (we even have a name for them) together with other very capable AC members, and after years of discussion in Holland about what we can do and cannot do given the current law, I know by now. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; ; Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 10:38 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > Sent: Thursday, 24 April 2003 6:38 p.m. > > To: blml@rtflb.org; richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > Subject: Re: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? > > > > > > Richard: > > > This problem has been around for decades; > > > in a 1970s Bridge World Editorial, Edgar > > > Kaplan dubbed it the Gooseschmitz > > > Convention. > > > > Of course I know the issue is not an original one. It is just another > > example the lawmakers have never taken their job seriously. > > > > Richard: > > > "...habitual violations within a partnership > > > may create implicit agreements, which must > > > be disclosed..." > > > > Yes I know, but how are you going to prove it. Everybody will > > always say > > this really was the first time it happened, etc. Life is so > > much easier if > > there is a rule like 'mixup of early conventions always counts as > > misinformation'. Now we are forced to rule it as a habitual > > violation (or > > another legal trick) without any prove of such. > > Bridge is a game of mistakes so in general I am pleased when my > opponent's make a mistake. Of course occasionally I get fixed. > > I am against an automatic penalty for making a mistake. > > That is like a double penalty - you are a bad player so you get > poor scores anyway but on top of that we are going to penalize you > for being a bad player. > > I think that in many cases (but not all) the laws provide sufficient > redress for these misbids and their subsequent recovery. > > The problem is in my experience that TD and AC too often allow > these people to recover from their blunders by using UI. > > > > > > And there is another problem here. Take once again 1S-3C. > > Lots of people (at > > least in Europe) play this as a specified twosuiter (normally > > the reds). Now > > you explain 'red suits but he sometimes has clubs'. > > > > First problem, how should opponents react to this. The only > > way to handle > > this is the infamous two-way defence, 3H without asking is > > natural, 3H with > > asking is a cuebid, etc. This is not really cheating. > > I think it is, see L74C1 and L73B1. This player is deliberately > using different designations for the same call. And the player > is communicating with his partner by asking or not asking a > question. If this is discussed then L73B2 applies and such a > pair "risk expulsion". > > > Suppose > > you hold xx > > KQJxxx AKxx x and 3C gets alerted. If you ask and they answer > > 'reds' you are > > cooked. Any practical player will just bid 3H. Does that make > > him a crook ? > > Absolutely!!! > > > I don't think so. IMO the laws are crooked here. > > Maybe you think the laws are not the best but that does not give > you immunity if you deliberately break them. > > > > > Second problem, this explanation seems illegal to me. You are > > not allowed to > > play multi meaning overcalls of a natural opening without the > > weak options > > having a known suit in common. You might argue that the > > system 'red suits' > > is legal. But the de facto meaning seems to be 'reds or > > clubs' which as a > > system is illegal. > > I think a key here is that you are not automatically entitled to > recover from this error simply because partner has been mixed up > before. L75A addresses this by saying that "Information conveyed > to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, > plays and conditions of the current deal". > > > > Wayne > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 6:07 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? > > > > > > > > > > Jaap wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > >3C overcall as a twosuiter is the worst, > > > >holding 7 clubs they immediately forget > > > >about the convention, conveniently green > > > >against red, partner knows this might > > > >happen so he doesn't bid too much, etc. > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > This problem has been around for decades; > > > in a 1970s Bridge World Editorial, Edgar > > > Kaplan dubbed it the Gooseschmitz > > > Convention. > > > > > > The 1970s version of the Gooseschmitz > > > Convention proceeded as follows: > > > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > > 1NT 2C(1) Pass(2) 2H > > > Pass 3C(3) Pass Pass > > > Pass > > > > > > (1) Alerted and described as both majors. > > > > > > (2) Values to compete at the 2-level in > > > a major, but not with North "promising" > > > both majors. > > > > > > (3) Correct description of the implicit > > > partnership agreement was both majors > > > *or* a club single-suiter. > > > > > > Kaplan believed (and I concur) that the > > > Gooseschmitz Convention does *not* force > > > a change in the Laws outlawing misbids, > > > merely to rectify the problems that the > > > Gooseschmitz Convention causes. > > > > > > Rather, the Gooseschmitz Convention is > > > *already* illegal, as it infracts the > > > current Law 75B: > > > > > > "...habitual violations within a partnership > > > may create implicit agreements, which must > > > be disclosed..." > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > blml mailing list > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Apr 24 13:14:21 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:14:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030424080012.00a0d3b0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:32 AM 4/23/03, Ed wrote: >On 4/22/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >A further requirement is that the questioner "could have known" at the > >time of the question that the question could work to one's benefit. > >I hate that phrase. Mrs. Guggenheim "could have known", if she were >Meckwell. But she's not. "Could have known" is one of those weasel >worded things that allows somebody to interpret the laws however he >would like. That sucks. A harsh judgment, as some might argue that the alternative is even worse. What we would really like is that the law require a finding that in the TD/AC's judgment, the player knew that the question might work to his benefit. But that would, under the laws of the real world, be an accusation subject to a lawsuit, where the standard of proof of the accusation would be far higher than what is desirable, or practical, for purposes of bridge law. So there's a real purpose to be served by letting the TD/AC "interpret the laws however [they] would like"; it lets them rule against the presumptively guilty while not ruling against the presumptively innocent, without having to meet a standard of proof of guilt that would hold up in (a real) court. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From jaapb@noos.fr Thu Apr 24 13:22:47 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:22:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030424080012.00a0d3b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00b001c30a5c$38200f40$25b54351@noos.fr> Eric,. Fear for lawsuits is typically American but I can understand this type of vague wording for other reasons as well. I also have to make rulings and I prefer not to have to accuse a player of something horrible when just ruling against him. But this is no excuse for vague laws or 'do as the AC see fit' rules. You can modify 'could have known' to something more useful like 'likely could have known' or 'surely could have known' or whatever. Or what about 'should have known'. I know it is still vague but just 'could have known' is almost a true statement whatever you attach to it. It is close to logic like 'somebody accuses you, so you must at least be guilty of something'. You need some kind of quantification. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > At 11:32 AM 4/23/03, Ed wrote: > > >On 4/22/03, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > >A further requirement is that the questioner "could have known" at the > > >time of the question that the question could work to one's benefit. > > > >I hate that phrase. Mrs. Guggenheim "could have known", if she were > >Meckwell. But she's not. "Could have known" is one of those weasel > >worded things that allows somebody to interpret the laws however he > >would like. That sucks. > > A harsh judgment, as some might argue that the alternative is even worse. > > What we would really like is that the law require a finding that in the > TD/AC's judgment, the player knew that the question might work to his > benefit. But that would, under the laws of the real world, be an > accusation subject to a lawsuit, where the standard of proof of the > accusation would be far higher than what is desirable, or practical, > for purposes of bridge law. So there's a real purpose to be served by > letting the TD/AC "interpret the laws however [they] would like"; it > lets them rule against the presumptively guilty while not ruling > against the presumptively innocent, without having to meet a standard > of proof of guilt that would hold up in (a real) court. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 24 15:42:20 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:42:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: <00b001c30a5c$38200f40$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030424080012.00a0d3b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030424163358.0245aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:22 24/04/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Fear for lawsuits is typically American AG : not exclusively American. Not long ago, a Belgian player -and TD !- was found guilty of inserting into T4 matches he played deals from books on card-play technique. He was silly enough as to keep every card at its place and put into the same match two deals from the same book. This didn't go unnoticed. He got a one-year suspension. He sued the Belgian Federation on the grounds that he was a professional teacher and the sanction deprived him from his job. A well-known Belgian bridge expert and mathematician was summoned before the Court. He computed that there was a chance in several zillions for this to be a coincidence. The court fined the Federation heavily because they didn't "prove" their allegations with *absolute* certainty. The fear of another such fine, which could lead to its bankruptcy, means that the Belgian Fedetration will never again sanction a cheater unless he made a confession. From gester@lineone.net Thu Apr 24 15:56:39 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:56:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951653@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <00a401c30a71$d9997180$c3182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 1:18 PM Subject: SV: [blml] treatment of questions ------------------------------------------- I'm of the opinion that Grattan is mistaken here. > +=+ Well this is more polite, at least, than to suggest I am guilty either of fabrication or of falsehood. +=+ > That any question must imply willingness to act, regarding upon the reply, gives away far to much information, both to partner and opponents. The "only" way to avoid this problem is to always ask when you need the information, and randomly ask when the information is unimportant at the moment. Thus you create no UI for partner, > +=+ There is a lot of case law that says otherwise. +=+ > and the opponents draw conclusions at their own risk. > +=+ Not exactly what the current law says +=+ > +=+ It is not the kind of case that comes up very often. There have been a few occasions in the history of my membership of WBF TACs when a player has complained that (s)he had drawn an inference from the fact that an opponent asked a question and the opponent has agreed that, no matter what the answer, (s)he was always going to pass. Being satisfied that the inference was fairly drawn the TAC, whether I was involved or not, deemed the opponent had no demonstrable* bridge reason for the enquiry. The parent WBF Appeals Committee has not reacted. Hence my conclusions. My notes of the discussions in 1985/6; refer to "some deceptive question for which he has no evident justification" and "has the complainant a reasonable case to say it misled?", "could the offender have recognized that it might mislead and work to his benefit?", and "when the answers to these questions point adversely to the offender an adjustment of score becomes mandatory". I understand a point of view that argues a player should be allowed to ask such questions for the reasons you give, Harald, but this argument has been subordinated, in my WBF experience, to the interests of the player who has been misled. It may be that, on some occasions at least, members of a TAC have been sceptical of the innocent motivation of a question asked. The judgement that there is no demonstrable bridge reason for an action is wholly within the competence of the appeals committee and such judgements are not within the defined area of responsibility of the WBFLC. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Apr 24 14:11:54 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:11:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Could have known (was treatment of questions) References: <003001c30a30$37390ea0$25b54351@noos.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20030424125347.02457d10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3EA7E29A.1030207@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> In that sense, Jaap - you should NOT agree with the majority of >> panelists, who all maintain that the player could not have known that >> the questions would be to his advantage. Your POV, and it seems quite >> valid to me, is that the player did have a valid bridge reason. > > > AG : OK, the synthesis seems fair and complete, but remember that to get > a redress, *both* conditions should be satisfied - here, only one, thus > no redress. > My point was that although Jaap reaches the same conclusion as the majority of the panel, he got there through another route. I agree with Jaap's route, and have more respect for that argument, especially since it is over my (bridge-)head, whereas the other one is not. I still agree with DWS that the player could have known (perhaps should is a better word here) that he ought to have asked the questions at a more appropriate time. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Apr 24 16:28:22 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? Message-ID: <200304241528.LAA22202@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > The TD ruled that EW misinformed NS by not > revealing that 2C showed both majors, a CPU > contrary to Law 40B. > > But if the TD is ruling EW have an *agreement* > that East's 2C shows both majors, how can the > TD rule that West must elect to play in the > *shorter* major after a penalty double, The point is that L40B makes the 2S bid illegal. L12C2/C3 evaluations only consider _legal_ alternatives (with rare exceptions that don't apply here). This is similar in principle to a UI ruling: even when the player having UI probably would have made the winning bid anyway, we don't consider that illegal bid as part of the L12C2/C3 process. The question is when to rule under L40B and when to give a simple MI ruling under L21B3. From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Apr 24 15:46:07 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:46:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <00c201c30961$42b8f080$25b54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <006701c30a77$078616c0$d53df0c3@LNV> > > >. My > > > position is that the Laws Committee would > > > trespass into the territory of an equal committee > > > if it were so intrepid as to suggest the Appeals > > > Committee does not have the power to make > > > that judgement. > > > I have got the message that ton does not > > > agree with such a position and would like to > > > impose his personal view on the Appeals > > > Committee. If this is the outcome of our discussion your reading is poorer than my writing. I am not and I don't want to be in any position to impose anything on anybody, and you know that. So Jaap's 'childish nonsense' to describe our discussion seems true for at least your part of it. But I am in a postion, stronger: it is my duty, to ask the opinion of the LC if I think that whatever power with some influence gives a wrong interpretation of the laws. If what you say is indeed what WBF AC have stated before, and honestly I still doubt that very much, we have a problem which is connnected to the principles of the laws. That is why I don't agree with 'childish nonsense' as far as the discussion of this issue is involved. But then I realise it is Jaap who says so. I believe he should look again > > > at the boundaries between the powers of the > > > two committees. > > > . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yes, childish this is. Let us not discuss the results we come up with but the legality of the concern of people. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Apr 24 16:20:02 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:20:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws References: <6719005.1051019797759.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <006801c30a77$07cc6e90$d53df0c3@LNV> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 3:56 PM Subject: RE: [blml] trick one - break the laws > Ton wrote: > > >At no time (including trick one) should a player so act as to convey extraneous information to partner > > >as far as I understand the laws, not knowing much about interpretations made in the EBU, the laws do not say so > > What does this mean, Ton? > > "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves." > > "Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste." > > "Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them." > Good Lord, waiting for Jaap's reaction that we have terrible laws which should be rewritten as son as possible. I have only one law to support my reaction, but that seems more valuable than yours combined. L73D1 which expresses that bridge is played by human beings. Therewith admitting that such extraneous information is inevitable, without making it an infraction to create it. By the way do you think that the EBU can uphold its position on questions asked when they follow your statements above? > >nor should he so act as to deceive an opponent other than by a call or play. > > >this is nowhere in the laws either. according to the same L 73D1 if an opponent is misled by a hesitation, that in the first place is his own problem, the inadvertent hesitation not being 'a violation of propriety'. And L73D2 makes clear that it is the attempt to mislead which is an infraction. Intention is involved then, which is not necessarily the case in your statement. It thought it useful to put the dots on the i. So many nbo's with strange ideas nowadays. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Apr 24 16:34:22 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:34:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <200304231507.h3NF7aD02401@athena.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <006901c30a77$0835dec0$d53df0c3@LNV> Anxiously waiting for Grattan's reply, more names may be? Do you have all appeals in some memory? You might help me then. ton > >+=+ Just to reiterate the position maintained steadily by the > >WBF Appeals Committee, through TACs, in my experience over > >16+ years: > > > >1. No-one suggests that a question may not be asked at a player's > >turn. > >2. It is, however, always the case that in asking a question a > >player may convey UI to partner; he also risks misleading an > >opponent. > >3. If an opponent is misled by a question asked, and is damaged > >thereby, when the player has 'no demonstrable bridge reason' for > >asking the question, opponent is entitled to an adjustment of the > >score. > > Exactly when has this happened? Seriously. I try to follow appeals > quite closely. I can't find anything that backs this position and > I can find at least one ruling that seems in direct contrast. > > Though the central issue in that appeal is not an opponent being misled > but rather an allegation of possible use of unauthorized information. > > One thing that is absolutely clear is that the AC in question did > not even delve into the issue of demonstable bridge reason for the > question. In fact, the tone of the response by the AC makes it > reasonably clear that they would have found the points you are > advocating (unsupported by anything I can see -- though I'm quite > prepared to be proved wrong on this point) to be absurd. > > >4. It is not sufficient for the player to say "I always ask" or to say > >"I wished to follow the auction along". The player must show that > >he had a need to know the answer to the question at the time > >when it was asked, and could not defer his curiosity until later. > > This contadicts the AC at Albuquerque 13. A very strong one I might add. > > Appeals Report 13 from Albuquerque (Rosenblum Cup) > > 743 > JT > A984 > KJ85 > K65 AQ > 764 A53 > J63 KQT7 > Q942 AT63 > > JT982 > KQ982 > 52 > 7 > > West North East South > - Pass 1C 2C > Pass 2S 2NT Pass > 3NT > > South's 2C was a Michaels Cuebid for the majors and West asked > about the meaning of this direct cuebid before deciding to pass. > There was no hesitation involved. The fact that West asked instead > of looking at the convention card led N/S to maintain that East's > bid of 2NT may have been influenced by West's questions. > E/W scored +600. > > The director was called at the end of the board, ruling that > the score stands. > > N/S felt that East's bid of 2NT was not routine, and was possibly > influenced by partner's question. At the other table their > teammates were in the same position and chose to double, because > the latter would be too dangerous. In England a player cannot > ask a question when not intending to bid without compromising > partner. In this event with such strict requirements regarding > convention cards, he could pass and then look at the convention > card. > > The Committee: > There was no hesitation, and you are allowed to ask when it is > your turn to bid. It is the opinion of the Committee that you > should always ask, for then nobody can find any pattern in asking. > E/W were playing natural with five card majors, and the natural > development with no interruption would be to jump to 2NT on the > second round to show a balanced 18-19 count. The 2NT bid is > therefore considered routine. > > Result stands, deposit forfeited. > > Committee: Tony Forrester (Chairman), Jens Auken, Bobby Goldman, > Tommy Sandsmark. > > Tony Sowter includes the following note in the tournament book: > > This ruling illustrates the dangers of individual NCBO's adopting > regulations that are inconsistent with the international view. > > So you have two leading EBU players who believe that a) the > EBU regs say you can't ask questions when intending to pass > without potential consequences and b) that those regs are wrong. > > >5. The WBF Appeals Committee has consistently maintained > >that to ask a question when you do not need to know the answer > >is to ask without a demonstrable bridge reason. > > When did has this happened? > > -- > Ron From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Apr 24 16:48:30 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:48:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951653@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> <00a401c30a71$d9997180$c3182850@pacific> Message-ID: <007001c30a78$f625ede0$d53df0c3@LNV> ------------------------------------------- > I'm of the opinion that Grattan is mistaken here. > > > +=+ Well this is more polite, at least, than to > suggest I am guilty either of fabrication or of > falsehood. +=+ Childish nonsense, not my words, but I agree. I am the only one you can point to. So let me say that I am not thinking of fabrication or falsehood at all. Stubborness supported by age, no hair on your head, and you still have some, considering that you might be a itsy pitsy little bit wrong here. Quote me like that, but how dare you suggest that I am questioning your honesty? If there is one reason to apologize, you have created it. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 24 17:30:35 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:30:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: <006901c30a77$0835dec0$d53df0c3@LNV> References: <200304231507.h3NF7aD02401@athena.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030424182302.024556b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:34 24/04/2003 +0200, Ton Kooijman wrote: > > >4. It is not sufficient for the player to say "I always ask" or to say > > >"I wished to follow the auction along". The player must show that > > >he had a need to know the answer to the question at the time > > >when it was asked, and could not defer his curiosity until later. > > > > This contadicts the AC at Albuquerque 13. A very strong one I might add. AG : and limiting questions to 'absolute need' cases increases by a vast amount the UI created by any question. Bad idea. > > > Appeals Report 13 from Albuquerque (Rosenblum Cup) > > > > 743 > > JT > > A984 > > KJ85 > > K65 AQ > > 764 A53 > > J63 KQT7 > > Q942 AT63 > > > > JT982 > > KQ982 > > 52 > > 7 > > > > West North East South > > - Pass 1C 2C > > Pass 2S 2NT Pass > > 3NT > > > > South's 2C was a Michaels Cuebid for the majors and West asked > > about the meaning of this direct cuebid before deciding to pass. > > There was no hesitation involved. The fact that West asked instead > > of looking at the convention card led N/S to maintain that East's > > bid of 2NT may have been influenced by West's questions. > > E/W scored +600. AG : difficult to understand this : a consultation of the CC transmits as much UI as a generic question (what's this ?) > > > The director was called at the end of the board, ruling that > > the score stands. > > > N/S felt that East's bid of 2NT was not routine, and was possibly > > influenced by partner's question. At the other table their > > teammates were in the same position and chose to double, because > > the latter would be too dangerous. In England a player cannot > > ask a question when not intending to bid without compromising > > partner. AG :as I said before, this creates intolerably strong UI when one asks then passes. No good. The only non-UI-genic attitude is to ask about every alerted (or self-alerting) call, at least in the first rounds and in potentially competitive situations (eg, not in high-level relay bidding). And the players maintaining it should be encouraged, rather than penalized. Sort of similar to 'regular tempo'. Best regards, Alain. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Apr 24 17:43:37 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030424182302.024556b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> from "Alain Gottcheiner" at Apr 24, 2003 06:30:35 PM Message-ID: <200304241643.h3OGhb404150@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Alain Gottcheiner writes: > > At 17:34 24/04/2003 +0200, Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > > > > > > >4. It is not sufficient for the player to say "I always ask" or to say > > > >"I wished to follow the auction along". The player must show that > > > >he had a need to know the answer to the question at the time > > > >when it was asked, and could not defer his curiosity until later. > > > > > > This contadicts the AC at Albuquerque 13. A very strong one I might add. > > AG : and limiting questions to 'absolute need' cases increases by a vast > amount the UI created by any question. Bad idea. It's worse than that. It creates a kind of restricted choice AI for the opposition. It increases the probability of guessing key cards when you know they can't ask questions with some holdings. (And you can infer a certain amount from the absence of questions too) I'm not clear that a worse scheme could be created intentionally. An intriguing experiment. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 24 15:32:01 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:32:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? In-Reply-To: <007b01c30a59$44e2fec0$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <000801c30a3c$e903ed10$ba2d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030424161728.02456be0@pop.ulb.ac.be> --=====================_16505783==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 14:01 24/04/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Wayne, > >I understand you are upset about this issue. So lets make some things clear. > >1. I have very little experience with this myself as a player since I play >most of my serious bridge which screens where both this problem and this >'solution' don't exist. > >2. I have a lot of experience with this as a AC member because in Holland >(and probably Belgium as well) this problem comes up frequently because >almost everybody even complete beginners like to play al kind of advanced >conventions. AG : that's part of the problem in Belgium, too. "avant garde, said the Rabbit proudly". But even players who consider themselves quite experienced will make a mess of some conventions. While it doesn't often happen that an intermediate player forgets he's using Landy (or T-Walsh, or Jacoby 2NT), errors on conventional two-suited overcalls of suit bids (especially Ghestem) occur at all levels. Another 'dangerous' case is transfer preempts. >3. From a purely theoretical point of view you are right that the 'two-way >defence' is illegal or worse. Of course it is. But there are a lot of >practical buts. > >The problem is that by now everybody knows that you risk not to be protected >by the TD or AC in this kind of situations. Although the Dutch national AC >nowadays tends to rule against this type of misbids on a rather dubious >legal construct, all kind of obscure details do matter, and it is for >players rather unpredictable what will be the ruling of a local AC. So >people adapt and have learned to make their obvious bids without asking. >This is a well known solution and not based on partnership discussion or >such. > >Now you can (like you Wayne obviously do) condem this solution as cheating, >but then an awful lot of common players in Holland should be considered >cheaters. Do you realise that nobody can tell them how to solve the problem >(opponents playing disruptive conventions and getting them wrong all the >time) otherwise and that nobody can guarantee them TD protection (if by >asking they create an impossible situation for themselves). AG : I doubt that the right response to approximative umpiring is to add to the number of incorrections. Yes, one solution would be to have sound guidelines. One of these is to disallow "disruption" at the first round of bidding and in straigfhtforward sequences, if -big if- you can tell which actions are conventional and which cases are straightforward. Another would be to ensure that in such a case the OS always gets the worse possible score, while the NOS's score it determined on a case-per-case basis according to the precautions taken, etc. About "straightforward cases" : one could expect of any pair from moderate level upwards that they know what they play vs weak notrumps, what they play over strong notrumps, and if different that they don't mix them up. Now, say you encounter a pair which plays 13-17 notrumps. I wouldn't consider it a huge error if one player thought of it as a weak NT, the other as a strong one -especially in a system like Blue Team where the 13-14 case seldom occurs. Best regards, Alain. --=====================_16505783==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 14:01 24/04/2003 +0200, Jaap van der Neut wrote:
Wayne,

I understand you are upset about this issue. So lets make some things clear.

1. I have very little experience with this myself as a player since I play
most of my serious bridge which screens where both this problem and this
'solution' don't exist.

2. I have a lot of experience with this as a AC member because in Holland
(and probably Belgium as well) this problem comes up frequently because
almost everybody even complete beginners like to play al kind of advanced
conventions.

AG : that's part of the problem in Belgium, too. "avant garde, said the Rabbit proudly".
But even players who consider themselves quite experienced will make a mess of some conventions.
While it doesn't often happen that an intermediate player forgets he's using Landy (or T-Walsh, or Jacoby 2NT), errors on conventional two-suited overcalls of suit bids (especially Ghestem) occur at all levels. Another 'dangerous' case is transfer preempts.

3. From a purely theoretical point of view you are right that the 'two-way
defence' is illegal or worse. Of course it is. But there are a lot of
practical buts.

The problem is that by now everybody knows that you risk not to be protected
by the TD or AC in this kind of situations. Although the Dutch national AC
nowadays tends to rule against this type of misbids on a rather dubious
legal construct, all kind of obscure details do matter, and it is for
players rather unpredictable what will be the ruling of a local AC. So
people adapt and have learned to make their obvious bids without asking.
This is a well known solution and not based on partnership discussion or
such.

Now you can (like you Wayne obviously do) condem this solution as cheating,
but then an awful lot of common players in Holland should be considered
cheaters. Do you realise that nobody can tell them how to solve the problem
(opponents playing disruptive conventions and getting them wrong all the
time) otherwise and that nobody can guarantee them TD protection (if by
asking they create an impossible situation for themselves).

AG : I doubt that the right response to approximative umpiring is to add to the number of incorrections.
Yes, one solution would be to have sound guidelines. One of these is to disallow "disruption" at the first round of bidding and in straigfhtforward sequences, if -big if- you can tell which actions are conventional and which cases are straightforward. Another would be to ensure that in such a case the OS always gets the worse possible score, while the NOS's score it determined on a case-per-case basis according to the precautions taken, etc.

About "straightforward cases" : one could expect of any pair from moderate level upwards that they know what they play vs weak notrumps, what they play over strong notrumps, and if different that they don't mix them up. Now, say you encounter a pair which plays 13-17 notrumps. I wouldn't consider it a huge error if one player thought of it as a weak NT, the other as a strong one -especially in a system like Blue Team where the 13-14 case seldom occurs.

Best regards,

        Alain. --=====================_16505783==_.ALT-- From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Apr 24 22:04:52 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:04:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: <00b001c30a5c$38200f40$25b54351@noos.fr> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030424080012.00a0d3b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030424165527.00ac97a0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:22 AM 4/24/03, Jaap wrote: >Fear for lawsuits is typically American but I can understand this type of >vague wording for other reasons as well. I also have to make rulings and I >prefer not to have to accuse a player of something horrible when just >ruling >against him. But this is no excuse for vague laws or 'do as the AC see >fit' >rules. > >You can modify 'could have known' to something more useful like 'likely >could have known' or 'surely could have known' or whatever. Or what about >'should have known'. I know it is still vague but just 'could have >known' is >almost a true statement whatever you attach to it. It is close to >logic like >'somebody accuses you, so you must at least be guilty of something'. You >need some kind of quantification. Perhaps "might have known" works. It doesn't carry the accusatory implication of "knew", and we can go on blandly reassuring suspected sharpies that we're merely judging the facts, not accusing them of any inappropriate intention. Meanwhile, behind the sealed doors of the committee room, we could legally decide that a player could have known the action in question would work to his advantage (if he were smarter, or a better player, or more in tune with the situation) but that there was no chance whatsoever that he actually might have known, and refuse redress in such cases without violating the letter of the law. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From karel@esatclear.ie Fri Apr 25 08:50:20 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel De Raeymaeker) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:50:20 -0700 Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: +++ The original posting was deliberately vague because ... it is. The pair involved have NO agreement about 2C's. That was 100% established. It is true West did not alert 2C's - Did east really expect him too ?? What pray tell did N/S want West to alert ?? So what UI does East have ?? Just as an aside - is there a Law against alerting a bid which happens to match Pd's hand BUT which they have no agreement on ?? Sounds strange but it is quite a common occurence on internet bridge and self alerts. While N/S may present arguments it is for the AC to decide are they relevant. IMO West certainly acted completely correctly and used the information available to everyone to deduce that East had the majors. This deduction seemed very reasonable and he acted on. There was no certainty about 2S being correct. East bid a risky 2C but with IMO a backup plan. If passed out its hardly a disaster. If doubled he can bid 2H's which should now get his original intent across to pd. To summarize - N/S were not entitled to an alert of the 2C's. The non alert gives no UI to anyone. All players at the table had the clues available to arrive at the deduction West did. N/S are not entitled to a "late" alert which possibly redefines the meaning of a prior bid due to the subsequent bidding at the table. As pointed out 2S doubled should normally go down (I don't have the exact hands but I got the impression the defence was not optimal). I rule 2S* making - frivolous appeal lose the cash. Too harsh ?? I'm sure I've missed some pertinent point .. by all means someone please convince me I'm wayy out aline here. K. From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Apr 25 08:01:08 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:01:08 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Tenerife 18 - was Law 16A Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951722@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman de Wael wrote: >Hello Harald, >I checked my notes from the time just to make certain: >Skjaran, Harald wrote: >> There was just a few comments and a couple of questions to the original = posting. >> I therefore publish the whole case, from the European Ladies Teams at Te= nerife. >> See comments below the appeal posting. >>=20 >> The TD establishes, correctly, that pass is a LA. He makes no asessment = of >> whether pass or 6S was demonstrably suggested over the other by the hesi= tation, >> merely awards the most favourable result for EW. >>=20 >OK, maybe the TD did not do his job fully. >> The AC say next to nothing on the matter. The only comment is that North= might >> have been thinking of doubling, and that's the only reason the deposit w= asn't forfeited. >> Indeed!!! >>=20 >"next to nothing" is not nothing. HS: The AC according to the write ut did very (far to) little, that's why I= put "next to" in front of nothing. To point out that they did in fact do better than the TD on thi= s matter, but far from what they should have done. >> If I were south, I would be quite confident that partner was thinking of= doubling 6C. >> After having overcalled 1S, it shold not come as a big surprise to anyon= e if I had some >> defensive strength. I certainly have no offensive strenght. Of course pa= rtner could be >> thinking of bidding 6S, but is that likely? Not to me. >> In my opinion, if south had any UI, it suggested passing, not bidding 6S= . In that case, >> South did what Law 16A tells her to do. (Obviously she didn't know that.) >> I know some will disagree with me on what north most likely was thinking= of. But I don't >> believe it is possible to conclude that south was in posession og UI tha= t demonstrably >> suggested that bidding 6S was the winning action compared to passing 6C.= So in any case, >> the ruling of the TD and AC is lunatic to me - and even considering forf= eiting the=20 >> deposit.... =20 >Don't you think that in order for this point to be taken into serious=20 >consideration by the AC - the appealing side ought to have brought it up? > >There was no mention by North about what she was thinking about, and=20 >no mention by South that she considered her L16 obligations before=20 >deciding that she could not tell whether 6S or pass were the suggested=20 >alternative. You have quoted the only defence: "the captain told the=20 >players always to sacrifice at the six-level". I'm sure you agree that=20 >this is not a defence and the deposit ought to have been forfeited for=20 >that reason. HS: As I said, she obviously did't know what Law 16A imposed upon her. If s= he had taken that into consideration, she would have told the TD/AC that. Even at this level lots = of players don't know the laws well enough. But the law is very clear (the partner may not choose= from among logical=20 alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over an= other by the extraneous information). And the TD/AC must take this deeply into consideration. They = have to judge whether the taken action "could demonstrably have been suggested over another...". Only= if that is the case can a score adjustment be made. The appeals write up doesn't say that the AC di= d so. And as I've said, I can't see how such a decision can be made in this case. >> Those in the who are strong bridge players, probably haven't got enough = knowledge of the >> Law, and vice verca. And they seem unable to combine their knowledge to = the best effect. >> Or maybe they think the rule cases like this correctly, and nobody ever = understood the >> meening of Law 16A.=20 >That is a little harsh, IMHO. HS: I've seen to many rulings of this kind internationally (and locally) ov= er the years. Therefor I=20 intended to be a little (not very) harsh.=20 Harald Skjaran >> Regards, >> Harald =20 >--=20 >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 ********************************************************************** 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 hermandw@skynet.be Fri Apr 25 08:45:08 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:45:08 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Tenerife 18 - was Law 16A References: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951722@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <3EA8E784.10406@skynet.be> Skjaran, Harald wrote: > > HS: As I said, she obviously did't know what Law 16A imposed upon her. If she had taken that into > consideration, she would have told the TD/AC that. Even at this level lots of players don't know > the laws well enough. But the law is very clear (the partner may not choose from among logical > alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information). And the TD/AC must take this deeply into consideration. They have to judge whether the > taken action "could demonstrably have been suggested over another...". Only if that is the case can > a score adjustment be made. The appeals write up doesn't say that the AC did so. And as I've said, I > can't see how such a decision can be made in this case. > Well, I've learned something. I shall henceforth always write in my write-ups that the AC considered (in this case 6Sp) to be the suggested action. If only to keep nit-pickers of my back. One more comment: it is true that players don't know the rules well enough, sometimes. But that's what captains are for. > > >>>Those in the who are strong bridge players, probably haven't got enough knowledge of the >>>Law, and vice verca. And they seem unable to combine their knowledge to the best effect. >>>Or maybe they think the rule cases like this correctly, and nobody ever understood the >>>meening of Law 16A. >>> > > >>That is a little harsh, IMHO. >> > > HS: I've seen to many rulings of this kind internationally (and locally) over the years. Therefor I > intended to be a little (not very) harsh. > If you start criticising this case, you can criticise all of them. And then you can say that the AC has them all wrong, and then you can say that the AC is bad and that because the AC is bad, all cases are suspect and we don't have to trust their better judgement in cases where we are in doubt. And so on. Rather, we should hear blml saying: since this is about the highest AC we can find, maybe we should try to learn something from it. Maybe this is the norm, and we should see what it tells us. I mean, Jens Auken, Steen Moller (can't find the /o, Steen) and Grattan Endicott? Maybe if these guys throw something out it's because it wasn't worth discussing? That's also something you need to know: sometimes a case is so badly presented that it merits sending a signal. Coming out after 2 minutes without the money is a strong signal. Careful analysis, two years later, might reveal that there is more to the case than can be seen in two minutes. That does not mean that the AC did not do the right thing at the time. And it wouldn't be fair on the people of whom we took the money (or just not) to then produce a write-up of 5 pages. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Apr 25 13:05:52 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:05:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030425075913.02f816d0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:50 AM 4/25/03, Karel wrote: >N/S are not entitled to a "late" alert >which possibly redefines the meaning of a prior bid due to the subsequent >bidding at the table. This is because N-S are *never* entitled to alert which "[]defines the meaning of a... bid"; they are only entitled to be alerted to E-W's agreements. Here it is clear that E-W had no agreement; E bid 2C knowing it was undefined in his methods, and subsequently bid 2H knowing it was undefined in his methods. Neither requires an alert. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From jaapb@noos.fr Fri Apr 25 13:23:37 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:23:37 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Tenerife 18 - was Law 16A References: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951722@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> <3EA8E784.10406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003901c30b25$80fbffc0$25b54351@noos.fr> Herman: > Well, I've learned something. I shall henceforth always write in my > write-ups that the AC considered (in this case 6Sp) to be the > suggested action. > If only to keep nit-pickers of my back. This is a very silly remark. This has nothing to do with nit-picking. I agree with Harald that this fundamental aspect of 16A is often overlooked. So an EBL-AC should take this serious. Or is the EBL to join the ranks of the 'if it thinks, shoot it' brigade. Herman: > I mean, Jens Auken, Steen Moller (can't find the /o, Steen) and > Grattan Endicott? > Maybe if these guys throw something out it's because it wasn't worth > discussing? Another very silly remark. One. If they throw something out they might be right or they might be wrong. It just means that at that moment they thought it was a good idea. Two. You don't impress me by listing names (like Grattan did a couple of days ago in a similar defensive role). So you give three names. Grattan imo has no business making bridge judgements at an EC (lack of relevant bridge skills like you do, I consider the main role of an AC to provide bridge judgement so you need those skills). So that leaves only two, Steen and Jens. These two are good friends (also friends of me by the way) and from the same country. This is not everybody's idea of serious justice. Forget about them maybe being too close, difficult to avoid in the bridge world and probably ok, but them being from the same country (=culture) is dubious. I know from experience that Dutch and French (by far the two biggest EBL-NCBO's) AC-members of comparable standing tend to rule more lenient on 16A than Scandinavians do. Not that much of course but in close cases it easily makes a difference. Here I don't want to engage in a discusion who is right and who is wrong. The point is that maybe this AC is not as good as it seems. Now don't get me wrong, I am quite happy to be ruled upon by this AC, but to use this AC as an example of how things should seems rather silly. Herman: > Rather, we should hear blml saying: since this is about the highest AC > we can find, maybe we should try to learn something from it. Maybe > this is the norm, and we should see what it tells us. This is also silly. EBL-AC rulings are like al tournament AC-rulings made under time-pressure and god knows what. Their only purpose is to have a ruling so the involved match/tournament has a result. If you want to learn something you should have them analysed and comented by an independent panel. You will be amazed how many rulings by high level AC's turn out to be flawed, wrong or plain crazy. And don't worry, I am guilty of my share of stupid rulings. Tenerife 18 itself. I share Haralds objections about the procedure, and I hate the way Herman defends them. Just like I hate the way Grattan defends his silly 'questions should provide info to the opps' approach. And I agree with Harald that 16A very often gets overdone ('if it thinks, shoot it'). But I agree with the ruling itself. For me it is far more likely that partner was thinking about saving than about doubling. You don't double slams for one down. If you have two sure tricks ok, but this is not something you think about. If only because you are afraid of giving away some decision in the play. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 9:45 AM Subject: Re: SV: [blml] Tenerife 18 - was Law 16A > Skjaran, Harald wrote: > > > > > HS: As I said, she obviously did't know what Law 16A imposed upon her. If she had taken that into > > consideration, she would have told the TD/AC that. Even at this level lots of players don't know > > the laws well enough. But the law is very clear (the partner may not choose from among logical > > alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > > information). And the TD/AC must take this deeply into consideration. They have to judge whether the > > taken action "could demonstrably have been suggested over another...". Only if that is the case can > > a score adjustment be made. The appeals write up doesn't say that the AC did so. And as I've said, I > > can't see how such a decision can be made in this case. > > > > > Well, I've learned something. I shall henceforth always write in my > write-ups that the AC considered (in this case 6Sp) to be the > suggested action. > If only to keep nit-pickers of my back. > > One more comment: it is true that players don't know the rules well > enough, sometimes. But that's what captains are for. > > > > > > > >>>Those in the who are strong bridge players, probably haven't got enough knowledge of the > >>>Law, and vice verca. And they seem unable to combine their knowledge to the best effect. > >>>Or maybe they think the rule cases like this correctly, and nobody ever understood the > >>>meening of Law 16A. > >>> > > > > > >>That is a little harsh, IMHO. > >> > > > > HS: I've seen to many rulings of this kind internationally (and locally) over the years. Therefor I > > intended to be a little (not very) harsh. > > > > > If you start criticising this case, you can criticise all of them. And > then you can say that the AC has them all wrong, and then you can say > that the AC is bad and that because the AC is bad, all cases are > suspect and we don't have to trust their better judgement in cases > where we are in doubt. > And so on. > > Rather, we should hear blml saying: since this is about the highest AC > we can find, maybe we should try to learn something from it. Maybe > this is the norm, and we should see what it tells us. > > I mean, Jens Auken, Steen Moller (can't find the /o, Steen) and > Grattan Endicott? > Maybe if these guys throw something out it's because it wasn't worth > discussing? > > That's also something you need to know: sometimes a case is so badly > presented that it merits sending a signal. Coming out after 2 minutes > without the money is a strong signal. Careful analysis, two years > later, might reveal that there is more to the case than can be seen in > two minutes. That does not mean that the AC did not do the right thing > at the time. > And it wouldn't be fair on the people of whom we took the money (or > just not) to then produce a write-up of 5 pages. > > > > > > > -- > 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 adam@tameware.com Fri Apr 25 16:40:26 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:40:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: <003001c3072e$564a3620$dd3587d9@4nrw70j> References: <3E9E4D64.60206@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20030419174912.00a88110@pop.starpower.net> <003001c3072e$564a3620$dd3587d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: At 12:12 PM +0100 4/20/03, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Just to reiterate the position maintained steadily by the >WBF Appeals Committee, through TACs, in my experience over >16+ years: ... >3. If an opponent is misled by a question asked, and is damaged >thereby, when the player has 'no demonstrable bridge reason' for >asking the question, opponent is entitled to an adjustment of the >score. Let us step back for a moment from the laws as they are, and consider what they ought to be. I consider disclosure part of the price we pay for allowing players to use different systems. If everyone had the same agreements there would be no need for questions. That would make for a poorer game, so we give pairs wide latitude in the agreements they are allowed. In order to ensure that they receive no undue benefit we require that pairs explain their agreements fully. Their opponents ought to be in no worse a position than they would be were they themselves familiar with the system being played. None of this seems controversial to me -- does anyone disagree? Why, then, do we allow a player to base inferences on his opponents' questions? That would seem to grant an unfair advantage to a pair using unusual methods. Granted, were we to impose such a rule we'd have no way to enforce it. I don't understand, though, why we would want to encourage such inferences by rewarding a player who may draw an incorrect conclusion from an opponent's question. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Apr 25 15:56:26 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:56:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? Message-ID: <200304251456.KAA16896@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" > East bid a risky 2C but with IMO a backup plan. If > passed out its hardly a disaster. If doubled he can bid 2H's which should > now get his original intent across to pd. Why would this show majors? Why not primary clubs with secondary hearts? From HarrisR@missouri.edu Fri Apr 25 20:07:19 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:07:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 18 - was Law 16A In-Reply-To: <200304251456.KAA16896@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200304251456.KAA16896@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: It seems to me that the AC should have taken the minute or two needed to explicitly consider the question of whether or not the action taken was "demonstrably suggested over another" by the UI and included this in the decision as reported. Reports of AC actions are one important source of education for at least some players and directors (and maybe members of other ACs.) So even if the decision was simple and clear cut, a few words would have been helpful in the broader scheme of things. As an aside, I'm surprised at the criticism of the player for not claiming to have considered the Law 16 obligations. If I break the law, does my claim of having considered my obligations under the law carry any weight? (Certainly not in speeding cases, except sometimes for attractive women.) My understanding of the obligation of the AC is to make findings of fact in relation to the law. Either an action was demonstrably suggested over another or not was the question, and the AC report ought to address that. But then I'm not on ACs, so I guess I can suggest anything I like here. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Apr 26 11:59:54 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:59:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Irrational, wild or gambling - subsequent to the infraction In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030424122632.02453680@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <003601c309c0$230e0cc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> <3EA5BE01.18099.374345@localhost> <5.2.0.9.0.20030422175650.00a9c720@pop.starpower.net> <003601c309c0$230e0cc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <1nldavgcqga3901bshhogpttirfp40qgp2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <5.1.0.14.0.20030424122632.02453680@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:32:38 +0200, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 20:19 23/04/2003 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>It is the first offenders that have ruined the chances for a normal >>result on the board. Though, in the case of a revoke, I don't >>actually mind the IWoG concept, I also wouldn't mind the opposite: the >>attitude that the first infraction, which removed the possibility of >>the natural score, makes whatever happened afterwards irrelevant. > >AG : dangerous : it would lead to many "double shoots". That's the = motive=20 >bihind the IWG principle. >To allow NOS to do only what they could have done in other = circumstances. >Of course, bad play is covered. It would lead to some (I think "many" is an exaggeration) double shots, yes. What I don't see is why double shots should be considered a problem. I see nothing wrong in letting EW get an opportunity for a double shot when NS violate L16A after a hesitation, for instance. This will be at EW's own risk, of course: NS's action following the hesitation might actually be the only logical alternative, in which case NS has done nothing illegal and the double shot will backfire. You are always allowed to gamble on your opponents having made an error in the form of a bad call or play; I see nothing wrong in also allowing players to gamble on opponents having made an error in the form of an infraction - typically a L16A violation. If it works, the resulting good score will of course primarily be the result of opponents' error, rather than of your own brilliancy. But that is true in both cases - if fact, I am certain that it is true in the majority of cases where anybody get a really good bridge score at all. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Sun Apr 27 09:11:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:11:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <000701c309d3$a95d9da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c30c94$ac32cf50$6900a8c0@WINXP> >I remembered this deal from one of my books, it is quite likely that >many will recognize it but anyway, here goes: > >The book is Robert Darvas: Right through the pack and the >tale was told by the seven of Diamonds. All hands:=20 > >...........S KQ72 >...........H AQ83 >...........D K >...........C Q532 >S J986..............S 543 >H KJT9..............H 65 >D 3.................D AQJ8762 >C J987..............C T >...........S AT >...........H 742 >...........D T954 >...........C AK64 > >The auction ("natural") was: > >South West North East >1 C pass 1 H 3 D >pass pass 3 S pass >3 NT pass pass 4 D >pass pass 4 NT all pass > >How much time do you need to figure out your defense against 4NT, how >quickly do you play your first card, which card do you play to trick >one, how do you continue and why? > Professor Hardacre spent several minutes thinking before finally playing = his seven of Diamonds to the first trick, he had at last figured out that = the only chance of setting the contract was if West held exactly the same distribution as North (and this was quite likely) - provided that East = did not take a single trick in Diamonds! If he had taken the first trick with his Ace of Diamonds there would no longer be anything the defense could do to prevent a squeeze against = West, South would just play one of his high Diamonds and West would be in = trouble. (Get hold of the book to read the whole story) I can already hear the complaints: What has this to do with the subject: Hesitation in trick one? East did not have a forced play. Those who understand the laws like I do; do not need this story; and to = all the others this story probably makes no difference, so I really feel = like I am wasting my time. But please do consider: If third hand needs time to plan the defense and spends that time before playing to trick one nobody complains unless that player has a forced = play to trick one. (Many of us do not complain even then!) Assume that the lead in the game above had been a club to the Ace, and = that South had continued with a small diamond in trick two. Professor Hardacre had apparently needed exactly the same time for = planning his defense in this case, but if we do not allow him to do his planning = in trick one because his play to trick one was forced we in fact force him = to "announce" that his play to trick one was indeed forced! If that is not = UI I don't know UI when I see one.=20 Isn't it much better then to accept an interpretation of the laws that hesitation in trick one allows for planning of the entire board and = cannot safely be taken (by the other players) to indicate anything about the = cards held? This is after all how many (if not most) players practice their bridge, what the bridge world has done for at least seventy years and = what we tell new players to live up to. This interpretation does NOT need any change in the law text (but the laws could if we insist be made more explicit on the fact that trick one is special). The alternative is of course that we never allow hesitations for = planning beyond the current trick, but if that becomes bridge I believe I know of many players who will find something else to do. Regards Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Apr 27 12:18:38 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 12:18:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951653@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> <00a401c30a71$d9997180$c3182850@pacific> <007001c30a78$f625ede0$d53df0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <004801c30caf$0e2c4be0$af4be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > ------------------------------------------- > > +=+ Well this is more polite, at least, than to > > suggest I am guilty either of fabrication or of > > falsehood. +=+ > > > Childish nonsense, not my words, but I agree. > I am the only one you can point to. So let me > say that I am not thinking of fabrication or falsehood > at all. > > Stubborness supported by age, no hair on your > head, and you still have some, considering that you > might be a itsy pitsy little bit wrong here. Quote me > like that, but how dare you suggest that I am > questioning your honesty? If there is one reason to > apologize, you have created it. > > ton > +=+ You know, ton, when irritation over the persistence of the other boils over, the point has come to draw away from the discussion. Neither of us changes position easily and this is as it should be. Concerning my 'stubbornness' I would only remark that at no time have I commented upon the desirability or otherwise of such judgements ( I would think it presumptuous to do so). I have given an account of my experience in the WBF AC (and would add that I recall no EBL case conflicting with it); I have asserted that such judgements are lawful applications of the AC's power to decide when there is "no demonstrable reason" for an action. Whether it then judges in any instance that the remaining requirements of 73F2 are/are not met is a matter for the AC at the time. Law 20 does give the right to ask questions at specified times, but not without possible consequence. 73F2 chronicles a combination of circumstances in which there are consequences. It is when disbelief is expressed as to my account of my experience that it seems to me I am accused of something more than mere 'error', and I hope you will forgive my disenchantment when such accusations come from those who have not shared the experience with me. As ever, dear disbeliever, my regards - ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Apr 27 12:51:18 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:51:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <3E9E4D64.60206@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20030419174912.00a88110@pop.starpower.net> <003001c3072e$564a3620$dd3587d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3EABC436.1020003@skynet.be> Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > Let us step back for a moment from the laws as they are, and consider > what they ought to be. > > I consider disclosure part of the price we pay for allowing players to > use different systems. If everyone had the same agreements there would > be no need for questions. That would make for a poorer game, so we give > pairs wide latitude in the agreements they are allowed. In order to > ensure that they receive no undue benefit we require that pairs explain > their agreements fully. Their opponents ought to be in no worse a > position than they would be were they themselves familiar with the > system being played. None of this seems controversial to me -- does > anyone disagree? > surely not! > Why, then, do we allow a player to base inferences on his opponents' > questions? That would seem to grant an unfair advantage to a pair using > unusual methods. Granted, were we to impose such a rule we'd have no way > to enforce it. I don't understand, though, why we would want to > encourage such inferences by rewarding a player who may draw an > incorrect conclusion from an opponent's question. > Yes! waw - brilliant solution! And allow the professional question as well - after all, we allow a weaker player who plays with a stronger one to choose the contract his stronger partner can play, so why should we not allow the stronger partner to help him in some other ways? Like asking the questions and drawing the conclusions from opponents' bidding (of course without revealing his own holdings). Indeed, since full disclosure is an absolute necessity - allow even more in order to achieve it. And when deception is no longer illegal, it becomes unnecessary - since opponent will no longer draw inferences from remarks that don't contain any information anyway. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_/Fql9qbQ4dNWwwHQjPCkVA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT A home team game produced a similar situation when an OLOOT was made face down and despite the opps efforts, the Queen of spades was flashed. Declarer opted to forbid the spade lead, and the discussion occurred as to the UI or AI of the spade Queen when opening leader won trick four. The Law trail goes from 54D to 56 to 50D, where 50D1 states the UI/AI principle when offender is to play but fails to mention anything in 50D2 when offender's partner is to play. Are we to assume the principle in 50D1 applies in 50D2 as well? For your interest and comments: North s x h AJxx d AJ9xx c Kxx East s Kxxxxxx h - d Kx c AQxx South s ATx h T98xx d Qx c xxx West s QJ h KQxx d Txxx c JTx North East South West 1D 1S Dbl 1NT 2H 2S 3H Dbl all pass West's faced OLOOT was not accepted and a spade lead was forbidden. East chose a low diamond which was won in dummy with the Queen. Dummy's two high hearts won the next two tricks, and then a low diamond to the nine and King put East back on lead. The question was asked regarding AI or UI and dummy (me) replied that it was UI the fact that their partner had the Queen but I was unsure as to the fact that partner has a spade was UI? John Mac Gregor San Jose, Costa Rica --Boundary_(ID_/Fql9qbQ4dNWwwHQjPCkVA) Content-type: text/html; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
A home team game produced a similar situation when an OLOOT
was made face down and despite the opps efforts, the Queen of
spades was flashed. Declarer opted to forbid the spade lead, and
the discussion occurred as to the UI or AI of the spade Queen when
opening leader won trick four. The Law trail goes from 54D to 56 to
50D, where 50D1 states the UI/AI principle when offender is to play
but fails to mention anything in 50D2 when offender's partner is to
play. Are we to assume the principle in 50D1 applies in 50D2 as well?
 
For your interest and comments:
North
s x  h AJxx  d AJ9xx  c Kxx
East
s Kxxxxxx  h -  d Kx  c AQxx
South
s ATx  h T98xx  d Qx  c xxx
West
s QJ  h KQxx  d Txxx  c JTx
 
North   East  South  West
  1D       1S      Dbl     1NT
  2H       2S      3H      Dbl
all pass
 
West's faced OLOOT was not accepted and a spade lead was forbidden. East
chose a low diamond which was won in dummy with the Queen. Dummy's two
high hearts won the next two tricks, and then a low diamond to the nine and King
put East back on lead. The question was asked regarding AI or UI and dummy (me)
replied that it was UI the fact that their partner had the Queen but I was unsure as to
the fact that partner has a spade was UI?
 
John Mac Gregor
San Jose, Costa Rica
--Boundary_(ID_/Fql9qbQ4dNWwwHQjPCkVA)-- From jaapb@noos.fr Sun Apr 27 17:19:34 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:19:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951653@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> <00a401c30a71$d9997180$c3182850@pacific> <007001c30a78$f625ede0$d53df0c3@LNV> <004801c30caf$0e2c4be0$af4be150@endicott> Message-ID: <005401c30cd8$cec08aa0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Grattan: > Concerning my 'stubbornness' I would only remark > that at no time have I commented upon the desirability or > otherwise of such judgements ( I would think it > presumptuous to do so). Hmmm. What about an earlier Grattan mail: > Turning to the case in point the fact that the questioner is about to > defend a contract does not create any need to know the answer > to his question before the final pass of the auction. It is wholly > 'ludicrous' IMO to suggest otherwise. This does not say he may > not *ask* the question, but he does so at risk (see 2 above). If > the opponent was found to have been damaged because of the > question he would get a score adjustment. You seem to do a lot of commenting upon the desirability or otherwise of such judgements for someone who thinks it is presumptuous to do so. Something wrong with your short term memory or so ? This is not a year ago, this is not taken out of context, this is just yourself a week ago or so in the same thread. Grattan: > I have asserted that such > judgements are lawful applications of the AC's power to > decide when there is "no demonstrable reason" for an > action. Here we go again. This is meaningless. The AC also has the power to declare spades are pumpkins. Or that I am crazy. Or whatever. The bottomline is that every sane bridge player considers an alert a 'good bridge reason' to ask simply because it is a basic necessity to know what is going on even if you don't want to bid anything right now or if you don't have at least a certain number of HCP. Besides asking when you have someting and not asking when not (what you are advocating in a way) is too ridiculous for words. Always asking (which has some flaws) is much better. See below. Grattan: > I have given an account of my > experience in the WBF AC (and would add that I recall no > EBL case conflicting with it); What about Alberquerque 13, I have to admit it is not EBL so the above statement can not be logically challenged. Alberquerque 13: > The Committee: > There was no hesitation, and you are allowed to ask when it is > your turn to bid. It is the opinion of the Committee that you > should always ask, for then nobody can find any pattern in asking. > E/W were playing natural with five card majors, and the natural > development with no interruption would be to jump to 2NT on the > second round to show a balanced 18-19 count. The 2NT bid is > therefore considered routine. Dear Grattan, is this committee crazy ('you should always ask ... to avoid any pattern ...') or is something wrong with your position in this debate. Because I find it hard to see common ground between the two. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "I have not from your eyes that gentleness > And show of love as I was wont to have: > You bear too stubborn and too strange > a hand > Over your friend that loves you." > ~ Wm. Shakespeare > ============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ton Kooijman" > To: ; "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 4:48 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > +=+ Well this is more polite, at least, than to > > > suggest I am guilty either of fabrication or of > > > falsehood. +=+ > > > > > > Childish nonsense, not my words, but I agree. > > I am the only one you can point to. So let me > > say that I am not thinking of fabrication or falsehood > > at all. > > > > Stubborness supported by age, no hair on your > > head, and you still have some, considering that you > > might be a itsy pitsy little bit wrong here. Quote me > > like that, but how dare you suggest that I am > > questioning your honesty? If there is one reason to > > apologize, you have created it. > > > > ton > > > +=+ You know, ton, when irritation over the persistence > of the other boils over, the point has come to draw away > from the discussion. Neither of us changes position easily > and this is as it should be. > Concerning my 'stubbornness' I would only remark > that at no time have I commented upon the desirability or > otherwise of such judgements ( I would think it > presumptuous to do so). I have given an account of my > experience in the WBF AC (and would add that I recall no > EBL case conflicting with it); I have asserted that such > judgements are lawful applications of the AC's power to > decide when there is "no demonstrable reason" for an > action. Whether it then judges in any instance that the > remaining requirements of 73F2 are/are not met is a > matter for the AC at the time. Law 20 does give the right > to ask questions at specified times, but not without > possible consequence. 73F2 chronicles a combination > of circumstances in which there are consequences. > It is when disbelief is expressed as to my account > of my experience that it seems to me I am accused of > something more than mere 'error', and I hope you will > forgive my disenchantment when such accusations come > from those who have not shared the experience with me. > As ever, dear disbeliever, my regards - > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Apr 27 22:52:05 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:52:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951653@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> <00a401c30a71$d9997180$c3182850@pacific> <007001c30a78$f625ede0$d53df0c3@LNV> <004801c30caf$0e2c4be0$af4be150@endicott> <005401c30cd8$cec08aa0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <001201c30d07$8b6833a0$ef5b87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > Grattan: > > Concerning my 'stubbornness' I would only remark > > that at no time have I commented upon the desirability or > > otherwise of such judgements ( I would think it > > presumptuous to do so). > > Hmmm. What about an earlier Grattan mail: > > Turning to the case in point the fact that the questioner is about to > > defend a contract does not create any need to know the answer > > to his question before the final pass of the auction. It is wholly > > 'ludicrous' IMO to suggest otherwise. This does not say he may > > not *ask* the question, but he does so at risk (see 2 above). If > > the opponent was found to have been damaged because of the > > question he would get a score adjustment. > +=+ I do not intend to express approval or disapproval in the above, but simply to assert the position in Law, and to be complete it should add that.score adjustment also requires that the player 'could have known' etc. +=+ > > >> Grattan: > > I have asserted that such > > judgements are lawful applications of the AC's power to > > decide when there is "no demonstrable reason" for an > > action. > > Here we go again. This is meaningless. The AC also has > the power to declare spades are pumpkins. Or that I am > crazy. Or whatever. < +=+ However, in the so-say 'meaningless' context the power is conferred by law, which is not the case with pumpkins +=+ < > The bottomline is that every sane bridge player considers > an alert a 'good bridge reason' to ask simply because it is > a basic necessity to know what is > going on even if you don't want to bid anything right now > or if you don't have at least a certain number of HCP. > Besides asking when you have someting and not asking > when not (what you are advocating in a way) is too > ridiculous for words. Always asking (which has some > flaws) is much better. See below. > > Grattan: > > I have given an account of my > > experience in the WBF AC (and would add that I recall > > no EBL case conflicting with it); > > What about Alberquerque 13, I have to admit it is not EBL > so the above statement can not be logically challenged. > > Alberquerque 13: > > The Committee: > > There was no hesitation, and you are allowed to ask > > when it is your turn to bid. It is the opinion of the Committee > > that you should always ask, for then nobody can find any > > pattern in asking. E/W were playing natural with five card > > majors, and the natural development with no interruption > > would be to jump to 2NT on the second round to show a > > balanced 18-19 count. The 2NT bid is therefore considered routine. > > Dear Grattan, is this committee crazy ('you should always ask ... > to avoid any pattern ...') or is something wrong with your > position in this debate. Because I find it hard to see common > ground between the two. > +=+ First as to the Albuquerque comment (Case 3, I think, not 13) the words were an expression of opinion and did not relate to a case in which an opponent had drawn a false inference and had been misled in his action because of a question asked. The committee's decision was that East had not acted upon UI received from West but had made an evident bid; they did not rule that there was no UI, since the opinion they had expressed was that there would be no pattern of UI if players were always to ask - there was no suggestion that West did always ask and it was neither the requirement then nor is now. And the argument does not rest easy because partnership empathy has been known to pick up the UI regardless of pattern. Second, what I "advocate, in a way", may be more truly reflected in the drafts I have submitted to colleagues that explore ways of making it possible to ask questions without consequence when there are alerts - or even to contemplate replacing all alerts with announcements. But this is not a subject that I can develop here, nor do I imply that such ideas have yet been sufficiently well laid out to be persuasive. I have made a note that you are the spokesman for "sane bridge players", adding it to a recent aide-memoire that you speak for "strong players"; it would be helpful to have a full list of all the constituencies that you are mandated to speak for. Cheers, Jaap, ~ G ~ +=+ From jvickers@fish.co.uk Mon Apr 28 00:08:45 2003 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:08:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: <007b01c30d11$f514ebe0$0facbc3e@oemcomputer> I apologise for coming to this subject late (I have a day job, and I like to play a little bridge in my spare time), but I disagree with these interpretations of Grattan's comments: Tod: > My reading comprehension is notoriously poor, judging by how >often it's knocked here, but I don't remember Grattan saying any >such thing. His argument, as far as my poor reading skills >interpret, goes along the lines that a player may ask a question, >but he's only without risk to a score adjustment when he has a >valid bridge reason. Eric: I think we're in unanimous agreement on that. JV: No, we are not. Players may ask a question for a valid bridge reason and still run into a score adjustment. If I ask a question and my partner subsequently takes action which could have been suggested over logical alternatives by the interest I have shown in the auction, our opponents are due an adjusted score if they have been damaged, whether I had a valid bridge reason for my question or not. This is my understanding of the EBU guidelines, and I believe it is what Grattan originally said. For an example case, see Fearghal's mail below, assume that possession of a chunky 16-count is a valid bridge reason for asking a question on this auction, and ignore the nonsense about South "always asking about alerted calls against this pair". (Is anyone seriously suggesting we divide players into different categories - those who always ask / always pause etc. and those who don't, and apply a different set of standards to each category? How on earth is the director supposed to judge this?) James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK ================================================== Fearghal: Now that the question of 'questions' has arisen again, maybe we can take a fresh look at a scenario raised nearly 2 years ago. Are we any nearer to a consensus? Pairs, Game All All 4 players are internationals - but not used to meeting one another. E/W play a Strong Club with some twists of their own. West North East South 2D(A) P 3H(A) P P 3S P 4S P P Dbl All Pass West alerted the 3H bid. South asked and was told (pre-emptive raise in either major). South Passed in tempo (agreed by all). North bid 3S holding: S. K98543 H. 6 D. K76 C. Q94 South had a balanced 16 HCP. When 4SX made 10 easy tricks, E/W call the TD because they are not happy with the 3S bid after South's question. How do you rule? Additional information: 1. South always asks about alerted calls against this pair. 2. South's Pass was non-forcing. A take-out double of Hearts was available. 3. North's thought processes where along the lines of: "When the bidding returns to North, s/he knows that E/W have a heart preempt & probably not more that 20 HCP between them. If the 2D opener had the big hand other options would could have been exploited. South, therefore probably has at least 12 HCP and a somewhat balanced hand." Best regards, Fearghal. From jvickers@fish.co.uk Mon Apr 28 00:08:54 2003 From: jvickers@fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:08:54 +0100 Subject: Render unto Caesar - was Re: [blml] treatment of questions References: <001901c307f8$60b73890$05def1c3@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20030421161555.00a05590@pop.starpower.net> <3EA500D1.20504@skynet.be> <003f01c308c4$9f2f5f40$381e2850@pacific> <3EA537F8.9020407@skynet.be> <4f4bavk51e234738jjunjbajqd2b62kvcs@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <008101c30d11$fa2771c0$0facbc3e@oemcomputer> Jesper: Personally I prefer to be inconsistent (it comes quite naturally to me, as the Rabbit would say): sometimes I ask just in order to know what is going on, and sometimes I ask only when I really need to know. As long as there is no pattern to it that partner can recognize, there are rarely UI problems. This may not be the perfect solution at the highest levels of the game, but it works quite well at lower levels. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. JV: This is fine if it is a standard the director could apply equally to all players. How on earth am I supposed to judge, if I am called to a table to give a ruling, that a particular player belongs to the category that: 1. never asks 2. rarely asks 3. asks on a strictly "need to know" basis 4. sometimes asks on a random basis 5. usually asks, but sometimes doesn't 6. always asks How can I possibly know if there is a possibility of a pattern which partner could recognise, without studying in fine detail over a long period of time the habits of all contestants? James Vickers Wolverhampton, UK From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 00:30:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:30:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] [blml]the Queen of spades (was A ruling: OLOOT) Message-ID: [big snip] >it was UI the fact that their partner had the Queen >but I was unsure as to the fact that partner has a >spade was UI? > >John Mac Gregor >San Jose, Costa Rica I believe that it would assist TDs from becoming confused, if Law 50 and Law 51 contained *specific* cross-references to Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorised information." Therefore, in my opinion, the fact that partner has a spade is UI. On the other hand, the fact that an opponent previously barred the lead of a spade might be AI - it depends on how broadly the words "information arising" should be defined. Best wishes Richard= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 01:01:25 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:01:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution Message-ID: [big snip] >The alternative is of course that we never >allow hesitations for planning beyond the >current trick, but if that becomes bridge I >believe I know of many players who will find >something else to do. > >Regards Sven No, the alternative is that SOs regulate trick one pauses under the specific power granted to SOs by Law 73A2. But what about hesitations at trick five? Would Sven apply the same logic to argue that deliberate planning pauses at trick five (when the actual card to be played at trick five is automatic), are or should be Lawful, since otherwise "many players will find something else to do"? Occasionally I play with a slow-thinking partner. If he needs to take some defensive planning time at trick five, his practice is to select a card, place it face down in front of him, and announce, "I will be playing this card, but I am thinking about the entire hand." This partner's practice prevents declarer being deceived, at the cost of providing slightly more specific UI to me. Technically, what pard does is unLawfully contrary to Law 73A1 - but it does seem to be a *practical* solution to the problem posed by Sven. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 02:48:47 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:48:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Shooting double shots Message-ID: In the thread "Irrational, wild or gambling - subsequent to the infraction", Jesper wrote: [big snip] >I see nothing wrong in letting EW get an >opportunity for a double shot when NS violate >L16A after a hesitation, for instance. [big snip] Me neither. Take the classic Law 16A double shot, Hesitation Blackwood: NORTH SOUTH 1S 3S 4NT 5H 5S(1) 6S(2) (1) Break in tempo (2) Without justification (no void) Under current interpretation of Law 16A, EW get a double shot. EW either keep their score of +50 (when North's hesitation was an overbid), or get the score of -980 adjusted to -480. I disagree with the radical fringe of Jeff Rubens and Bobby Wolff who argue that the Laws should be changed to shoot this double shot, in order to "protect the field" or "avoid giving the NOS windfalls". In my opinion, fields can protect themselves, and it is appropriate that violations of Law 16A result in win-win double shot windfalls for the NOS. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 04:34:22 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:34:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tenerife 18 - was Law 16A Message-ID: Robert E. Harris wrote: [snip] >As an aside, I'm surprised at the criticism of >the player for not claiming to have considered >the Law 16 obligations. If I break the law, >does my claim of having considered my obligations >under the law carry any weight? (Certainly not >in speeding cases, except sometimes for >attractive women.) My understanding of the >obligation of the AC is to make findings of fact >in relation to the law. Either an action was >demonstrably suggested over another or not was >the question, and the AC report ought to address >that. > >But then I'm not on ACs, so I guess I can suggest >anything I like here. Indeed. My understanding of Kaplanesque procedure, embedded in the resolution of Law 16A infractions since the late 1960s, is that a "no-fault" regime applies - an infraction of Law 16A is *not* also subject to penalty as an infraction of ethics. Therefore, I agree with Robert that, assuming that Kaplanesque procedure is still valid, the AC verged upon exceeding its authority. But, has the validity of the "no-fault" Kaplanesque procedure expired? Since 1987, Law 73C is a binding Law, rather than merely an advisory Propriety. So, post-1987, has the word "carefully" in Law 73C torpedoed the Kaplanesque procedure? Can a player be penalised for "carelessly" infracting Law 73C and then consequently infracting Law 16A? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 06:24:25 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:24:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard Message-ID: In the thread "Could have known", Herman wrote: [snip] >I still agree with DWS that the player could have >known (perhaps should is a better word here) that he >ought to have asked the questions at a more >appropriate time. This gets to a key point - the Laws do not define any particular time as appropriate. One thing that may unite Ton and Grattan on this issue, is that the 2005 Laws should make a clear statement one way or another. It is forty-twoish to leave such an important issue to be dealt with: - by a advisory comment - from a 7th Appeal Example - attached to a mere Code of Practice - which is not necessarily binding - especially in the largest Zone. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Apr 28 07:33:26 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:33:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the leopard References: Message-ID: <002101c30d50$c1fd3ed0$4902e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 6:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the leopard > > In the thread "Could have known", Herman wrote: > > [snip] > > >I still agree with DWS that the player could have > >known (perhaps should is a better word here) that he > >ought to have asked the questions at a more > >appropriate time. > > This gets to a key point - the Laws do not define > any particular time as appropriate. One thing that > may unite Ton and Grattan on this issue, is that the > 2005 Laws should make a clear statement one way or > another. > > It is forty-twoish to leave such an important issue > to be dealt with: > > - by a advisory comment > - from a 7th Appeal Example > - attached to a mere Code of Practice > - which is not necessarily binding > - especially in the largest Zone. > > Best wishes > > Richard > +=+ The EBL is the largest zone by a wide margin at the moment. The CoP has been adopted by the EBL. The far east has the potential to become the largest zone. Numerically of course.+=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Apr 28 07:50:28 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:50:28 -0700 Subject: [blml] Shooting double shots References: Message-ID: <003201c30d52$7616f040$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > In the thread "Irrational, wild or gambling - > subsequent to the infraction", Jesper wrote: > > [big snip] > > >I see nothing wrong in letting EW get an > >opportunity for a double shot when NS violate > >L16A after a hesitation, for instance. > > [big snip] > > Me neither. Take the classic Law 16A double shot, > Hesitation Blackwood: > > NORTH SOUTH > 1S 3S > 4NT 5H > 5S(1) 6S(2) > > (1) Break in tempo > (2) Without justification (no void) > > Under current interpretation of Law 16A, EW get a > double shot. EW either keep their score of +50 > (when North's hesitation was an overbid), or get > the score of -980 adjusted to -480. > > I disagree with the radical fringe of Jeff Rubens > and Bobby Wolff who argue that the Laws should be > changed to shoot this double shot, in order to > "protect the field" or "avoid giving the NOS > windfalls". > > In my opinion, fields can protect themselves, and > it is appropriate that violations of Law 16A result > in win-win double shot windfalls for the NOS. > This is not my understanding of the term "Double Shot." Suppose that East or West now takes an obviously wild gambling action by bidding 7C, trusting that there will be an adjustment if this is penalized by more than the value of a 5S contract. It turns out that 6S would have been defeated, having no play, and the penalty incurred in 7C is greater than the value of 5S making. Currently this "Double Shot" result is not adjusted for E-W. N-S get the score of 6S down one, but E-W keep their result. Had the 7C bid been at all reasonable, the E-W score would be adjusted also. Some of us believe that a Double Shot should not be cause for loss of redress, despite what the WBFLC said in Lille. And what should the score adjustment be for E-W? Answer: 5S, the most favorable result that was likely absent the infraction. For N-S the adjustment is to 6S-1 because that is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable [in any event]. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Mon Apr 28 07:55:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:55:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c30d53$275cddb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au=20 > [big snip] >=20 > >The alternative is of course that we never > >allow hesitations for planning beyond the > >current trick, but if that becomes bridge I > >believe I know of many players who will find > >something else to do. > > > >Regards Sven >=20 > No, the alternative is that SOs regulate trick > one pauses under the specific power granted to > SOs by Law 73A2. >=20 > But what about hesitations at trick five? >=20 > Would Sven apply the same logic to argue that > deliberate planning pauses at trick five (when > the actual card to be played at trick five is > automatic), are or should be Lawful, since > otherwise "many players will find something else > to do"? >=20 > Occasionally I play with a slow-thinking partner. > If he needs to take some defensive planning time > at trick five, his practice is to select a card, > place it face down in front of him, and announce, > "I will be playing this card, but I am thinking > about the entire hand." >=20 > This partner's practice prevents declarer being > deceived, at the cost of providing slightly more > specific UI to me. Technically, what pard does > is unLawfully contrary to Law 73A1 - but it does > seem to be a *practical* solution to the problem > posed by Sven. As far as I can remember this issue has been specifically addressed by official bodies, and I agree with the decision as I remember it: (Except for the opening lead) selecting a card to be played and placing = it face down on the table with or without a remark to the effect that he = has decided his play to the current trick but is considering his play(s) to = the next trick(s) is an unlawful procedure which cannot have any purpose. = The hesitation for thought on his play to the next trick is established in = both cases, the only difference being whether the other three players at the table shall be given the identity of the played card immediately or only after he has completed his consideration for his play to the next trick. = The correct procedure is to play the card he has decided face up without delay and take the pause he needs for considering his next play = thereafter.=20 I am glad this question was raised because it enables me to elaborate on = a slightly different matter (my opinion): If a player finds he needs some time to consider his play after he has played his card to trick one he is of course allowed to spend this time. = But the difference from trick one is that at any later trick he cannot do so without the effect that he is disclosing the existence of a problem with = his play at that particular moment. This information is now UI for his = partner and if he is deemed to having had no problem at that stage can be ruled = as an attempted illegal deception.=20 Regards Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Apr 28 08:36:54 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:36:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: >Adam: =20 > Let us step back for a moment from the laws as they are, and consider = > what they ought to be. >=20 > I consider disclosure part of the price we pay for allowing players=20 > to use different systems. If everyone had the same agreements there=20 > would be no need for questions. That would make for a poorer game, so = > we give pairs wide latitude in the agreements they are allowed. In=20 > order to ensure that they receive no undue benefit we require that=20 > pairs explain their agreements fully. Their opponents ought to be in=20 > no worse a position than they would be were they themselves familiar=20 > with the system being played. None of this seems controversial to me=20 > -- does anyone disagree? >=20 > Why, then, do we allow a player to base inferences on his opponents'=20 > questions? That would seem to grant an unfair advantage to a pair=20 > using unusual methods. Granted, were we to impose such a rule we'd=20 > have no way to enforce it. I don't understand, though, why we would=20 > want to encourage such inferences by rewarding a player who may draw=20 > an incorrect conclusion from an opponent's question. We don't. The idea is that only when a player asks such question where = the purpose to deceive opponents becomes a real option, or where without = that almost sure intention the opponent still has no way to escape from such wrong conclusion, there will be redress. And in my long years of experience such situation has never occurred = during the auction when questions where asked. What happens is that partner receives UI and has a LA. Redress. But such questions or manners occur quite a lot during play.=20 We had a case this weekend where declarer plays the J towards K1098x in dummy and LHO starts thinking for a while and plays low. Declarer plays = the K and RHO wins the ace. We decided this to be a case for redress, LHO = having the Q. Interesting to consider applying L12C3, but we (td-staff) didn't = and gave declarer an extra trick.=20 In my opinion the laws do cover these cases quite well already.=20 If you suggest that opponents should be allowed to ask any question, = also those with the intention to deceive, we enter a new era and a new game (outside the caf=E9's) for which I am not ready yet.=20 ton ton=20 >=20 From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Apr 28 08:56:09 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:56:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: Message-ID: <3EACDE99.80708@skynet.be> I think you misunderstood, Ton: Kooijman, A. wrote: >>Adam: >> > =20 >=20 >>Let us step back for a moment from the laws as they are, and consider=20 >>what they ought to be. >> >=20 > If you suggest that opponents should be allowed to ask any question, al= so > those with the intention to deceive, we enter a new era and a new game > (outside the caf=E9's) for which I am not ready yet.=20 >=20 What Adam was suggesting waas that if a player were allowed, always,=20 to ask questions during the bidding, then those questions would no=20 longer carry any information. So they could not deceive, and would not=20 be able to be used as deception. Also they would carry no information,=20 so no UI. The same need not be true of pauses during play. >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 28 10:52:54 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:52:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? In-Reply-To: <200304251456.KAA16896@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030428115027.024598d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:56 25/04/2003 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" > > East bid a risky 2C but with IMO a backup plan. If > > passed out its hardly a disaster. If doubled he can bid 2H's which should > > now get his original intent across to pd. > >Why would this show majors? Why not primary clubs with secondary >hearts? AG : if that was his holding, then West would have every reason not to pass 2H. His 2S is logical, given that the only possibilities are H/S or C/H. Also, *West* didn't get any UI, so is fully entitled to bid what he thinks is right. (this assumes, of course, that the true answer for East's 2C bid is "no agreement"). From gester@lineone.net Mon Apr 28 15:46:25 2003 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:46:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: <3EACDE99.80708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001901c30d95$169d4680$05182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions What Adam was suggesting waas that if a player were allowed, always, to ask questions during the bidding, then those questions would no longer carry any information. So they could not deceive, and would not be able to be used as deception. Also they would carry no information, so no UI. The same need not be true of pauses during play. < +=+ Nor in my opinion is it true of questions asked, not even if it were always compulsory to ask about every alerted call or, better, every call alerted or not. The fact is that established partnerships are intimate affairs where the nuances convey messages and the empathy between partners overcomes the impediments to communication. It would seem to me that a possibility might lie in producing tests that do not rely upon reading the mind of the individual, but rather establish objective criteria for judging that there has been communication and resultant damage, whether the communication be to partner or to opponent. However, I have not succeeded in identifying yet what such neutral and dispassionate criteria might be. :-} I do think that it might be more likely to succeed if all alerts were replaced by announcements and no questions permitted about other calls. Somehow I cannot see my colleagues being convinced of this. ~ G ~ +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Apr 28 15:49:01 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:49:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? Message-ID: <200304281449.KAA25894@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> SW>Why would this show majors? Why not primary clubs with secondary SW>hearts? > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : if that was his holding, then West would have every reason not to pass > 2H. His 2S is logical, given that the only possibilities are H/S or C/H. I am sorry, Alain, but I cannot figure out what you mean. Have you exchanged East and West? Who does "his" refer to? Let's start over: East bids 2C, and later he bids 2H. Why should it even remotely occur to West that East has anything other than clubs and hearts? (That's what I would hold if I bid like that.) > Also, *West* didn't get any UI, so is fully entitled to bid what he thinks > is right. (this assumes, of course, that the true answer for East's 2C bid > is "no agreement"). The last is the key point. The (potentially) relevant Law is 40B, not 16A. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Apr 28 16:05:14 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:05:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Shooting double shots Message-ID: <200304281505.LAA25907@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Take the classic Law 16A double shot, Hesitation Blackwood: [a definite infraction] > Under current interpretation of Law 16A, EW get a > double shot. EW either keep their score of +50 > (when North's hesitation was an overbid), or get > the score of -980 adjusted to -480. I have no argument with the substance, but please let's be careful about the terminology. The above is not what most people mean by "double shot." If there is damage, EW will get an adjusted score. If not, there is no need for one. But there's nothing "double," just a standard infraction and possible adjusted score. The usual version if a double-shot would be if EW (the NOS) did something "wild or gambling" in hopes of an even better score. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Apr 28 16:12:54 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:12:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution Message-ID: <200304281512.LAA25912@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Occasionally I play with a slow-thinking partner. > If he needs to take some defensive planning time > at trick five, his practice is to select a card, > place it face down in front of him, and announce, > "I will be playing this card, but I am thinking > about the entire hand." As Sven says, playing the card and leaving it face up is superior, but I hadn't realized it was officially endorsed. Sven: where was that excerpt from? From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Apr 28 16:10:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] trick one - break the laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Wayne wrote: > > >>If one pauses at trick n to play a singleton that is an undue > >>hesitation. > > Tim replied: > > >True. If that is one's purpose. However if one pauses to > >consider the whole hand before playing to trick one when one > >happens to hold a singleton then it is "due". If a declarer > >decides to draw an inference from trick one tempo and doesn't > >take into account that defender might be contemplating the > >whole hand he is doing so at his own risk. > > [big snip] > > I have been absent from this thread for a while, since Wayne > has been doing an excellent job of arguing the Lawful issues, > while his opponents have usually merely been arguing cultural > issues. > > However, I remind Tim of the precedent from a World Championship > Appeals Committee (Venice Cup, Perth 1989), which is directly > contrary to his position that slow play at trick one with a > singleton is "due". Firstly appeal committees do *not* set precedent. Secondly I did not say hesitating with a singleton was "due" I said that taking time to consider the whole hand was "due" regardless of the holding in the suit led. In any individual case the facts should be considered and a ruling made. If the Perth committee decided that there was no need to consider the defence for as long as occurred that is their judgement on a specific case. Without knowing the facts of that case I'm not sure of its value. Tim From svenpran@online.no Mon Apr 28 16:24:26 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:24:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <200304281512.LAA25912@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c30d9a$41a62cc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Steve Willner > Sent: 28. april 2003 17:13 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > Occasionally I play with a slow-thinking partner. > > If he needs to take some defensive planning time > > at trick five, his practice is to select a card, > > place it face down in front of him, and announce, > > "I will be playing this card, but I am thinking > > about the entire hand." > > As Sven says, playing the card and leaving it face up is superior, but > I hadn't realized it was officially endorsed. Sven: where was that > excerpt from? Frankly I don't remember except that it was several years ago and I learned about it here in Norway. (And what should actually be gained by hiding the identity of the card played while considering the continuation?) Sven From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Apr 28 08:59:20 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:59:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] [blml]the Queen of spades (was A ruling: OLOOT) Message-ID: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C30D5C.12E02E60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Interesting situation, which is not explained quite clearly in the laws. We suffer from the fact that some useful new ideas where brought into the laws in '87 and '97 but that we didn't want to use more than a few words to describe them, upholding the existing laws more than was desirable. Examples are L25a/b, minor/major penalty cards, this case, L62D2. What we wanted to say here is that only when this card is still a penalty card partner has some AI, which is that this card has to be played at the first legal opportunity. So partner doesn't have to lead the J from J1093 when this Q is on the table. That is all, when the card is taken back partner has to forget about it. So, yes, this idea applies in 50D2 as well. And the WBFLC has decided that the advantage of knowing that partner has to play such card leads to redress if the opponents are damaged by it. In this example the normal lead being the J. ton John: A home team game produced a similar situation when an OLOOT was made face down and despite the opps efforts, the Queen of spades was flashed. Declarer opted to forbid the spade lead, and the discussion occurred as to the UI or AI of the spade Queen when opening leader won trick four. The Law trail goes from 54D to 56 to 50D, where 50D1 states the UI/AI principle when offender is to play but fails to mention anything in 50D2 when offender's partner is to play. Are we to assume the principle in 50D1 applies in 50D2 as well? ------_=_NextPart_001_01C30D5C.12E02E60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252"
Interesting situation, which is not explained quite clearly in the laws. We suffer from the fact that some useful new ideas where brought into the laws in '87 and '97 but that we didn't want to use more than a few words to describe them, upholding the existing laws more than was desirable. Examples are L25a/b, minor/major penalty cards, this case, L62D2. 
 
What we wanted to say here is that only when this card is still a penalty card partner has some AI, which is that this card has to be played at the first legal opportunity. So partner doesn't have to lead the J from J1093 when this Q is on the table. That is all, when the card is taken back partner has to forget about it. So, yes, this idea applies in 50D2 as well. And the WBFLC has decided that the advantage of knowing that partner has to play such card  leads to redress if the opponents are damaged by it. In this example the normal lead being the J.
 
ton   
John: 
A home team game produced a similar situation when an OLOOT
was made face down and despite the opps efforts, the Queen of
spades was flashed. Declarer opted to forbid the spade lead, and
the discussion occurred as to the UI or AI of the spade Queen when
opening leader won trick four. The Law trail goes from 54D to 56 to
50D, where 50D1 states the UI/AI principle when offender is to play
but fails to mention anything in 50D2 when offender's partner is to
play. Are we to assume the principle in 50D1 applies in 50D2 as well?
------_=_NextPart_001_01C30D5C.12E02E60-- From HauffHJ@aol.com Mon Apr 28 11:34:17 2003 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 06:34:17 EDT Subject: [blml] BLML the big hole Message-ID: <16d.1bc6a947.2bde5da9@aol.com> --part1_16d.1bc6a947.2bde5da9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, Everybody knows the big hole in Law 77 and 78. I refer to the fact that whenever at the end of a tournament a ranking list is produced, then there is a value attributed to the Non-scorer . ACBL and EBU use the negative value of the score. Until now, there is no official expression to this value. I propose that the expression C O S C O R E is used. It should be incorporated in the next edition of the LAWS under chapter 1 "definitions" and it should read: "Coscore" is the value attributed to a non-scorer at the same time, when a score is attributed to the Scorer conforme Law 77. Any objections ? Any other expression already used in national Bylaws ? To make it easier, only respond if you are against it. Paul Hauff www.bridgeassistant.com HauffHJ@aol.com --part1_16d.1bc6a947.2bde5da9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,
Everybody knows the big hole in Law 77 and 78.
I refer to the fact that whenever at the end of a tournament a ranking list=20= is produced, then
there is a value attributed to the Non-scorer . ACBL  and EBU use the n= egative value of the score.
Until now, there is no official expression to this value.
I propose that the expression
C O S C O R E
is used. It should be incorporated in the next edition of the LAWS under
chapter 1 "definitions" and it should read:
"Coscore" is the value attributed to a non-scorer at the same time, when a s= core is attributed to the Scorer conforme Law 77.
Any objections ? Any other expression already used in national Bylaws ?
To make it easier, only respond if you are against it.
Paul Hauff
www.bridgeassistant.com
HauffHJ@aol.com

 --part1_16d.1bc6a947.2bde5da9_boundary-- From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 28 16:57:01 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:57:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <000001c30c94$ac32cf50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c309d3$a95d9da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030428175525.02462540@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:11 27/04/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Isn't it much better then to accept an interpretation of the laws that >hesitation in trick one allows for planning of the entire board and cannot >safely be taken (by the other players) to indicate anything about the cards >held? This is after all how many (if not most) players practice their >bridge, what the bridge world has done for at least seventy years and what >we tell new players to live up to. This interpretation does NOT need any >change in the law text (but the laws could if we insist be made more >explicit on the fact that trick one is special). AG: I would favor a footnote on the tones of "it is proper etc." (perhaps after 73D1). What goes without saying goes easier when said. >The alternative is of course that we never allow hesitations for planning >beyond the current trick, but if that becomes bridge I believe I know of >many players who will find something else to do. AG : indeed. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 28 17:02:53 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:02:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030428175752.024617d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:01 28/04/2003 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >[big snip] > > >The alternative is of course that we never > >allow hesitations for planning beyond the > >current trick, but if that becomes bridge I > >believe I know of many players who will find > >something else to do. > > > >Regards Sven > >No, the alternative is that SOs regulate trick >one pauses under the specific power granted to >SOs by Law 73A2. > >But what about hesitations at trick five? > >Would Sven apply the same logic to argue that >deliberate planning pauses at trick five (when >the actual card to be played at trick five is >automatic), are or should be Lawful, since >otherwise "many players will find something else >to do"? > >Occasionally I play with a slow-thinking partner. >If he needs to take some defensive planning time >at trick five, his practice is to select a card, >place it face down in front of him, and announce, >"I will be playing this card, but I am thinking >about the entire hand." > >This partner's practice prevents declarer being >deceived, at the cost of providing slightly more >specific UI to me. Technically, what pard does >is unLawfully contrary to Law 73A1 - but it does >seem to be a *practical* solution to the problem >posed by Sven. AG : your partner's practice seems quite lawful to me. But I think, along with deveral contributors, that a distinction should be made : - the normal practice (as established by teachers etc.) is to take some time at trick one ; - the normal practice (as established by teachers etc and TFLB) is to play smoothly (if at all possible) after trick one. That being stated, UI and deception can't arise from a tempo at trick one (because it doesn't deviate from the standard procedure), but they can arise from a tempo thereafter. Therefore : - after trick one, your partner's practice is the least of evils is he has to think to the whole deal ; - at trick one, no specific attitude is needed ; all one needs is that the standard practice be recognized as standard. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 28 17:06:21 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:06:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <000001c30d53$275cddb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030428180409.02463ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:55 28/04/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >As far as I can remember this issue has been specifically addressed by >official bodies, and I agree with the decision as I remember it: > >(Except for the opening lead) selecting a card to be played and placing it >face down on the table with or without a remark to the effect that he has >decided his play to the current trick but is considering his play(s) to the >next trick(s) is an unlawful procedure which cannot have any purpose. AG : there is a contradiction here. The obvious purpose is to avoid decieving declarer. No more (or marginally more) UI to partner than a long tempo would convey ; no deception (which, as you state hereafter, would be ruled illegal) ; heads I win, tails I'm even. >If a player finds he needs some time to consider his play after he has >played his card to trick one he is of course allowed to spend this time. But >the difference from trick one is that at any later trick he cannot do so >without the effect that he is disclosing the existence of a problem with his >play at that particular moment. This information is now UI for his partner >and if he is deemed to having had no problem at that stage can be ruled as >an attempted illegal deception. From svenpran@online.no Mon Apr 28 16:55:22 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:55:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030428180409.02463ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c30d9e$93a45480$6900a8c0@WINXP> > From: Alain=20 ......... > >(Except for the opening lead) selecting a card to be played and = placing > it > >face down on the table with or without a remark to the effect that he = has > >decided his play to the current trick but is considering his play(s) = to > the > >next trick(s) is an unlawful procedure which cannot have any purpose. >=20 > AG : there is a contradiction here. The obvious purpose is to avoid > decieving declarer. > No more (or marginally more) UI to partner than a long tempo would = convey > ; > no deception (which, as you state hereafter, would be ruled illegal) ; > heads I win, tails I'm even. When you select your play to the current trick and then enter into a (lengthy?) hesitation while considering your play to the next trick; = what is the difference between concealing the identity of the card played by = keeping it face down and immediately revealing that identity by playing it face = up? In both cases your hesitation is associated with your continued play; I = see no purpose at all of hiding the identity of the played card while you hesitate. Regards Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 28 17:14:50 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:14:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? In-Reply-To: <200304281449.KAA25894@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030428180932.024640b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:49 28/04/2003 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >SW>Why would this show majors? Why not primary clubs with secondary >SW>hearts? > > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > AG : if that was his holding, then West would have every reason not to > pass > > 2H. His 2S is logical, given that the only possibilities are H/S or C/H. > >I am sorry, Alain, but I cannot figure out what you mean. Have you >exchanged East and West? Who does "his" refer to? > >Let's start over: East bids 2C, and later he bids 2H. Why should it >even remotely occur to West that East has anything other than clubs and >hearts? (That's what I would hold if I bid like that.) AG : if West doesn't know what East's hand is (Clubs or Majors), he is not allowed to alert. Therefore, it might (only might) be the case here. But in this case : 1) South's penalty double could tip the scales, but West didn't dare bid a major. Seems right. 2) Now that East has bid 2H, what can he have ? Clubs and Hearts if he was your partner. In this case, West should not pass 2H. Perhaps majors allowing for West's suspicion. In this case, West should not pass 2H. So, why could the AC compel West to pass ? Of course, *East* could have done something incorrect, ie taking out 2CX. So, a possible adjustment would be 2CX -#. Another possibility is to allow the sequence as produced. But pulling the contract back to 2H is irrational. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Apr 28 17:09:10 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:09:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Shooting double shots References: <200304281505.LAA25907@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3EAD5226.4070401@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >>From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >> Take the classic Law 16A double shot, Hesitation Blackwood: >> > [a definite infraction] > >>Under current interpretation of Law 16A, EW get a >>double shot. EW either keep their score of +50 >>(when North's hesitation was an overbid), or get >>the score of -980 adjusted to -480. >> > > I have no argument with the substance, but please let's be careful > about the terminology. > > The above is not what most people mean by "double shot." If there is > damage, EW will get an adjusted score. If not, there is no need for > one. But there's nothing "double," just a standard infraction and > possible adjusted score. > > The usual version if a double-shot would be if EW (the NOS) did > something "wild or gambling" in hopes of an even better score. > I also wanted to comment on this not being a double shot. What would be a double shot is to double (no pun intented) 6Sp. That can be done with the reasoning "if it goees down, we have +100, if it makes, we get our -480 back". Of course if 6Sp was allowed, you've given away heaps (too tired to work it out). Now we might be clear that bidding 7Cl is "wild or gambling". But is doubling? I don't believe it is. Yet it is a double shot! > _______________________________________________ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 28 17:29:54 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:29:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <000001c30d9e$93a45480$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030428180409.02463ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030428182442.0244e470@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:55 28/04/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > From: Alain >......... > > >(Except for the opening lead) selecting a card to be played and placing > > it > > >face down on the table with or without a remark to the effect that he has > > >decided his play to the current trick but is considering his play(s) to > > the > > >next trick(s) is an unlawful procedure which cannot have any purpose. > > > > AG : there is a contradiction here. The obvious purpose is to avoid > > decieving declarer. > > No more (or marginally more) UI to partner than a long tempo would convey > > ; > > no deception (which, as you state hereafter, would be ruled illegal) ; > > heads I win, tails I'm even. > >When you select your play to the current trick and then enter into a >(lengthy?) hesitation while considering your play to the next trick; what is >the difference between concealing the identity of the card played by keeping >it face down and immediately revealing that identity by playing it face up? AG : the difference is that my hesitation could be : a) related to any trick, not necessarily the next b) irrelevant after all, because declarer doesn't play the next tricks as I expected If I was to take the trick, you would be right : I might as well take, and then consider my play. But in other cases, declarer's (or partner's) play to the next trick could be fairly quick, and now my tempo would reveal everything. But if I acted as suggested by Richard, neither declarer nor partner would detect with 100% safety what I was thinking of - only that it is something that was at all probable to give me a problem during any of the ensuing tricks. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 28 17:44:32 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:44:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Shooting double shots In-Reply-To: <3EAD5226.4070401@skynet.be> References: <200304281505.LAA25907@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030428184154.02459530@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:09 28/04/2003 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: > >>>From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >>>Take the classic Law 16A double shot, Hesitation Blackwood: >>[a definite infraction] >> >>>Under current interpretation of Law 16A, EW get a >>>double shot. EW either keep their score of +50 >>>(when North's hesitation was an overbid), or get >>>the score of -980 adjusted to -480. >>I have no argument with the substance, but please let's be careful >>about the terminology. >>The above is not what most people mean by "double shot." If there is >>damage, EW will get an adjusted score. If not, there is no need for >>one. But there's nothing "double," just a standard infraction and >>possible adjusted score. >>The usual version if a double-shot would be if EW (the NOS) did >>something "wild or gambling" in hopes of an even better score. > > >I also wanted to comment on this not being a double shot. >What would be a double shot is to double (no pun intented) 6Sp. >That can be done with the reasoning "if it goees down, we have +100, if it >makes, we get our -480 back". Of course if 6Sp was allowed, you've given >away heaps (too tired to work it out). >Now we might be clear that bidding 7Cl is "wild or gambling". But is >doubling? I don't believe it is. Yet it is a double shot! AG : with some declarers, it is never irrational to double them. It's what I call an Arab double (according to the proverb : double him every day. If you don't know hy, I bet he will). I would accept an argument by a player who doubled 6S in this case if he told me "well, I love to double them. They usually oblige by going down." This would seem to me neither irrational nor wild, not even gambling. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Apr 28 18:47:44 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:47:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Was the ac right ?? Message-ID: <200304281747.NAA26064@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > 2) Now that East has bid 2H, what can he have ? > Clubs and Hearts if he was your partner. In this case, West should not pass > 2H. > Perhaps majors allowing for West's suspicion. Sorry, Alain, I am still not following you. What gives West even the faintest suspicion that East has anything other than clubs and hearts? We are obviously approching this from very different backgrounds, and I'm trying to find out what yours is. So please keep it very simple, and don't assume anything. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Apr 28 19:11:42 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:11:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] Shooting double shots References: <200304281505.LAA25907@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20030428184154.02459530@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001701c30db1$a0dfcd60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > I would accept an argument by a player who doubled 6S in this case if he > told me "well, I love to double them. They usually oblige by going down." > This would seem to me neither irrational nor wild, not even gambling. > You should not have to make that decision, and comments by the NOS are irrelevant anyway. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mikedod@gte.net Mon Apr 28 20:39:09 2003 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:39:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] [blml]the Queen of spades (was A ruling: OLOOT) References: Message-ID: <002a01c30dbd$d8aa3800$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> From: "Kooijman, A." > Interesting situation, which is not explained quite clearly in the laws. We > suffer from the fact that some useful new ideas where brought into the laws > in '87 and '97 but that we didn't want to use more than a few words to > describe them, upholding the existing laws more than was desirable. Examples > are L25a/b, minor/major penalty cards, this case, L62D2. > > What we wanted to say here is that only when this card is still a penalty > card partner has some AI, which is that this card has to be played at the > first legal opportunity. So partner doesn't have to lead the J from J1093 > when this Q is on the table. That is all, when the card is taken back > partner has to forget about it. So, yes, this idea applies in 50D2 as well. > And the WBFLC has decided that the advantage of knowing that partner has to > play such card leads to redress if the opponents are damaged by it. In this > example the normal lead being the J. > > ton This seems to say you can know partner must play the Q but if you gain by that knowledge we will adjust. How can we adjust for using AI? L50D1 explicitly allows the knowledge that the Q must be played. Granted 72B1 might be invoked but that takes more than just advantage gained. Further, from what point is damage measured? From the moment the penalty card is exposed or after the OS has already suffered lead and play penalties decreed by NOS and now must lose further if the AI offers advantage? The latter seems harsh. Mike Dodson From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Apr 28 20:44:56 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:44:56 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <000001c30d9a$41a62cc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Sven Pran wrote: > Frankly I don't remember except that it was several years ago and I learned > about it here in Norway. (And what should actually be gained by hiding the > identity of the card played while considering the continuation?) What is gained? You make everyone else wait instead of playing on while you are thinking! Facing a card before you are done thinking defeats the whole purpose, since as soon as you do, you will have a whole new trick to think about before you are done digesting the previous one in your mind. It is a choice between thinking and leading, or between leading face down and thinking ... anything else doesn't give you the time to think. Personally, I don't see the benefit of saying "no problem" or of this new idea of leading face-down then thinking some more ... with rare exception it is already obvious to the whole table if you are thinking about the current trick or about the rest of the hand when you pause. GRB From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Apr 28 21:50:28 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:50:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] the Queen of spades (was A ruling: OLOOT) In-Reply-To: <002a01c30dbd$d8aa3800$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> References: <002a01c30dbd$d8aa3800$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Message-ID: I need my memory refreshed. If partner leads Q of spades out of turn, and the lead is not accepted, then the Q becomes a major penalty card. OK. Now declairer says, "Lead anything." 50D1 says the knowledge that the Q must be played is AI, but other information arising from the facing of the card is UI. What other information is meant? 1. That partner thought it a good idea to lead the Q? 2. The fact that partner has at least one spade, namely the Q? 3. The chance that partner has the J of spades, assuming it is not in view? Or the chance that partner's spade is a singleton, if the J is in view? 4. Some other possibility that I have not yet thought of? Now suppose Declairer says, "Don't lead a spade." So the Q is picked up. Now it looks to me like the lead is a withdrawn action in the sense of 16C2 and all information is UI to me. But if the lead of the spade Q is out of turn and not accepted, is that in itself a withdrawn action in the sense of 16C2? Then the fact that the Q is now a major penalty card and must be played at the first legal opportunity is still AI according to 50D1. Or is it? I'm pretty confused by this whole subject. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 23:24:52 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:24:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: Grattan wrote: [big snip] >I do think that it might be more likely to succeed >if all alerts were replaced by announcements and no >questions permitted about other calls. Somehow I >cannot see my colleagues being convinced of this. > ~ G ~ +=+ I am not convinced either; compulsory announcements replacing all alerts would waste gobs of time in uncontested game/slam relay auctions. And such time-wasting is almost always unnecessary. A question before the opening lead will unveil the relayee's cards in minute detail. Also unveiled would be negative inferences from the timing of the relayer's placement of the contract. Best wishes Richard From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Apr 29 00:59:38 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:59:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML the big hole In-Reply-To: <16d.1bc6a947.2bde5da9@aol.com> Message-ID: <78197E98-79D5-11D7-884C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 11:34 AM, HauffHJ@aol.com wrote: > > > Hi all, > Everybody knows the big hole in Law 77 and 78. Not me. I've been and read them and I still don't see it. > I refer to the fact that whenever at the end of a tournament a ranking=20= > list is produced, then > there is a value attributed to the Non-scorer . ACBL=A0 and EBU use = the=20 > negative value of the score. > Until now, there is no official expression to this value. > I propose that the expression > C O S C O R E > is used. It should be incorporated in the next edition of the LAWS=20 > under > chapter 1 "definitions" and it should read: > "Coscore" is the value attributed to a non-scorer at the same time,=20 > when a score is attributed to the Scorer conforme Law 77. > Any objections ? Any other expression already used in national Bylaws = ? > To make it easier, only respond if you are against it. I don't know - I don't begin to understand the point. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From adam@irvine.com Tue Apr 29 01:28:08 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:28:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] BLML the big hole In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:59:38 BST." <78197E98-79D5-11D7-884C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <200304290028.RAA00951@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon wrote: > On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 11:34 AM, HauffHJ@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > Everybody knows the big hole in Law 77 and 78. > > Not me. I've been and read them and I still don't see it. > > > I refer to the fact that whenever at the end of a tournament a ranking > > list is produced, then > > there is a value attributed to the Non-scorer . ACBL  and EBU use the > > negative value of the score. > > Until now, there is no official expression to this value. > > I propose that the expression > > C O S C O R E > > is used. It should be incorporated in the next edition of the LAWS > > under > > chapter 1 "definitions" and it should read: > > "Coscore" is the value attributed to a non-scorer at the same time, > > when a score is attributed to the Scorer conforme Law 77. > > Any objections ? Any other expression already used in national Bylaws ? > > To make it easier, only respond if you are against it. > > I don't know - I don't begin to understand the point. I think he's referring to the fact that there's nothing in L77-78 that says explicitly that if one side receives a positive score on a hand, the other side receives the corresponding negative score. Thus, in a matchpoint game, if you declare 4S making 4 and get +420, your opponents receive -420 . . . but the Laws don't specifically say this. (This omission probably makes a difference only at matchpoints.) I know this only because sometime within the past couple years, an article marked "PAID ADVERTISEMENT", or something to that effect, appeared in The Bridge World making this point; the advertisement suggested that the game might be improved if the opponents' score was set to 0 instead of the corresponding negative number, thus eliminating the incentive for the defenders to worry about overtricks, e.g. In fact, now that I think about it, it might have been Mr. Hauff (the original poster on this thread) who wrote the advertisement---but please don't hold me to this, I'm operating from dim memory only. I don't know about the "Everybody knows" part. I've never seen this "big hole" publicized anywhere else except in TBW in that one advertisement; so "everybody" here should be restricted to those people who read TBW and who don't habitually skip over everything marked "advertisement". Although there may be no Law specifically saying the opponents' scores are supposed to balance, it could be argued that since L12C1 explicitly states that scores need not balance in an adjusted score situation, there's an implication that scores *are* supposed to balance in the normal case, or at least that the authors of L12C1 assumed that they were supposed to. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 29 02:03:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:03:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] BLML the big hole Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote: >I think he's referring to the fact that there's >nothing in L77-78 that says explicitly that if >one side receives a positive score on a hand, >the other side receives the corresponding >negative score. Thus, in a matchpoint game, if >you declare 4S making 4 and get +420, your >opponents receive -420 . . . but the Laws don't >specifically say this. (This omission probably >makes a difference only at matchpoints.) [big snip] The _format_ of Law 77 appears to be a fossilised relic from rubber bridge laws. Therefore, the 2005 Law 77 should perhaps make a specific statement about a NS +420 carrying a consequence of an EW -420. Another fossilised inadequacy of Law 77, as David Stevenson previously noted in an earlier thread, is that no specific Lawful mention is made of how to score a board with four passes. Best wishes Richard From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Apr 29 07:20:19 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:20:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions References: Message-ID: <001001c30e17$6920cda0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Compulsory announcements ? They should work fine in France and the ACBL at the intermediate level. In France/ACBL you have a strong federation and everybody plays more or less the same and relatively simply so it might be doable. And at the intermediate level most players know what they are doing most of the time. But at the top level we play with screens so there the problem doesn't really exist. And at low level alerting already creates much more problems than it solves. God forbids introducing compulsory announcements in this environment. According to me the 'solution' should be sought along these lines: - regulate playable systems at low level (-> no/little need of alerts) - play all serious bridge with screens (or computer based !?!?!?) Leaves the intermediate level. Most problems with (no) alerts and questions stem from the early and competitive bidding. So define a normal procedure which should be followed. Normal procedure in early/competitive bidding should include: - always ask alerts (but maybe you should not be forced if you think the answer is more useful to opps than to yourself, the opposite tactics is to ask as much as possible to create UI penalties; nice problem isn't it) - never bid in a split second But unfortunatly the problem is not that simple (limited to early/competitive). Richard: > I am not convinced either; compulsory announcements > replacing all alerts would waste gobs of time in > uncontested game/slam relay auctions. Well almost always you need to know what is going on, what is trumps and what is known about main suits. The moment RHO bids 5C in your Kxx or so, you need to know if you can/should double. To decide that, among other things, you need to asses the chance it will/can be played there, and it has to be at least likely that LHO becomes declarer. And for obvious reasons this is the kind of thing you have to prepare in advance. Now in real life a lot of players don't ask all alerts in long uncontested sequences. First because they don't care (and at a certain stage you have a global idea of what is going on anyway). But another good reason is that often the explanations are more useful to them than to you (and this probably outweighs the chance and the trouble of getting a UI penalty). Once again, play serious bridge with screens. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] treatment of questions > > Grattan wrote: > > [big snip] > > >I do think that it might be more likely to succeed > >if all alerts were replaced by announcements and no > >questions permitted about other calls. Somehow I > >cannot see my colleagues being convinced of this. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > I am not convinced either; compulsory announcements > replacing all alerts would waste gobs of time in > uncontested game/slam relay auctions. > > And such time-wasting is almost always unnecessary. > > A question before the opening lead will unveil the > relayee's cards in minute detail. Also unveiled > would be negative inferences from the timing of the > relayer's placement of the contract. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Apr 29 07:46:59 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:46:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution References: Message-ID: <004301c30e1b$23490640$0fb54351@noos.fr> Dear all, Are not you boys making things a little too complicated. What the law should be. At the moment dummy comes down everybody should have the right to digest that information and then to plan the play (actually two different issues). One might argue about the amount of time this should/might take but I would put it anywhere between 10 and 30 seconds. It would be nice if this number would be formalised. Anyway, both declarer and RHO are free to take up to 30 seconds (or whatever #secs) together without any possible MI/mislead possibilities. So if declarer doesn't want RHO to be able to vary his tempo declarer should 'use up' the first trick time himself. But one very basic issue is that defense doesn't have the right to know whether or not declarer had a decision at thrick one, and declarer doesn't have the right to know whether or not RHO had a problem (or a singleton for that matter). Now later tricks. Of course it happens that you need time to take stock. Or to replan the play. It is extremely easy to slow down the play. You simply leave your card of trick n open witch prevents the play of trick n+1. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:44 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Frankly I don't remember except that it was several years ago and I learned > > about it here in Norway. (And what should actually be gained by hiding the > > identity of the card played while considering the continuation?) > > What is gained? You make everyone else wait instead of playing on while > you are thinking! Facing a card before you are done thinking defeats the > whole purpose, since as soon as you do, you will have a whole new trick to > think about before you are done digesting the previous one in your mind. > > It is a choice between thinking and leading, or between leading face down > and thinking ... anything else doesn't give you the time to think. > > Personally, I don't see the benefit of saying "no problem" or of this new > idea of leading face-down then thinking some more ... with rare exception > it is already obvious to the whole table if you are thinking about the > current trick or about the rest of the hand when you pause. > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Apr 29 07:51:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:51:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Relay double trouble (was treatment of questions) Message-ID: Richard wrote: >>I am not convinced either; compulsory announcements >>replacing all alerts would waste gobs of time in >>uncontested game/slam relay auctions. Jaap replied: >Well almost always you need to know what is going on, >what is trumps and what is known about main suits. The >moment RHO bids 5C in your Kxx or so, you need to know >if you can/should double. [snip] Richard continued: This discussion on the strategy of defending against relay systems is off-topic for blml, and of little interest to most - therefore, please delete this and subsequent postings on this particular new thread without further reading, if you are one of the majority. To those select few still reading, Jaap's suggestion that "you need to know if you can/should double" an artificial call in a relay auction is based on a false premise. Very little - perhaps a few negative inferences - is known about the shape of the relayer during a relay auction. It is *never* safe to double an artificial call during a relay auction. For example, on one occasion, I was relayee, and promised a singleton or void spade with an artificial 2S call. LHO felt guilty about not previously stretching to make a weak jump overcall of 2S with minimum values, so doubled. Pard held the outstanding six spades, redoubled 2S to play, and we scored a redoubled overtrick. Therefore, doubling a relay 5C with Kxx or so is *always* a Walter the Walrus action. Even if immediate disaster is averted, a double gives relayers two extra steps of bidding space, which may be what they require to diagnose the par contract. Best wishes Richard From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Apr 29 08:05:25 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:05:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] [blml]the Queen of spades (was A ruling: OLOOT) Message-ID: ton: > > And the WBFLC has decided that the advantage of knowing > that partner has > to > > play such card leads to redress if the opponents are > damaged by it. In > this > > example the normal lead being the J. > > > > ton > > This seems to say you can know partner must play the Q but if > you gain by > that knowledge we > will adjust. > > How can we adjust for using AI? L50D1 explicitly allows the > knowledge that > the Q must > be played. Granted 72B1 might be invoked but that takes more > than just > advantage gained. > > Further, from what point is damage measured? From the > moment the penalty > card is exposed > or after the OS has already suffered lead and play penalties > decreed by NOS > and now must lose > further if the AI offers advantage? You describe something that won't exist. Either the OS suffers from a lead penalty and then the penalty card is taken back and creates UI or there is no lead penalty and then the card is a penalty card. I don't see why you use 'suffer a play penalty' when the conclusion is that the OS gains by the penalty card. Isn't it strange to gain from playing the deuce from J1092 knowing that partner has to play the Q? The LC thought it was. ton > Mike Dodson From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 29 08:06:03 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:06:03 +1200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <004301c30e1b$23490640$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000001c30e1d$cf9f2620$722f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 6:47 p.m. > To: Gordon Bower; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > Now later tricks. Of course it happens that you need time to > take stock. Or > to replan the play. It is extremely easy to slow down the > play. You simply > leave your card of trick n open witch prevents the play of trick n+1. Really what law is that? Wayne From a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Apr 29 08:18:00 2003 From: a.kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:18:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] the Queen of spades (was A ruling: OLOOT) Message-ID: Robert: > I need my memory refreshed. > If partner leads Q of spades out of turn, and the lead is not > accepted, then the Q becomes a major penalty card. OK. > > Now declairer says, "Lead anything." 50D1 says the knowledge that > the Q must be played is AI, but other information arising from the > facing of the card is UI. What other information is meant? > 1. That partner thought it a good idea to lead the Q? > 2. The fact that partner has at least one spade, namely the Q? > 3. The chance that partner has the J of spades, assuming it > is not in view? > Or the chance that partner's spade is a singleton, if the J > is in view? > 4. Some other possibility that I have not yet thought of? yes, yes, yes, yes. And a couple of hundred other possibilities. All inferences you may deduct, using the process you go through with every card played in a board, but your own. > > Now suppose Declairer says, "Don't lead a spade." So the Q is > picked up. Now it looks to me like the lead is a withdrawn action in > the sense of 16C2 and all information is UI to me. yes indeed > > But if the lead of the spade Q is out of turn and not accepted, is > that in itself a withdrawn action in the sense of 16C2? Then the > fact that the Q is now a major penalty card and must be played at the > first legal opportunity is still AI according to 50D1. Or is it? yes, and that is the only AI arising from the POOT. > I'm pretty confused by this whole subject. You don't read like being confused. ton From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Apr 29 08:26:47 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:26:47 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951861@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> > From: Alain=20 ......... > >(Except for the opening lead) selecting a card to be played and placing > it > >face down on the table with or without a remark to the effect that he has > >decided his play to the current trick but is considering his play(s) to > the > >next trick(s) is an unlawful procedure which cannot have any purpose. >=20 > AG : there is a contradiction here. The obvious purpose is to avoid > decieving declarer. > No more (or marginally more) UI to partner than a long tempo would convey > ; > no deception (which, as you state hereafter, would be ruled illegal) ; > heads I win, tails I'm even. When you select your play to the current trick and then enter into a (lengthy?) hesitation while considering your play to the next trick; what is the difference between concealing the identity of the card played by keeping it face down and immediately revealing that identity by playing it face up? In both cases your hesitation is associated with your continued play; I see no purpose at all of hiding the identity of the played card while you hesitate. Regards Sven ------- I don't see the advantage of playing this card face down before considering= later play. I prefer to play to the trick in tempo, and leave my card face up. Our side= after that never plays to the next trick before the card is turned face down. As a mat= ter of fact, most opponents don't lead to the next trick before my card is turned. This way all players know what happened to the last trick, and can plan fur= ther while I consider my further play, knowing ecactly the same as me. Regards Harald _______________________________________________ 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 Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Apr 29 08:31:56 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:31:56 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution Message-ID: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951863@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 6:47 p.m. > To: Gordon Bower; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution >=20 >=20 > Now later tricks. Of course it happens that you need time to=20 > take stock. Or > to replan the play. It is extremely easy to slow down the=20 > play. You simply > leave your card of trick n open witch prevents the play of trick n+1. Really what law is that? Wayne ------- Law 66A. But you need a cooperative partner who doesn't lead to the next trick before you hav turned your card. It isn't exatly what Jaap said, but has that effect. Harald ------- _______________________________________________ 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 jaapb@noos.fr Tue Apr 29 08:37:30 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:37:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution References: <000001c30e1d$cf9f2620$722f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <01b601c30e22$3211a540$0fb54351@noos.fr> Wayne: > Really what law is that? 65A/66A Since applying 65A forfeits the right to use 66A it seems a reasonable interpretation that you can leave your card open until you are sure you don't want to use 66A anymore. Anyway 65A doesn't mention a time limit. And also once you invoke 66A there is no time limit specified in the law. So strictly legal speaking, you seem to be able to look at the current trick as long as you want. And you cannot start the next trick in the meantime. And yes, this happens often enough for me to consider it completely normal and natural. I have never ever seen someone calling the TD because of this. Your question provoked me to look it up in the laws. As usual they are vague, not surprising after some all those patches without structural overhaul. Now you might argue that this law is not explicitly meant for this. Who knows, who cares, there are so many ommisions of this type in the laws. This law can be used for this purpose, and it is being used for this purpose. Any problems with that ? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:06 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 6:47 p.m. > > To: Gordon Bower; blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > Now later tricks. Of course it happens that you need time to > > take stock. Or > > to replan the play. It is extremely easy to slow down the > > play. You simply > > leave your card of trick n open witch prevents the play of trick n+1. > > Really what law is that? > > Wayne > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 29 08:39:48 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:39:48 +1200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <332C53725D5A524FBE6B4C1975A5CAEC951863@nifexch.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000101c30e22$86539f50$722f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Skjaran, Harald > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 7:32 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: SV: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 6:47 p.m. > > To: Gordon Bower; blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > Now later tricks. Of course it happens that you need time to > > take stock. Or > > to replan the play. It is extremely easy to slow down the > > play. You simply > > leave your card of trick n open witch prevents the play of > trick n+1. > > Really what law is that? > > Wayne > > ------- > Law 66A. But you need a cooperative partner who doesn't lead > to the next > trick before you hav turned your card. > > It isn't exatly what Jaap said, but has that effect. What if it is declarer's or dummy's lead? Wayne > > Harald > ------- > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no. > > 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 > ************************************************************** > ************ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 29 08:46:24 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:46:24 +1200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <01b601c30e22$3211a540$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000201c30e23$72a18ca0$722f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 7:38 p.m. > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > Wayne: > > Really what law is that? > > 65A/66A > > Since applying 65A forfeits the right to use 66A it seems a reasonable > interpretation that you can leave your card open until you > are sure you > don't want to use 66A anymore. Anyway 65A doesn't mention a > time limit. And > also once you invoke 66A there is no time limit specified in > the law. So > strictly legal speaking, you seem to be able to look at the > current trick as > long as you want. And you cannot start the next trick in the > meantime. And > yes, this happens often enough for me to consider it > completely normal and > natural. I have never ever seen someone calling the TD > because of this. Your > question provoked me to look it up in the laws. As usual they > are vague, not > surprising after some all those patches without structural overhaul. > > Now you might argue that this law is not explicitly meant for > this. Who > knows, who cares, there are so many ommisions of this type in > the laws. This > law can be used for this purpose, and it is being used for > this purpose. Any > problems with that ? I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is left 'open' that play is prevented from proceeding. Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of deceiving declarer. Wayne > > Jaap > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:06 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 6:47 p.m. > > > To: Gordon Bower; blml@rtflb.org > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > Now later tricks. Of course it happens that you need time to > > > take stock. Or > > > to replan the play. It is extremely easy to slow down the > > > play. You simply > > > leave your card of trick n open witch prevents the play > of trick n+1. > > > > Really what law is that? > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Apr 29 09:00:43 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:00:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Relay double trouble (was treatment of questions) References: Message-ID: <01d901c30e25$70028ce0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Richard, Maybe you are right that it becomes too complicated. But the issue is relevant for the laws. 1. In a pure relay series there might be little info but there is a lot of gray between pure relay (very few play pure relay these days) and pure natural bidding. And without asking you don't know what they are doing. 2. There is also a lot of gray between Kxx and KQJ10x. Although unlikely it can be a good idea to double with Kxx and a bad idea to double with KQJ10x depending on the context. To know the context you have to know what they are doing. 3. You are right (I said 'among other things' my dear) that giving them extra space is also a price of lead directing doubles. I can give you some more arguments to double or not if you want. It is an interesting subject you know. Lots of points to be won or lost. But we discuss laws here. The whole point I want to make is in order to deal with artificial sequences you (almost always) need to know what is going on. To know that you need to ask questions. Playing with screens it is almost automatic to let a relay pair explain in writing all the bids they make including the negative interferences. A lot of work ? The price you have to pay to impose such methods on your opponents. The practical point I want to make is that often you don't need to ask all bids to know what is going on. Very often it is clear from the early bidding that they have say a spade fit, who will play the spades, and what is their secondary suit if any. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Relay double trouble (was treatment of questions) > > Richard wrote: > > >>I am not convinced either; compulsory announcements > >>replacing all alerts would waste gobs of time in > >>uncontested game/slam relay auctions. > > Jaap replied: > > >Well almost always you need to know what is going on, > >what is trumps and what is known about main suits. The > >moment RHO bids 5C in your Kxx or so, you need to know > >if you can/should double. > > [snip] > > Richard continued: > > This discussion on the strategy of defending against > relay systems is off-topic for blml, and of little > interest to most - therefore, please delete this and > subsequent postings on this particular new thread > without further reading, if you are one of the majority. > > To those select few still reading, Jaap's suggestion > that "you need to know if you can/should double" an > artificial call in a relay auction is based on a > false premise. > > Very little - perhaps a few negative inferences - is > known about the shape of the relayer during a relay > auction. It is *never* safe to double an artificial > call during a relay auction. > > For example, on one occasion, I was relayee, and > promised a singleton or void spade with an artificial > 2S call. LHO felt guilty about not previously > stretching to make a weak jump overcall of 2S with > minimum values, so doubled. Pard held the outstanding > six spades, redoubled 2S to play, and we scored a > redoubled overtrick. > > Therefore, doubling a relay 5C with Kxx or so is > *always* a Walter the Walrus action. Even if > immediate disaster is averted, a double gives relayers > two extra steps of bidding space, which may be what > they require to diagnose the par contract. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 29 09:27:08 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:27:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <000201c30e23$72a18ca0$722f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000301c30e29$202d8d10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows ........ > I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is left 'open' > that play is prevented from proceeding. >=20 > Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while > not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of > deceiving declarer. Who cares? Any "deviation" from a "normal" routine carries the possibility of UI = being transmitted. The onus is on the partner of a player possibly sending UI = to avoid using it.=20 Leaving your card face up on a table while considering something = certainly does not legally prevent any other player at the table from leading or playing to the next trick. So what?=20 The other players at the table may (in turn) lead and play to the next = trick as they like even before you have turned your own last played card face down. You are not allowed to play your own card to the next trick before = you have turned your previously played card face down, but until you do so = you are at liberty to request all other cards belonging to that (previous) = trick be turned face up. The fact that cards may have been played by some = players to the next trick when you so request is completely irrelevant. Sven From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 29 09:33:35 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:33:35 +1200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <000301c30e29$202d8d10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000401c30e2a$09bb48f0$722f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 8:27 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > Wayne Burrows > ........ > > I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is left 'open' > > that play is prevented from proceeding. > > > > Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while > > not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of > > deceiving declarer. > > Who cares? > Any "deviation" from a "normal" routine carries the > possibility of UI being > transmitted. The onus is on the partner of a player possibly > sending UI to > avoid using it. > > Leaving your card face up on a table while considering > something certainly > does not legally prevent any other player at the table from leading or > playing to the next trick. > > So what? > > The other players at the table may (in turn) lead and play to > the next trick > as they like even before you have turned your own last played > card face > down. You are not allowed to play your own card to the next > trick before you > have turned your previously played card face down, but until > you do so you > are at liberty to request all other cards belonging to that > (previous) trick > be turned face up. The fact that cards may have been played > by some players > to the next trick when you so request is completely irrelevant. Not true. If partner plays then it is too late. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Apr 29 09:39:38 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:39:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution References: <000201c30e23$72a18ca0$722f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <01e501c30e2a$e360e7e0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Wayne, I agree with you the laws are no good. But this does not mean that we have to accept any random Wayne interpretation of the missing parts. Wayne, > I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is left 'open' > that play is prevented from proceeding. Don't be silly. Trick n is not finished before all cards are turned down (65A). For starters read the text of 66A. It says (almost) explicitly that as long as a card is still 'open' it is still the current trick. So somebody playing before 65A is satisfied is playing out of turn (or at least too quick). I agree the wording as usual 'could be better'. Wayne, > Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while > not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of > deceiving declarer. 1. Of course someone taking time might generate UI (possible) or mislead someone (very unlikely), just asking to see the cards might do that, but we have rules for that. Anyway don't overdo the issue, it is quite common to think about a complicated defensive hand and the UI is often just that ('it is dificult'). 2. I consider it completly OK for defenders to slow down speedy declarers a little. Declarer should also play in a normal tempo, if not what is wrong with defenders defending themselves against being forced to play too quickly. But the main point is that different from the first trick in later tricks there is no excuse to start thinking at trick n (with nothing to think about) with the argument you where thinking about trick(s) n+x. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:46 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 7:38 p.m. > > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > Wayne: > > > Really what law is that? > > > > 65A/66A > > > > Since applying 65A forfeits the right to use 66A it seems a reasonable > > interpretation that you can leave your card open until you > > are sure you > > don't want to use 66A anymore. Anyway 65A doesn't mention a > > time limit. And > > also once you invoke 66A there is no time limit specified in > > the law. So > > strictly legal speaking, you seem to be able to look at the > > current trick as > > long as you want. And you cannot start the next trick in the > > meantime. And > > yes, this happens often enough for me to consider it > > completely normal and > > natural. I have never ever seen someone calling the TD > > because of this. Your > > question provoked me to look it up in the laws. As usual they > > are vague, not > > surprising after some all those patches without structural overhaul. > > > > Now you might argue that this law is not explicitly meant for > > this. Who > > knows, who cares, there are so many ommisions of this type in > > the laws. This > > law can be used for this purpose, and it is being used for > > this purpose. Any > > problems with that ? > > I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is left 'open' > that play is prevented from proceeding. > > Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while > not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of > deceiving declarer. > > Wayne > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:06 AM > > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 6:47 p.m. > > > > To: Gordon Bower; blml@rtflb.org > > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > Now later tricks. Of course it happens that you need time to > > > > take stock. Or > > > > to replan the play. It is extremely easy to slow down the > > > > play. You simply > > > > leave your card of trick n open witch prevents the play > > of trick n+1. > > > > > > Really what law is that? > > > > > > 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 From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 29 09:45:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:45:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <000401c30e2a$09bb48f0$722f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000401c30e2b$a10e7e10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows > > > Wayne Burrows > > ........ > > > I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is left 'open' > > > that play is prevented from proceeding. > > > > > > Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while > > > not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of > > > deceiving declarer. > > > > Who cares? > > Any "deviation" from a "normal" routine carries the > > possibility of UI being > > transmitted. The onus is on the partner of a player possibly > > sending UI to > > avoid using it. > > > > Leaving your card face up on a table while considering > > something certainly > > does not legally prevent any other player at the table from leading or > > playing to the next trick. > > > > So what? > > > > The other players at the table may (in turn) lead and play to > > the next trick > > as they like even before you have turned your own last played > > card face > > down. You are not allowed to play your own card to the next > > trick before you > > have turned your previously played card face down, but until > > you do so you > > are at liberty to request all other cards belonging to that > > (previous) trick > > be turned face up. The fact that cards may have been played > > by some players > > to the next trick when you so request is completely irrelevant. > > Not true. > > If partner plays then it is too late. OK, so let us count on a little cooperation from partner shall we? Sven From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 29 09:57:03 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:57:03 +1200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <01e501c30e2a$e360e7e0$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000601c30e2d$5102efd0$722f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 8:40 p.m. > To: Wayne Burrows; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > Wayne, > > I agree with you the laws are no good. But this does not mean > that we have > to accept any random Wayne interpretation of the missing parts. > > Wayne, > > I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is left 'open' > > that play is prevented from proceeding. > > Don't be silly. Trick n is not finished before all cards are > turned down > (65A). For starters read the text of 66A. It says (almost) > explicitly that > as long as a card is still 'open' it is still the current > trick. So somebody > playing before 65A is satisfied is playing out of turn (or at > least too > quick). I agree the wording as usual 'could be better'. No it is implicit in 66A that while I have my card to a trick face up that my partner may have played to the next trick. Wayne > > Wayne, > > Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while > > not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of > > deceiving declarer. > > 1. Of course someone taking time might generate UI (possible) > or mislead > someone (very unlikely), just asking to see the cards might > do that, but we > have rules for that. Anyway don't overdo the issue, it is > quite common to > think about a complicated defensive hand and the UI is often > just that ('it > is dificult'). > 2. I consider it completly OK for defenders to slow down > speedy declarers a > little. Declarer should also play in a normal tempo, if not > what is wrong > with defenders defending themselves against being forced to play too > quickly. > > But the main point is that different from the first trick in > later tricks > there is no excuse to start thinking at trick n (with nothing to think > about) with the argument you where thinking about trick(s) n+x. > > Jaap > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:46 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 7:38 p.m. > > > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; blml@rtflb.org > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > Wayne: > > > > Really what law is that? > > > > > > 65A/66A > > > > > > Since applying 65A forfeits the right to use 66A it seems > a reasonable > > > interpretation that you can leave your card open until you > > > are sure you > > > don't want to use 66A anymore. Anyway 65A doesn't mention a > > > time limit. And > > > also once you invoke 66A there is no time limit specified in > > > the law. So > > > strictly legal speaking, you seem to be able to look at the > > > current trick as > > > long as you want. And you cannot start the next trick in the > > > meantime. And > > > yes, this happens often enough for me to consider it > > > completely normal and > > > natural. I have never ever seen someone calling the TD > > > because of this. Your > > > question provoked me to look it up in the laws. As usual they > > > are vague, not > > > surprising after some all those patches without > structural overhaul. > > > > > > Now you might argue that this law is not explicitly meant for > > > this. Who > > > knows, who cares, there are so many ommisions of this type in > > > the laws. This > > > law can be used for this purpose, and it is being used for > > > this purpose. Any > > > problems with that ? > > > > I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is left 'open' > > that play is prevented from proceeding. > > > > Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while > > not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of > > deceiving declarer. > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > To: > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:06 AM > > > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 6:47 p.m. > > > > > To: Gordon Bower; blml@rtflb.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now later tricks. Of course it happens that you need time to > > > > > take stock. Or > > > > > to replan the play. It is extremely easy to slow down the > > > > > play. You simply > > > > > leave your card of trick n open witch prevents the play > > > of trick n+1. > > > > > > > > Really what law is that? > > > > > > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Apr 29 10:58:13 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:58:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution References: <000601c30e2d$5102efd0$722f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <026f01c30e35$da941820$0fb54351@noos.fr> Wayne, You become quite tiring. Jaap: > > Don't be silly. Trick n is not finished before all cards are > > turned down > > (65A). For starters read the text of 66A. It says (almost) > > explicitly that > > as long as a card is still 'open' it is still the current > > trick. So somebody > > playing before 65A is satisfied is playing out of turn (or at > > least too > > quick). I agree the wording as usual 'could be better'. Wayne: > No it is implicit in 66A that while I have my card to a trick > face up that my partner may have played to the next trick. > No ? Why no ? No no ! Yes I know that it says partner might have played to the NEXT trick. It says partner playing to the next trick cancels my right to use 66A. But this doesn't change the fact that it still is the CURRENT trick. The CURRENT trick is not finished until all cards are turned. Any other interpretation of 65A anyone ? I admit that I cannot find anything in the laws about playing to the next trick when the current is not finished. This seems a rather silly mistake to me. But there are so many mistakes like that in the current laws. And this doesn't mean it should be considered normal to play to the next trick when the current trick is not finished. What happened to good old common sense. I have never seen anyone playing ON PURPOSE (= realizing it) to the new trick before all cards are turned. I have never ever seen anyone complaining about someone delaying a trick using 65A and or 66A to get some time to think (after a certain time you have really have seen those four cards, and yes anything incuding this can generate UI). Anyway, what do you try to achieve with your line of argument. You don't have to convince me the laws are full of silly mistakes. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:57 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 8:40 p.m. > > To: Wayne Burrows; blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > I agree with you the laws are no good. But this does not mean > > that we have > > to accept any random Wayne interpretation of the missing parts. > > > > Wayne, > > > I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is left 'open' > > > that play is prevented from proceeding. > > > > Don't be silly. Trick n is not finished before all cards are > > turned down > > (65A). For starters read the text of 66A. It says (almost) > > explicitly that > > as long as a card is still 'open' it is still the current > > trick. So somebody > > playing before 65A is satisfied is playing out of turn (or at > > least too > > quick). I agree the wording as usual 'could be better'. > > No it is implicit in 66A that while I have my card to a trick > face up that my partner may have played to the next trick. > > Wayne > > > > > Wayne, > > > Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while > > > not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of > > > deceiving declarer. > > > > 1. Of course someone taking time might generate UI (possible) > > or mislead > > someone (very unlikely), just asking to see the cards might > > do that, but we > > have rules for that. Anyway don't overdo the issue, it is > > quite common to > > think about a complicated defensive hand and the UI is often > > just that ('it > > is dificult'). > > 2. I consider it completly OK for defenders to slow down > > speedy declarers a > > little. Declarer should also play in a normal tempo, if not > > what is wrong > > with defenders defending themselves against being forced to play too > > quickly. > > > > But the main point is that different from the first trick in > > later tricks > > there is no excuse to start thinking at trick n (with nothing to think > > about) with the argument you where thinking about trick(s) n+x. > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:46 AM > > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 7:38 p.m. > > > > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; blml@rtflb.org > > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > Wayne: > > > > > Really what law is that? > > > > > > > > 65A/66A > > > > > > > > Since applying 65A forfeits the right to use 66A it seems > > a reasonable > > > > interpretation that you can leave your card open until you > > > > are sure you > > > > don't want to use 66A anymore. Anyway 65A doesn't mention a > > > > time limit. And > > > > also once you invoke 66A there is no time limit specified in > > > > the law. So > > > > strictly legal speaking, you seem to be able to look at the > > > > current trick as > > > > long as you want. And you cannot start the next trick in the > > > > meantime. And > > > > yes, this happens often enough for me to consider it > > > > completely normal and > > > > natural. I have never ever seen someone calling the TD > > > > because of this. Your > > > > question provoked me to look it up in the laws. As usual they > > > > are vague, not > > > > surprising after some all those patches without > > structural overhaul. > > > > > > > > Now you might argue that this law is not explicitly meant for > > > > this. Who > > > > knows, who cares, there are so many ommisions of this type in > > > > the laws. This > > > > law can be used for this purpose, and it is being used for > > > > this purpose. Any > > > > problems with that ? > > > > > > I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is left 'open' > > > that play is prevented from proceeding. > > > > > > Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while > > > not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of > > > deceiving declarer. > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:06 AM > > > > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > > > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 6:47 p.m. > > > > > > To: Gordon Bower; blml@rtflb.org > > > > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now later tricks. Of course it happens that you need time to > > > > > > take stock. Or > > > > > > to replan the play. It is extremely easy to slow down the > > > > > > play. You simply > > > > > > leave your card of trick n open witch prevents the play > > > > of trick n+1. > > > > > > > > > > Really what law is that? > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 29 11:52:36 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:52:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: References: <000001c30d9a$41a62cc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030429124829.028e7ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:44 28/04/2003 -0800, Gordon Bower wrote: >Personally, I don't see the benefit of saying "no problem" or of this new >idea of leading face-down then thinking some more ... with rare exception >it is already obvious to the whole table if you are thinking about the >current trick or about the rest of the hand when you pause. AG : the main benefit is that L73D2 can't be applied to you. Even if it was obvious that you weren't thinking at the current trick, declarer could pretend not to have noticed it, and the way "undue hesitation" is understood (rightly!) by a majority of TDs he might well get his adjusted score. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Apr 29 11:38:31 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:38:31 +1200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <026f01c30e35$da941820$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <000a01c30e3b$7deb5560$722f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 9:58 p.m. > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > Wayne, > > You become quite tiring. > > > Jaap: > > > Don't be silly. Trick n is not finished before all cards are > > > turned down > > > (65A). For starters read the text of 66A. It says (almost) > > > explicitly that > > > as long as a card is still 'open' it is still the current > > > trick. So somebody > > > playing before 65A is satisfied is playing out of turn (or at > > > least too > > > quick). I agree the wording as usual 'could be better'. > > Wayne: > > No it is implicit in 66A that while I have my card to a trick > > face up that my partner may have played to the next trick. > > > > No ? Why no ? No no ! > Yes I know that it says partner might have played to the NEXT > trick. It says > partner playing to the next trick cancels my right to use > 66A. But this > doesn't change the fact that it still is the CURRENT trick. > The CURRENT > trick is not finished until all cards are turned. Any other > interpretation > of 65A anyone ? I think the trick is finished when four players have played to the trick and when that has happened then the four players turn their cards face down. L65A begins 'When...' and in this context this conjures up in my mind '...as soon as...' and not sometime later at the discretion of some player or another. My dictionary seems to confirm this. It says 'as soon as' and 'after which, and then, but just then' etc. However L65A gives a player the right to look at that trick. Presumably this is so that every player can gather the information about what cards have been played and not have this information deprived by someone turning their card too quickly. > > I admit that I cannot find anything in the laws about playing > to the next > trick when the current is not finished. This seems a rather > silly mistake to > me. I don't see how this is a mistake. > But there are so many mistakes like that in the current > laws. And this > doesn't mean it should be considered normal to play to the > next trick when > the current trick is not finished. What happened to good old > common sense. I am not sure ... You read "When four cards have been played..." and you interpret it as if it said "Sometime after four cards have been played and at the discretion of the players at the table..." > I > have never seen anyone playing ON PURPOSE (= realizing it) to > the new trick > before all cards are turned. I have seen this many times. In particular having won a trick I think the laws allow me to play my next card 'in tempo' and not wait for some other player to tell me when I can play. The language in the laws for this 'in tempo' play is '...entirely appropriate...'. >I have never ever seen anyone > complaining about > someone delaying a trick using 65A and or 66A to get some > time to think > (after a certain time you have really have seen those four > cards, and yes > anything incuding this can generate UI). I think the purpose of L66A is merely to allow a player to see the cards that have been played. It is not a way of legitimizing a tempo break or deliberately slowing down the play. > > Anyway, what do you try to achieve with your line of > argument. You don't > have to convince me the laws are full of silly mistakes. If there are mistakes then they should be fixed. If they are not fixed then we should play as if the laws mean what they say. It is not up to an individual to add to the laws. In this case you asserted that keeping your card face up prevents play continuing to the next trick. I simply assert that the laws do not concur with that assertion. Wayne > > Jaap > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:57 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 8:40 p.m. > > > To: Wayne Burrows; blml@rtflb.org > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > > > I agree with you the laws are no good. But this does not mean > > > that we have > > > to accept any random Wayne interpretation of the missing parts. > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is > left 'open' > > > > that play is prevented from proceeding. > > > > > > Don't be silly. Trick n is not finished before all cards are > > > turned down > > > (65A). For starters read the text of 66A. It says (almost) > > > explicitly that > > > as long as a card is still 'open' it is still the current > > > trick. So somebody > > > playing before 65A is satisfied is playing out of turn (or at > > > least too > > > quick). I agree the wording as usual 'could be better'. > > > > No it is implicit in 66A that while I have my card to a trick > > face up that my partner may have played to the next trick. > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while > > > > not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of > > > > deceiving declarer. > > > > > > 1. Of course someone taking time might generate UI (possible) > > > or mislead > > > someone (very unlikely), just asking to see the cards might > > > do that, but we > > > have rules for that. Anyway don't overdo the issue, it is > > > quite common to > > > think about a complicated defensive hand and the UI is often > > > just that ('it > > > is dificult'). > > > 2. I consider it completly OK for defenders to slow down > > > speedy declarers a > > > little. Declarer should also play in a normal tempo, if not > > > what is wrong > > > with defenders defending themselves against being forced > to play too > > > quickly. > > > > > > But the main point is that different from the first trick in > > > later tricks > > > there is no excuse to start thinking at trick n (with > nothing to think > > > about) with the argument you where thinking about trick(s) n+x. > > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > To: > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:46 AM > > > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 7:38 p.m. > > > > > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; blml@rtflb.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wayne: > > > > > > Really what law is that? > > > > > > > > > > 65A/66A > > > > > > > > > > Since applying 65A forfeits the right to use 66A it seems > > > a reasonable > > > > > interpretation that you can leave your card open until you > > > > > are sure you > > > > > don't want to use 66A anymore. Anyway 65A doesn't mention a > > > > > time limit. And > > > > > also once you invoke 66A there is no time limit specified in > > > > > the law. So > > > > > strictly legal speaking, you seem to be able to look at the > > > > > current trick as > > > > > long as you want. And you cannot start the next trick in the > > > > > meantime. And > > > > > yes, this happens often enough for me to consider it > > > > > completely normal and > > > > > natural. I have never ever seen someone calling the TD > > > > > because of this. Your > > > > > question provoked me to look it up in the laws. As usual they > > > > > are vague, not > > > > > surprising after some all those patches without > > > structural overhaul. > > > > > > > > > > Now you might argue that this law is not explicitly meant for > > > > > this. Who > > > > > knows, who cares, there are so many ommisions of this type in > > > > > the laws. This > > > > > law can be used for this purpose, and it is being used for > > > > > this purpose. Any > > > > > problems with that ? > > > > > > > > I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is > left 'open' > > > > that play is prevented from proceeding. > > > > > > > > Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while > > > > not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of > > > > deceiving declarer. > > > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > > > To: > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:06 AM > > > > > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org > [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > > > > > Behalf Of Jaap > van der Neut > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 6:47 p.m. > > > > > > > To: Gordon Bower; blml@rtflb.org > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now later tricks. Of course it happens that you > need time to > > > > > > > take stock. Or > > > > > > > to replan the play. It is extremely easy to slow down the > > > > > > > play. You simply > > > > > > > leave your card of trick n open witch prevents the play > > > > > of trick n+1. > > > > > > > > > > > > Really what law is that? > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > blml mailing list > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > From gillp@bigpond.com Tue Apr 29 12:40:44 2003 From: gillp@bigpond.com (Peter Gill) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:40:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution Message-ID: <008601c30e44$2e783260$7a8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Jaap van der Neut wrote: >Wayne, >You become quite tiring. Yes, the endless pursuit of accuracy in the wording of the Laws can be quite tiring. That doesn't make it less worthy of being on BLML. Jaap: >Anyway, what do you try to achieve with your line of argument? >You don't have to convince me the laws are full of silly mistakes. but BLML is the perfect place for us lurkers to enjoy reading about such things. Peter Gill. Australia. From svenpran@online.no Tue Apr 29 12:54:54 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:54:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030429124829.028e7ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000901c30e46$260ad6d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner > Gordon Bower wrote: >=20 >=20 > >Personally, I don't see the benefit of saying "no problem" or of this = new > >idea of leading face-down then thinking some more ... with rare = exception > >it is already obvious to the whole table if you are thinking about = the > >current trick or about the rest of the hand when you pause. >=20 > AG : the main benefit is that L73D2 can't be applied to you. > Even if it was obvious that you weren't thinking at the current > trick, declarer could pretend not to have noticed it, and the way = "undue > hesitation" is understood (rightly!) by a majority of TDs he might = well > get his adjusted score. If a player after some hesitation wakes up and apologies: "Sorry, I had = no reason to hesitate" or words to that effect; I for one as Director will never hold Law 73D2 against him. But if he conceals the identity of the card he has just selected to play = by leaving it face down on the table for any extended period (except as is = the practice in trick one for the opening lead) I might very well rule him guilty of violating Law 74A2 (.....causing embarrassment....interfering = with the enjoyment.....). I might further add that if it should ever happen I were called to a = table only to discover a player attempting to gain an advantage on a legal technicality; that player will have a difficult time trying to get my sympathy in my ruling. So far my experience (during more than 20 years = of directing) has been that most players concentrate on the game they want = to play, not on bending or discussing the laws one way or the other for technicalities. This discussion appears to me having drifted much too far away from the = real life into searching the laws for technicalities supporting more or less extreme views. That is not interesting, it is unproductive and it doesn't bring = anything positive to our game. Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Apr 29 13:10:00 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:10:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030429075720.00a219b0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:24 PM 4/28/03, richard.hills wrote: >Grattan wrote: > > >I do think that it might be more likely to succeed > >if all alerts were replaced by announcements and no > >questions permitted about other calls. Somehow I > >cannot see my colleagues being convinced of this. > >I am not convinced either; compulsory announcements >replacing all alerts would waste gobs of time in >uncontested game/slam relay auctions. > >And such time-wasting is almost always unnecessary. > >A question before the opening lead will unveil the >relayee's cards in minute detail. Also unveiled >would be negative inferences from the timing of the >relayer's placement of the contract. We shouldn't overlook the most obvious aspect of requiring that the question be asked, which is that it can not be asked. With all the talk about asking always, asking at random, asking only when it affects your next action, etc., nobody has yet mentioned what is common practice in real life: asking only if you believe that the opponents are on firm enough ground that their answer will not help clarify the auction for *them*, but not otherwise. It just doesn't hack it to say that one shouldn't worry about that, because one can always call the TD and get redress if it turns out to be the case -- we're talking real life here. Many players would see the main effect of replacing alerts with announcements as license for pairs who aren't 100% certain as to how some call should be interpreted to keep one another informed as to what they expect their partner to hold. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Apr 29 13:25:27 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:25:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <000401c30e2b$a10e7e10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c30e2a$09bb48f0$722f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030429081952.022d5c60@pop.starpower.net> At 04:45 AM 4/29/03, Sven wrote: > > Wayne Burrows > > > > > > So what? > > > > > > The other players at the table may (in turn) lead and play to > > > the next trick > > > as they like even before you have turned your own last played > > > card face > > > down. You are not allowed to play your own card to the next > > > trick before you > > > have turned your previously played card face down, but until > > > you do so you > > > are at liberty to request all other cards belonging to that > > > (previous) trick > > > be turned face up. The fact that cards may have been played > > > by some players > > > to the next trick when you so request is completely irrelevant. > > > > Not true. > > > > If partner plays then it is too late. > >OK, so let us count on a little cooperation from partner shall we? This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. If partner plays, it is too late to ask to see the previous trick, but that wasn't the reason for leaving your card faced. It is not too late to continue to take time to analyze the hand at that point, which was the reason you didn't turn your card in the first place. Seeing (some of) the cards that will be played to the next trick can only help you do that. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Apr 29 13:34:47 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:34:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <000901c30e46$260ad6d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030429124829.028e7ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030429083224.022d0390@pop.starpower.net> At 07:54 AM 4/29/03, Sven wrote: >If a player after some hesitation wakes up and apologies: "Sorry, I had no >reason to hesitate" or words to that effect; I for one as Director will >never hold Law 73D2 against him. Unless, of course, he *did* have a reason to hesitate, in which case he has flagrantly violated L73D2. I think we can assume that that's when Sven meant. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Apr 29 15:40:02 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:40:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] [blml]the Queen of spades (was A ruling: OLOOT) Message-ID: <200304291440.KAA15333@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > Isn't it strange to gain from playing the deuce from J1092 > knowing that partner has to play the Q? > The LC thought it was. I am confused. L50D says "the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for his partner." The Lille minute seems to confirm that it is legal to lead the deuce (as opposed to the jack, given that this suit is a legal choice at all) and gain thereby. What am I missing? Of course if the original offender "could have known" that revealing the Q would be a good idea, 72B1 applies, but that will be very rare. From jaapb@noos.fr Tue Apr 29 17:13:13 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:13:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished (was trick one etc) References: <000a01c30e3b$7deb5560$722f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <00b301c30e6a$42708b20$0fb54351@noos.fr> Opinions asked on 'when is a trick finished'. Please see the question at the end of this mail. Wayne, Time to get to some kind of resolution. Wayne: > If there are mistakes [in the law] then they should be fixed. This is very hard given the procedures. We have to live with the current mess like it or not. Wayne: > If they are not fixed then we should play as if the laws mean what they say. For this we need to agree on what they say. You nor I play the game alone you know. Wayne: [context 65A, when is a trick finished] > In particular having won a trick I think the laws allow me to > play my next card 'in tempo' and not wait for some other player > to tell me when I can play. The language in the laws for this > 'in tempo' play is '...entirely appropriate...'. 1. This is akin to a singleton in dummy (or any no option situation). By now it is explicit in the laws that such a singleton is not played automatically. I am quite sure it was not in the first version but has been added later for very good reasons. RHO simply cannot play in his normal 'in tempo' as long as declarer doesn't play from dummy, like it or not. 2. Do we agree on the fact that trick n has to be finished to play the first card in trick n+1 (even when you are sure you are on lead at trick n+1). I hope so. 3. So the legal question here is, when is a trick finished. You claim that a trick is finished the moment the fourth card touches the table. Because you claim the winner of that trick can play his next card 'in tempo' and you don't want to be bothered by people slowly turning their card (or exercising their right to see the last trick). I maintain that a trick is only finished when all four cards are turned. That is at least the only interpretation I have ever known, the only behaviour I have ever seen, and I have played bridge many years in lots of different places. 4. Among other reasons I don't like your interpretation is that this way you routinely create a situation where there are open cards from two different tricks on the table. Thus creating needless confusion. Any TD hates that. Any player hates that. Anyway apart from all else, I think it is bad behaviour, but this is a cultural judgement. Maybe down under you have a different approach to the game. 5. But I agree that given the text of the laws 'a smart lawyer' can argue both ways. By now I would like to hear the comments of some others. Just concentrate on the main question please. When is a trick finished in the sense that when is it appropriate to play the first card of the next trick. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:38 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 9:58 p.m. > > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > You become quite tiring. > > > > > > Jaap: > > > > Don't be silly. Trick n is not finished before all cards are > > > > turned down > > > > (65A). For starters read the text of 66A. It says (almost) > > > > explicitly that > > > > as long as a card is still 'open' it is still the current > > > > trick. So somebody > > > > playing before 65A is satisfied is playing out of turn (or at > > > > least too > > > > quick). I agree the wording as usual 'could be better'. > > > > Wayne: > > > No it is implicit in 66A that while I have my card to a trick > > > face up that my partner may have played to the next trick. > > > > > > > No ? Why no ? No no ! > > Yes I know that it says partner might have played to the NEXT > > trick. It says > > partner playing to the next trick cancels my right to use > > 66A. But this > > doesn't change the fact that it still is the CURRENT trick. > > The CURRENT > > trick is not finished until all cards are turned. Any other > > interpretation > > of 65A anyone ? > > I think the trick is finished when four players have played to > the trick and when that has happened then the four players > turn their cards face down. > > L65A begins 'When...' and in this context this conjures up in my > mind '...as soon as...' and not sometime later at the discretion > of some player or another. My dictionary seems to confirm this. > It says 'as soon as' and 'after which, and then, but just then' etc. > > However L65A gives a player the right to look at that trick. > Presumably this is so that every player can gather the information > about what cards have been played and not have this information > deprived by someone turning their card too quickly. > > > > > I admit that I cannot find anything in the laws about playing > > to the next > > trick when the current is not finished. This seems a rather > > silly mistake to > > me. > > I don't see how this is a mistake. > > > But there are so many mistakes like that in the current > > laws. And this > > doesn't mean it should be considered normal to play to the > > next trick when > > the current trick is not finished. What happened to good old > > common sense. > > I am not sure ... > > You read "When four cards have been played..." and you interpret > it as if it said "Sometime after four cards have been played and > at the discretion of the players at the table..." > > > I > > have never seen anyone playing ON PURPOSE (= realizing it) to > > the new trick > > before all cards are turned. > > I have seen this many times. > > In particular having won a trick I think the laws allow me to > play my next card 'in tempo' and not wait for some other player > to tell me when I can play. The language in the laws for this > 'in tempo' play is '...entirely appropriate...'. > > >I have never ever seen anyone > > complaining about > > someone delaying a trick using 65A and or 66A to get some > > time to think > > (after a certain time you have really have seen those four > > cards, and yes > > anything incuding this can generate UI). > > I think the purpose of L66A is merely to allow a player to see > the cards that have been played. > > It is not a way of legitimizing a tempo break or deliberately > slowing down the play. > > > > > > Anyway, what do you try to achieve with your line of > > argument. You don't > > have to convince me the laws are full of silly mistakes. > > If there are mistakes then they should be fixed. > > If they are not fixed then we should play as if the laws > mean what they say. > > It is not up to an individual to add to the laws. > > In this case you asserted that keeping your card face up > prevents play continuing to the next trick. > > I simply assert that the laws do not concur with that assertion. > > Wayne > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:57 AM > > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 8:40 p.m. > > > > To: Wayne Burrows; blml@rtflb.org > > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > > > > > I agree with you the laws are no good. But this does not mean > > > > that we have > > > > to accept any random Wayne interpretation of the missing parts. > > > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > > I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is > > left 'open' > > > > > that play is prevented from proceeding. > > > > > > > > Don't be silly. Trick n is not finished before all cards are > > > > turned down > > > > (65A). For starters read the text of 66A. It says (almost) > > > > explicitly that > > > > as long as a card is still 'open' it is still the current > > > > trick. So somebody > > > > playing before 65A is satisfied is playing out of turn (or at > > > > least too > > > > quick). I agree the wording as usual 'could be better'. > > > > > > No it is implicit in 66A that while I have my card to a trick > > > face up that my partner may have played to the next trick. > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > > Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while > > > > > not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of > > > > > deceiving declarer. > > > > > > > > 1. Of course someone taking time might generate UI (possible) > > > > or mislead > > > > someone (very unlikely), just asking to see the cards might > > > > do that, but we > > > > have rules for that. Anyway don't overdo the issue, it is > > > > quite common to > > > > think about a complicated defensive hand and the UI is often > > > > just that ('it > > > > is dificult'). > > > > 2. I consider it completly OK for defenders to slow down > > > > speedy declarers a > > > > little. Declarer should also play in a normal tempo, if not > > > > what is wrong > > > > with defenders defending themselves against being forced > > to play too > > > > quickly. > > > > > > > > But the main point is that different from the first trick in > > > > later tricks > > > > there is no excuse to start thinking at trick n (with > > nothing to think > > > > about) with the argument you where thinking about trick(s) n+x. > > > > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:46 AM > > > > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapb@noos.fr] > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 7:38 p.m. > > > > > > To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz; blml@rtflb.org > > > > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wayne: > > > > > > > Really what law is that? > > > > > > > > > > > > 65A/66A > > > > > > > > > > > > Since applying 65A forfeits the right to use 66A it seems > > > > a reasonable > > > > > > interpretation that you can leave your card open until you > > > > > > are sure you > > > > > > don't want to use 66A anymore. Anyway 65A doesn't mention a > > > > > > time limit. And > > > > > > also once you invoke 66A there is no time limit specified in > > > > > > the law. So > > > > > > strictly legal speaking, you seem to be able to look at the > > > > > > current trick as > > > > > > long as you want. And you cannot start the next trick in the > > > > > > meantime. And > > > > > > yes, this happens often enough for me to consider it > > > > > > completely normal and > > > > > > natural. I have never ever seen someone calling the TD > > > > > > because of this. Your > > > > > > question provoked me to look it up in the laws. As usual they > > > > > > are vague, not > > > > > > surprising after some all those patches without > > > > structural overhaul. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you might argue that this law is not explicitly meant for > > > > > > this. Who > > > > > > knows, who cares, there are so many ommisions of this type in > > > > > > the laws. This > > > > > > law can be used for this purpose, and it is being used for > > > > > > this purpose. Any > > > > > > problems with that ? > > > > > > > > > > I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is > > left 'open' > > > > > that play is prevented from proceeding. > > > > > > > > > > Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while > > > > > not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of > > > > > deceiving declarer. > > > > > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > > > > To: > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:06 AM > > > > > > Subject: RE: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org > > [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > > > > > > Behalf Of Jaap > > van der Neut > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2003 6:47 p.m. > > > > > > > > To: Gordon Bower; blml@rtflb.org > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now later tricks. Of course it happens that you > > need time to > > > > > > > > take stock. Or > > > > > > > > to replan the play. It is extremely easy to slow down the > > > > > > > > play. You simply > > > > > > > > leave your card of trick n open witch prevents the play > > > > > > of trick n+1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really what law is that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Tue Apr 29 18:22:06 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:22:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_[blml]_When_is_a_trick_finished_=28was_trick?= one etc) Message-ID: "Jaap van der Neut" Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 29/04/03 18:13 =20 Pour : , cc :=20 Objet : [blml] When is a trick finished (was trick one etc) Opinions asked on 'when is a trick finished'. Please see the question at the end of this mail. For this we need to agree on what they say. You nor I play the game alone you know. 5. But I agree that given the text of the laws 'a smart lawyer' can argue both ways. By now I would like to hear the comments of some others. Just concentrate on the main question please. When is a trick finished in the sense that when is it appropriate to play the first card of the next=20 trick. Jaap *** my reading of L44B and L44G make me believe a trick is finished as soon as = 4 cards have been played in turn; i think the technicality of arranging=20 the played cards has nothing to do with the completion of a trick as=20 defined by L44B. jp rocafort *** =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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Apr 29 18:54:45 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:54:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished Message-ID: <200304291754.NAA15556@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Sven asked > 5. But I agree that given the text of the laws 'a smart lawyer' can argue > both ways. Yes. I sure hope Grattan has a little space left in his notebook. > When is a trick finished in the sense that when is it appropriate to > play the first card of the next trick. > From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > my reading of L44B and L44G make me believe a trick is finished as soon as > 4 cards have been played in turn; i think the technicality of arranging > the played cards has nothing to do with the completion of a trick as > defined by L44B. I agree that L44 defines what constitutes a trick, but I don't see that it tells us anything about the timing of when the next trick can legally begin. In that connection, I am led to L66B. Once a card is led to the new trick, a player can no longer inspect his own card of the old one. How is it possible to comply if the old card is still face up on the table? And does an opponent's lead to the new trick cause a player to forfeit his rights under L66A? Usually the Laws avoid such situations, although not universally. Thus: if a trick is "finished" when all four cards are turned, there are no difficulties. If a trick is "finished" as soon as the fourth card is played, there are difficulties with L66B, and (as someone else pointed out) L66A means that there may be cards of two tricks simultaneously face up on the table. That cannot be good! Alternatively, an opponent's hasty action may cause a player to lose his right to get a clear view of the past trick, although I hope such an interpretation is not supported. Regardless of what the smart lawyers think, I am fairly sure which interpretation of "finished" is better for the game. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Apr 29 19:08:08 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:08:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Shooting double shots In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030428184154.02459530@pop.ulb.ac.be> from "Alain Gottcheiner" at Apr 28, 2003 06:44:32 PM Message-ID: <200304291808.h3TI89810399@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Alain Gottcheiner writes: > > > AG : with some declarers, it is never irrational to double them. It's what > I call an Arab double (according to the proverb : double him every day. If > you don't know hy, I bet he will). > I would accept an argument by a player who doubled 6S in this case if he > told me "well, I love to double them. They usually oblige by going down." > This would seem to me neither irrational nor wild, not even gambling. > I played for a while with a guy who doubled all slams (Tony, if you're wondering, it was Ulrich Blazejewski) . Took me a while to figure it out. His logic was pretty much what you stated. Bad declarers have a tough time coming to 12 tricks. Good ones often went down in cold contracts, playing him to have some reason for the double. After I figured out that his double had nothing to do with the cards he held, I'd alert. Never once got asked about the alert (I guess the declarers assumed I was alerting a Lightner double.) Which was a good thing since I'd never figured out exactly what to say. He doesn't think you can make 12 tricks Automatic, has nothing to do with the cards he holds. He doubles *all* slams. From kaima13@hotmail.com Tue Apr 29 21:11:01 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (kaima) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:11:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished References: <000a01c30e3b$7deb5560$722f37d2@Desktop> <00b301c30e6a$42708b20$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: Jaap's question: When is a trick finished in the > sense that when is it appropriate to play the first card of the next trick. K: I think is polite for the person who won the trick, to wait until all four players have turned their card, before playing to the next trick. I think that playing to next trick while someone still has his card face up from current trick, is bad manners if done on purpose, and lack of attention to the game if done inadvertently. No Law can teach manners or guarantee players' attention to the game. Best regards, Kaima aka D R Davis, the lurker on this mailng list, still enjoy listening in. From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Apr 29 23:11:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 23:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <000201c30e23$72a18ca0$722f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > I see nothing in those laws that says that if a card is left 'open' > that play is prevented from proceeding. I wish the laws were more explicit. However I think most of us would agree that a trick is not "over" until all 4 players have turned their cards in compliance with the law. It seems obvious that play should not proceed until a trick is over. > Playing or attempting to play in an uneven tempo like this while > not forbidden always comes at the risk of transmitting UI or of > deceiving declarer. Of course it does. Whenever one takes an *unusual* amount of time to think that risk arises. That does not make thinking illegal. Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 30 00:36:11 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:36:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished Message-ID: >my reading of L44B and L44G make me believe a trick >is finished as soon as 4 cards have been played in >turn; i think the technicality of arranging the >played cards has nothing to do with the completion of >a trick as defined by L44B. > >jp rocafort Correct. In my opinion, there has been confusion caused by some blmlers asserting that inspection of a trick (Law 66) is necessarily *prior* to completion of a trick (Law 44B and Law 44G). Historical context may clarify the issues involved. In rubber bridge, players are permitted *subsequent* inspection of the immediately previous trick (because of the manner in which tricks are played and gathered in rubber bridge). Therefore, for many years, the duplicate bridge laws also contained a parallel provision permitting duplicate players to subsequently inspect the immediately previous trick. However, this old duplicate law was frequently abused by a defender, who exercised this right when wishing to alert pard to a significant card on the previous trick. So, the WBF LC changed Law 66 to its current form in 1975. But the WBF LC did not make any consequential changes in 1975 to Law 44B or Law 44G. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 30 00:48:44 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:48:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Shooting double shots Message-ID: Ron Johnson: >I played for a while with a guy who doubled >all slams (Tony, if you're wondering, it was >Ulrich Blazejewski) . Took me a while to >figure it out. > >His logic was pretty much what you stated. >Bad declarers have a tough time coming to 12 >tricks. [snip] Many years ago, I occasionally played at a very weak bridge club in Hobart. Other players at that club sometimes bid and made small slams when they held overwhelming high cards. But grand slams were only bid at that club when both partners kept on bidding misfits. Naturally, all such grand slams failed. The resident "expert" at that club therefore had a lucrative policy of automatically doubling grand slams. Unluckily, he once played against me and my relay partner. This was the only time I have ever played 7NT vulnerable, redoubled and making. :-) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 30 01:14:16 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:14:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] treatment of questions Message-ID: Eric Landau: [big snip] >Many players would see the main effect of >replacing alerts with announcements as >license for pairs who aren't 100% certain >as to how some call should be interpreted >to keep one another informed as to what >they expect their partner to hold. Correct. Ideally, alerts should also be prohibited in situations where an alert is more likely to enlighten pard rather than to assist the opponents. The ABF self-alert reg goes some way to achieving this goal. Aussie bunny thinks: "Is pard interpreting my 4C bid as natural or Gerber? Has pard alerted my 4C bid? Drat, pard is prohibited from alerting bids above 3NT." Best wishes Richard From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Apr 30 02:14:50 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:14:50 +1200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: <200304291754.NAA15556@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001e01c30eb5$eb1dbd10$37e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: Wednesday, 30 April 2003 5:55 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > > > Sven asked > > 5. But I agree that given the text of the laws 'a smart > lawyer' can argue > > both ways. > > Yes. I sure hope Grattan has a little space left in his notebook. > > > > > When is a trick finished in the sense that when is it appropriate to > > play the first card of the next trick. > > > From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > > my reading of L44B and L44G make me believe a trick is > finished as soon as > > 4 cards have been played in turn; i think the technicality > of arranging > > the played cards has nothing to do with the completion of a > trick as > > defined by L44B. > > I agree that L44 defines what constitutes a trick, but I don't see > that it tells us anything about the timing of when the next trick > can legally begin. > > In that connection, I am led to L66B. Once a card is led to the new > trick, a player can no longer inspect his own card of the old > one. How > is it possible to comply if the old card is still face up on the > table? And does an opponent's lead to the new trick cause a player > to forfeit his rights under L66A? Usually the Laws avoid such > situations, although not universally. The continuation in L66C seems to suggest that only quitted tricks cannot be inspected. If all tricks were to be quitted when the next trick begins then this law would not need to qualify tricks as quitted. > > Thus: if a trick is "finished" when all four cards are turned, there > are no difficulties. If a trick is "finished" as soon as the fourth > card is played, there are difficulties with L66B, and (as someone else > pointed out) L66A means that there may be cards of two tricks > simultaneously face up on the table. That cannot be good! L66A,B and C tell us how to resolve the difficulties of inspecting cards played and quitted tricks. So I don't think there is a problem. > Alternatively, an opponent's hasty action may cause a player to lose > his right to get a clear view of the past trick, although I hope such > an interpretation is not supported. The laws protect that player's right to get a clear view of the past trick. Alternatively an opponent does not have an automatic right to vary the tempo of play without consequence. > > Regardless of what the smart lawyers think, I am fairly sure which > interpretation of "finished" is better for the game. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 30 05:29:28 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:29:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? Message-ID: Richard: >>"...habitual violations within a partnership >>may create implicit agreements, which must >>be disclosed..." Jaap: >Yes I know, but how are you going to prove it. >Everybody will always say this really was the >first time it happened, etc. My experience as a player and occasional TD in Canberra is that "everybody" and "always" are huge overstatements. 99.9% of Canberran bridge players do *not* deliberately lie, if asked whether a specific misbid has occurred before in their partnership. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 30 06:02:07 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:02:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? Message-ID: In an earlier thread, Grattan asked: [big snip] >>Is it acceptable if we go to such major tournaments >>inadequately prepared? - using methods that we have >>not fully grasped? [big snip] Such opponents are totally acceptable to me; in the long run, their misbids and misunderstandings will donate huge numbers of imps to my team. Alain wrote: [snip] >About "straightforward cases" : one could expect of >any pair from moderate level upwards that they know >what they play vs weak notrumps, what they play over >strong notrumps, and if different that they don't >mix them up. Now, say you encounter a pair which >plays 13-17 notrumps. I wouldn't consider it a huge >error if one player thought of it as a weak NT, the >other as a strong one Yes, I agree that even "straightforward" cases of misbidding should not be rendered unLawful in 2005. Recently, I played against an expert Canberra pair. My partner and I play a variable notrump; usually the range is 11-14, but in third seat we wimpishly increase the range to 14-16. These expert opponents expertly play different defensive methods for strong and weak notrumps, but inpertly failed to define the borderline. As a result, they had a "straightforward" misbidding sequence, donating us +800. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Apr 30 06:46:12 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 07:46:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? References: Message-ID: <002f01c30edd$8c8084e0$0fb54351@noos.fr> OK, OK, 'Always' and 'first time' are overstatements. It was not meant literaly. I have just seen too many cases like this. But it is impossible to judge whether or not there is an established partnership routine or such in any given case lacking any form of meaningful administration. > 99.9% of Canberran bridge players do *not* > deliberately lie, if asked whether a specific > misbid has occurred before in their > partnership. I think most people don't deliberately lie depending on the definition of 'lying' and 'specific misbid' although I don't buy 99.9 (also an overstatement). But it is impossible to rule the game like this. If you overspeed the cops have to catch you. This is not been done by asking you once in a while whether you did overspeed recently. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? > > Richard: > > >>"...habitual violations within a partnership > >>may create implicit agreements, which must > >>be disclosed..." > > Jaap: > > >Yes I know, but how are you going to prove it. > >Everybody will always say this really was the > >first time it happened, etc. > > My experience as a player and occasional TD in > Canberra is that "everybody" and "always" are > huge overstatements. > > 99.9% of Canberran bridge players do *not* > deliberately lie, if asked whether a specific > misbid has occurred before in their > partnership. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Apr 30 06:58:38 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 07:58:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? References: Message-ID: <003001c30edd$8cb2df80$0fb54351@noos.fr> Richard: > What's the problem? I have explained this a couple of times before. The problem is that opps playing destructive conventions they don't master might render a board unplayable. Like overcalling 1S-3C which shows reds holding clubs. Now sometimes they get a bad score of course. But often the opponents are fixed. Now you might say bad luck. We did for some time. But then things really get out of hand. Nowadays 'everybody' considers it normal to deploy a two-way defence in such situations. If no questions are asked any bid is natural regardless of the meaning of the alerted call. Now who is to blame. The regulations or players defending themselves. IMHO and the majority of the Dutch national AC the only practical solution is to rule this kind of cases as misinformation rather than misbid. We do already in a way. My personal opinion is that psyches are legal and that mistakes are part of the game. But the right to psych or misbid is not unlimited. There are other issues as well. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 7:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? > > In an earlier thread, Grattan asked: > > [big snip] > > >>Is it acceptable if we go to such major tournaments > >>inadequately prepared? - using methods that we have > >>not fully grasped? > > [big snip] > > Such opponents are totally acceptable to me; in the > long run, their misbids and misunderstandings will > donate huge numbers of imps to my team. > > Alain wrote: > > [snip] > > >About "straightforward cases" : one could expect of > >any pair from moderate level upwards that they know > >what they play vs weak notrumps, what they play over > >strong notrumps, and if different that they don't > >mix them up. Now, say you encounter a pair which > >plays 13-17 notrumps. I wouldn't consider it a huge > >error if one player thought of it as a weak NT, the > >other as a strong one > > Yes, I agree that even "straightforward" cases of > misbidding should not be rendered unLawful in 2005. > > Recently, I played against an expert Canberra pair. > My partner and I play a variable notrump; usually the > range is 11-14, but in third seat we wimpishly > increase the range to 14-16. These expert opponents > expertly play different defensive methods for strong > and weak notrumps, but inpertly failed to define the > borderline. As a result, they had a "straightforward" > misbidding sequence, donating us +800. > > What's the problem? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 30 07:19:28 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:19:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? Message-ID: [snip] >But it is impossible to rule the game like this. If you >overspeed the cops have to catch you. This is not been >done by asking you once in a while whether you did >overspeed recently. > >Jaap A false analogy, comparing apples to oranges. It is unlawful to overspeed, but it is not (yet) unLawful to misbid. Footnote to Law 75: "...the mistake was in South's bid. Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North- South hands." However - It is unLawful to fail to disclose an implicit partnership agreement, which has been created by recently and frequently bidding contrary to the notional partnership agreement. Best wishes Richard= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Apr 30 07:33:26 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:33:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misbids - illegal, immoral and fattening? Message-ID: Richard wrote: >>What's the problem? Jaap replied: >I have explained this a couple of times before. The >problem is that opps playing destructive conventions >they don't master might render a board unplayable. [big snip] Drahcir wrote: I have explained this never before. The problem is also that opps playing constructive conventions they don't master might reach ridiculous contracts and render sensible bridge unplayable. The final solution is to expel any player whom has ever misbid from the sponsoring organisation. Soon after this final solution has been adopted, no boards will become sensibly unplayable, since no boards will be played. Best wishes Drahcir From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Apr 30 08:24:46 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 08:24:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished References: <001e01c30eb5$eb1dbd10$37e536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <002601c30ee9$ae127580$3d03e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 2:14 AM Subject: RE: [blml] When is a trick finished < > > When is a trick finished in the sense that when is it appropriate to play the first card of the next trick. +=+ Law 66 refers to a trick as "quitted" when all four players have turned their cards face down. I do not think there is anything in the laws about a trick being 'finished'. After all four players have played to a trick there is no irregularity if the player on lead faces the lead to the following trick. To make it illegal to lead before the previous trick has been quitted (or whatever) would seem merely to create additional scope for touchy opponents to carp. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Apr 30 07:55:45 2003 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 08:55:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished (was trick one etc) References: <000a01c30e3b$7deb5560$722f37d2@Desktop> <00b301c30e6a$42708b20$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <3EAF7371.6080309@skynet.be> Jaap, these are two different questions: Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > 5. But I agree that given the text of the laws 'a smart lawyer' can argue > both ways. By now I would like to hear the comments of some others. Just > concentrate on the main question please. When is a trick finished in the > sense that when is it appropriate to play the first card of the next trick. When is a trick finished ? when the fourth card hits the table. At that time it becomes no longer an offence to lead to the next trick (leading any sooner is an irregularity). When is it appropriate to play the first card to the next trick? When all four cards have been turned. But the only reason why this should be called "appropriate" is to avoid confusion. Look at it this way. I have won a trick, and you leave your card open. I claim. In which trick did I claim? This one or the next one? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Apr 30 08:35:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 08:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Hesitation in trick one? resolution In-Reply-To: <000a01c30e3b$7deb5560$722f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: > > If there are mistakes then they should be fixed. Agreed, but some sense of priorities might be nice. > If they are not fixed then we should play as if the laws > mean what they say. Why? Sometimes what they say (or fail to say) is ridiculous. We can as easily play as if the laws say what they mean. We play 4 cards to a trick, the winner takes the trick, turns it over and leads - we all know that is the proper process (OK that's real bridge rather than duplicate - but the principle holds). We all know that sometimes people lead before collecting their trick (usually harmless, but not proper). Why do we want to complicate the issue when "a trick ain't over til it's turned over" is so obvious that it wasn't considered worthy of inclusion in the laws. Tim From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Apr 30 09:23:15 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:23:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished References: <001e01c30eb5$eb1dbd10$37e536d2@Desktop> <002601c30ee9$ae127580$3d03e150@endicott> Message-ID: <005001c30ef3$ac875d20$0fb54351@noos.fr> Help! Grattan: > I do not think there is anything in the > laws about a trick being 'finished'. Whatever the word for 'finished', it is essential that in a trick based card game there is a clear definition when trick n ends (is finished) and when trick n+1 starts (can start). If only because it is the nature of trick based card games that you play them trick by trick. So if this is not in the laws, the laws suck big time as usual. Grattan: > After all four players have played to a trick > there is no irregularity if the player on lead faces > the lead to the following trick To make it illegal > to lead before the previous trick has been > quitted (or whatever) would seem merely to > create additional scope for touchy opponents > to carp. - This interpretation means that it is 'normal procedure' that there are cards face up of two tricks at the same time. You explicitly say that you can legally play the first card to trick n+1 when there are still cards of trick n face up on the table. I say you are plain crazy to advocate such nonsense. - This interpretation makes the text of 66B complete nonsense. This text clearly assumes all cards are face down before the next trick starts. Also 65ABC become rather meaningless if play can continue anyway if you don't apply them. - If you take this interpretation to the extreme you can end play with all 52 cards face up because in this logic the turning of the cards can be postponed indefinitly. If you can play the first card of trick n+1 with trick n still face up, why not the second card and the third. And why bother turning your own card, it is such a hasle you know. And why not start trick n+2 as well as soon as four cards to trick n+1 have been played. I know that 65A says you should turn your cards when all four players have played to a trick but if not turning them doesn't stop the next trick from being played please tell me what prevents all tricks from being played before turning the cards of the first trick. By the way, is there a law that states that you have to turn the cards of trick n before trick n-1. You might need such a law if play can continue with lots of card face up. Apart from these legal technicalities I can only quote Kaima: > I think is polite for the person who won the trick, to wait until all > four players have turned their card, before playing to the next trick. I > think that playing to next trick while someone still has his card face up > from current trick, is bad manners if done on purpose, and lack of attention > to the game if done inadvertently. No Law can teach manners or guarantee > players' attention to the game. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 9:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " And the stern joy which warriors feel > In foeman worthy of their steel." > ['The Lady of the Lake'] > ============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 2:14 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] When is a trick finished > > < > > > When is a trick finished in the sense that when > is it appropriate to play the first card of the next > trick. > > > +=+ Law 66 refers to a trick as "quitted" when > all four players have turned their cards face > down. I do not think there is anything in the > laws about a trick being 'finished'. > After all four players have played to a trick > there is no irregularity if the player on lead faces > the lead to the following trick. To make it illegal > to lead before the previous trick has been > quitted (or whatever) would seem merely to > create additional scope for touchy opponents > to carp. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapb@noos.fr Wed Apr 30 09:37:41 2003 From: jaapb@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:37:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished (was trick one etc) References: <000a01c30e3b$7deb5560$722f37d2@Desktop> <00b301c30e6a$42708b20$0fb54351@noos.fr> <3EAF7371.6080309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005d01c30ef3$cc694a40$0fb54351@noos.fr> Herman: > When is a trick finished ? when the fourth card hits the table. At > that time it becomes no longer an offence to lead to the next trick > (leading any sooner is an irregularity). > When is it appropriate to play the first card to the next trick? When > all four cards have been turned. But the only reason why this should > be called "appropriate" is to avoid confusion. At least you show some common sense (but not enough). But there are more reasons than just avoiding confusion. See my reaction to Grattan. See below. Herman: > Look at it this way. I have won a trick, and you leave your card open. > I claim. In which trick did I claim? This one or the next one? One of the many reasons there needs to be a clear definition when a trick 'has finished'. For all kind of obvious reasons this should be after all cards have been turned. Even the current laws 'are clear' on this subject. Read 66A. It says that somebody with his card up can still see the cards of the CURRENT trick (yes partner can frustrate that right). So it is the current trick for at least some people of the table. But if you think it is ok to lead to the next trick before 'finishing' the previous trick the table has no clear time anymore. For some players it is trick n and for others it is trick n+1. Now of course people will play sometimes too quick. But to make it an 'infraction' to play to trick n+1 before trick n is finished (= all cards are turned) you solve an awful lot of legal problems. Because the new card is a POOT and it still clear which trick we are playing. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When is a trick finished (was trick one etc) > Jaap, these are two different questions: > > Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > > 5. But I agree that given the text of the laws 'a smart lawyer' can argue > > both ways. By now I would like to hear the comments of some others. Just > > concentrate on the main question please. When is a trick finished in the > > sense that when is it appropriate to play the first card of the next trick. > > > When is a trick finished ? when the fourth card hits the table. At > that time it becomes no longer an offence to lead to the next trick > (leading any sooner is an irregularity). > When is it appropriate to play the first card to the next trick? When > all four cards have been turned. But the only reason why this should > be called "appropriate" is to avoid confusion. > Look at it this way. I have won a trick, and you leave your card open. > I claim. In which trick did I claim? This one or the next one? > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 30 12:03:14 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:03:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] not wishing to play the board Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030430124727.024628e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Perhaps this subject has been covered before ; but I can't find it. The matter was brought to me by a friend player who didn't appreciate at all what happened but couldn't do anything about it, so if any of you can help him ... The TD loudly asked EWs to skip a table ; however, one pair didn't pay any attention and began to play at the wrong table. After half a dozen calls were made, the "genuine" opponents arrived, and the TD was called to sort it out. He gave, AFAIC, the right ruling : play the board provided the calls that were made are repeated, without great change of meaning. Else, 60/60 (or should it be 50/60 ?). The first three calls were identical (1S-p-2C), but now East thought it clever to overcall 2H on a 2434 1-count, ensuring that the bidding was different from what it had been (well, not ensuring it : if only the first three calls were already made the first time the board was begun, his 2H bid would have to stay). The TD, still present, had no other possibility than to cancel the board. Or had he ? I would like (and so would my friend) to call East's bid sharp practice ; but knowing the protagonists I wouldn't say he was the underdog at the table, so his purpose wasn't to score an easy 60%. Knowing him, I would say the purpose was to attract attention. L73B can't apply, because a psyche isn't an infraction. Can you find any law that would allow the TD to sanction East ? Or did you think his behavior was proper ? Does L74A2 apply here ? Or does 72A4 solve it all ? Thank you for your help. Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 30 12:05:15 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:05:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] When is a trick finished In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c30e3b$7deb5560$722f37d2@Desktop> <00b301c30e6a$42708b20$0fb54351@noos.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030430130439.02461650@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:11 29/04/2003 -0700, kaima wrote: >Jaap's question: >When is a trick finished in the > > sense that when is it appropriate to play the first card of the next >trick. > >K: I think is polite for the person who won the trick, to wait until all >four players have turned their card, before playing to the next trick. I >think that playing to next trick while someone still has his card face up >from current trick, is bad manners if done on purpose, and lack of attention >to the game if done inadvertently. No Law can teach manners or guarantee >players' attention to the game. AG : may I suggest L74A2 and L74B1 ? From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 30 12:20:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:20:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] not wishing to play the board In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030430124727.024628e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000f01c30f0a$8bdde2d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner ......... > The TD loudly asked EWs to skip a table; however, one pair didn't pay = any > attention and began to play at the wrong table. I take it (clarification) that the correct NS pair began the auction = with the wrong EW pair and that this wrong EW pair had not seen the board previously. > After half a dozen calls were made, the "genuine" opponents arrived, = and > the TD was called to sort it out. > He gave, AFAIC, the right ruling : play the board provided the calls = that > were made are repeated, without great change of meaning. Else, 60/60 = (or > should it be 50/60?). For further clarification I do hope that the correct EW pair now at the table was not told what specific calls had been made during the first auction? >=20 > The first three calls were identical (1S-p-2C), but now East thought = it > clever to overcall 2H on a 2434 1-count, ensuring that the bidding was > different from what it had been (well, not ensuring it : if only the = first > three calls were already made the first time the board was begun, his = 2H > bid would have to stay). Exactly, East should not be able to know, thus he should not be the = subject of any accusation. >=20 > The TD, still present, had no other possibility than to cancel the = board. > Or had he ? No. > I would like (and so would my friend) to call East's bid sharp = practice; > but knowing the protagonists I wouldn't say he was the underdog at the > table, so his purpose wasn't to score an easy 60%. Knowing him, I = would > say > the purpose was to attract attention. >=20 > L73B can't apply, because a psyche isn't an infraction. > Can you find any law that would allow the TD to sanction East ? Or did = you > think his behavior was proper ? > Does L74A2 apply here? Or does 72A4 solve it all? I think you are barking up the wrong tree. If East knew the calls in the first auction so that he actually "knew" = his call would cause the board to become cancelled for that table then there = is a Director's error and the scoring should be according to Law 82C.=20 I assume that East did not know. Then how can he be accused of willfully destroying that board? (That I understand is the real allegation here?). = As you say yourself: "if only the first three calls were already made the = first time the board was begun, his 2H bid would have to stay". You also correctly stated that a psyche is not an infraction, but have = you given any real reason why this call isn't simply a psyche? IMO the correct score is 60% for EW and 50% or 60% for NS depending upon whether they are considered partly at fault or not at fault. That can = only be determined from local regulations and practice. Incidentally your subject line seems to imply that you "know" East did = not want to play the board, but isn't your "evidence" of this a bit lousy? Regards Sven=20 From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 30 13:03:45 2003 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:03:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] not wishing to play the board In-Reply-To: <000f01c30f0a$8bdde2d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030430124727.024628e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030430135726.02465780@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:20 30/04/2003 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > Alain Gottcheiner >......... > > The TD loudly asked EWs to skip a table; however, one pair didn't pay any > > attention and began to play at the wrong table. > >I take it (clarification) that the correct NS pair began the auction with >the wrong EW pair and that this wrong EW pair had not seen the board >previously. AG : right > > After half a dozen calls were made, the "genuine" opponents arrived, and > > the TD was called to sort it out. > > He gave, AFAIC, the right ruling : play the board provided the calls that > > were made are repeated, without great change of meaning. Else, 60/60 (or > > should it be 50/60?). > >For further clarification I do hope that the correct EW pair now at the >table was not told what specific calls had been made during the first >auction? AG : right. There is, however, the possibility that they could glimpse at the cards on the table on arriving. >I think you are barking up the wrong tree. > >If East knew the calls in the first auction so that he actually "knew" his >call would cause the board to become cancelled for that table then there is >a Director's error and the scoring should be according to Law 82C. > >I assume that East did not know. Then how can he be accused of willfully >destroying that board? (That I understand is the real allegation here?). As >you say yourself: "if only the first three calls were already made the first >time the board was begun, his 2H bid would have to stay". > >You also correctly stated that a psyche is not an infraction, but have you >given any real reason why this call isn't simply a psyche? AG : see below. >IMO the correct score is 60% for EW and 50% or 60% for NS depending upon >whether they are considered partly at fault or not at fault. That can only >be determined from local regulations and practice. > >Incidentally your subject line seems to imply that you "know" East did not >want to play the board, but isn't your "evidence" of this a bit lousy? AG : you're surely right on priciples. I don't think he didn't want to play the board ; I think he wanted to create havoc. Yes, it is lousy, unless of course you know that particular East. Knowing him, it is *obvious* that the 2H bid wans't a plain psyche. I had to use L23 against him already twice, he is the same guy that I was speaking of in a recent thread (the one who played at lightning speed from the dummy and complain that my partner took some time to figure the whole deal) etc. Okay, let him go unpunished this time. From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 30 13:16:44 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:16:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] not wishing to play the board In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030430135726.02465780@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001001c30f12$5d5c1690$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Alain Gottcheiner=20 ......... > I don't think he didn't want to play the board ; I think he wanted to > create havoc. > Yes, it is lousy, unless of course you know that particular East. = Knowing > him, it is *obvious* that the 2H bid wans't a plain psyche. I had to = use > L23 against him already twice, he is the same guy that I was speaking = of > in > a recent thread (the one who played at lightning speed from the dummy = and > complain that my partner took some time to figure the whole deal) etc. >=20 >=20 > Okay, let him go unpunished this time. A difficult task when acting as a director is to let personal knowledge = and possible animosity against a player not influence your rulings when he = is involved. (For instance even if you know him to be a notorious slow player he has = the same right as everybody else to a warning before being punished for late play). Law 15C enables a last attempt to save a board that most likely has been destroyed if such recovery is at all possible without injustice to any player. So whenever you are in a position to use Law 15 you should bear in mind = that the board was initially destroyed, but not beyond recovery. Failure to = meet the conditions for recovery in this law is to be treated as just that, = not as a destruction of the board. Regards Sven=20 From john@asimere.com Wed Apr 30 16:00:14 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:00:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Shooting double shots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >Ron Johnson: > >>I played for a while with a guy who doubled >>all slams (Tony, if you're wondering, it was >>Ulrich Blazejewski) . Took me a while to >>figure it out. >> >>His logic was pretty much what you stated. >>Bad declarers have a tough time coming to 12 >>tricks. > >[snip] > >Many years ago, I occasionally played at a >very weak bridge club in Hobart. Other players >at that club sometimes bid and made small slams >when they held overwhelming high cards. But >grand slams were only bid at that club when both >partners kept on bidding misfits. Naturally, all >such grand slams failed. > >The resident "expert" at that club therefore had >a lucrative policy of automatically doubling >grand slams. Unluckily, he once played against >me and my relay partner. > >This was the only time I have ever played 7NT >vulnerable, redoubled and making. You remind me of the time I made a psychic 1NT overcall and LHO who had played against me before bid 3NT. Partner, with the table presence of a chair leg, doubled and eventually the opponents score 4 redoubled overtricks. This deprived Matthew (at another table) of yet another top when he forgot to redouble 7NT, scoring 2490 instead of 2760 against our 2600. I have a lot of Matthew non-top stories which will come out over time. > >:-) > >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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 30 18:29:16 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:29:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case Message-ID: <200304301729.NAA18699@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> My first thought was to bet a bunch that Sven and Herman would give different rulings on this one, but on second thought and taking into account the WBFLC minute, the ruling seems straightforward. Maybe it's still of some interest, though. QTJ75 T8 K64 86543 92 953 9 J72 Q2 AK97 AKT76 A83 J842 AKQ64 JT Q53 South plays 1H. Opening C-A lead wins, then H is won by dummy's 8. Spade Q loses to K, second heart is won by declarer's A. On H-K, West discards a club (revoke). On H-Q, both defenders discard (second revoke by East). Declarer asks if anyone has a heart, and both deny. Declarer claims, stating he will play S-A then dummy's spades, discarding diamonds, ruff diamond, then concede the last two tricks. (David Burn would approve.) Defenders concede, and as cards are being mixed, dummy points out the revoke. East admits the H-J was hidden all the time. When the claim is conceded, declarer has won nine tricks. How many more, if any, because of the revokes? And would your ruling be different if declarer had not asked about the hearts? What if East had said nothing about H-J being hidden? From lskelso@ihug.com.au Wed Apr 30 18:46:50 2003 From: lskelso@ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 03:46:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Revoke and Claim (3) Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030501034650.00a0da00@pop3.norton.antivirus> Hello Grattan and others Tonight I had a situation which (in part) has been discussed before: South was playing in a 5 level suit contract doubled, West cashed an ace and continued the suit. This continuation was ruffed by East and overruffed by declarer, who then claimed 11 tricks (conceding one more to the defense). The defenders agreed and were about to return their cards to the board, when dummy indicated that the East player had revoked at trick 2 (when he had ruffed). Dummy then summoned the director. Has the revoke been established (ie do we have acquiescence)? At the time I ruled that since no call had been made on a subsequent board by either East or West, the revoke had not yet been established. I then adjudicated the claim after first allowing East to correct the revoke (doubtful points in favour of Declarer). There are two WBFLC minutes that I am aware of - both of which touch upon this matter. *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. (WBFLC - Bermuda 2000)* *The committee studied a problem put by Jan Romanski in correspondence on the internet. It found a difficulty between the statements in Law 69 and those in Law 63. It was decided that Law 63A3 is to apply in the quoted circumstances (LHO failed to follow suit in Spades at trick 9, declarer said 'OK Queen of Spades to you', hands were returned to the board and the board was scored; the revoke was discovered before the signal for the following round was given.) A member of the offending side has acquiesced "in any other fashion". (WBFLC - Paris 2001)* In my scenario, there was no disputing of the claim - hence that particular condition in the Bermuda minute had not been fulfilled. Also the defender's two cards were still quited on the table and no score had been entered - hence I have similar doubts about whether the "in any other fashion" condition of the Paris minute had been fulfilled. Comments please! Regards Laurie From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Apr 30 19:02:10 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:02:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case References: <200304301729.NAA18699@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001001c30f43$cdb19a60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > My first thought was to bet a bunch that Sven and Herman would give > different rulings on this one, but on second thought and taking into > account the WBFLC minute, the ruling seems straightforward. Maybe it's > still of some interest, though. > > QTJ75 > T8 > K64 86543 92 > 953 9 J72 > Q2 AK97 > AKT76 A83 J842 > AKQ64 > JT > Q53 > > South plays 1H. Opening C-A lead wins, then H is won by dummy's 8. > Spade Q loses to K, second heart is won by declarer's A. On H-K, West > discards a club (revoke). On H-Q, both defenders discard (second > revoke by East). Declarer asks if anyone has a heart, and both deny. > Declarer claims, stating he will play S-A then dummy's spades, > discarding diamonds, ruff diamond, then concede the last two tricks. > (David Burn would approve.) Defenders concede, and as cards are being > mixed, dummy points out the revoke. East admits the H-J was hidden all > the time. > > When the claim is conceded, declarer has won nine tricks. How many > more, if any, because of the revokes? One, since the revoker did not win the revoke trick. There is no penalty for a second revoke by the same player in the same suit, other than possibly a PP. > and would your ruling be > different if declarer had not asked about the hearts? No. That's irrelevant, except maybe in regard to a PP. > What if East > had said nothing about H-J being hidden? > Irrelevant. Even for a PP, unverifiable statements by an offender are irrelevant. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 30 19:27:04 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:27:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: <200304301729.NAA18699@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000201c30f46$19b38a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner ......... > My first thought was to bet a bunch that Sven and Herman would give > different rulings on this one, but on second thought and taking into > account the WBFLC minute, the ruling seems straightforward. Maybe = it's > still of some interest, though. >=20 > QTJ75 > T8 > K64 86543 92 > 953 9 J72 > Q2 AK97 > AKT76 A83 J842 > AKQ64 > JT > Q53 >=20 > South plays 1H. Opening C-A lead wins, then H is won by dummy's 8. > Spade Q loses to K, second heart is won by declarer's A. On H-K, West > discards a club (revoke). On H-Q, both defenders discard (second > revoke by East). Declarer asks if anyone has a heart, and both deny. > Declarer claims, stating he will play S-A then dummy's spades, > discarding diamonds, ruff diamond, then concede the last two tricks. > (David Burn would approve.) Defenders concede, and as cards are being > mixed, dummy points out the revoke. East admits the H-J was hidden = all > the time. >=20 > When the claim is conceded, declarer has won nine tricks. How many > more, if any, because of the revokes? And would your ruling be > different if declarer had not asked about the hearts? What if East > had said nothing about H-J being hidden? I see no ruling problem here, but there are one or two funny details in = the description: Apparently both defenders revoked when declarer played his H-K and again when he played his H-Q. However, this is immaterial because the first established revoke by each defender is subject to penalty, later = repeated revokes in the same suit by each individual defender is not. The following facts are clear: 1: Before the revoke declarer has already lost two tricks, these cannot under any circumstance be transferred as penalty tricks. This leaves = only the two conceded tricks as candidates for penalties. 2: We have established revokes in hearts by each defender. This adds up = to two separate established revokes, each of which is penalized by (at = least) one trick (if available). 3: Because only two tricks are available for penalties we need not = consider the possibility of awarding more than one trick penalty for either = revoke. Ruling: The total penalty for the revokes is two tricks and the contract = was won with 11 (eleven) tricks. The fact that declarer asked about a possible revoke and the remark by = East afterwards are completely irrelevant for this ruling. Now, because of the peculiarities in the description I wonder if the = note that West revoked is a typo and that only East did revoke. In that case = we have only one revoke subject to penalty and must investigate if East actually did win a trick with his H-J. Because the H-J now is the highest outstanding trump he must necessarily have done so (there is no way he can avoid it after his revokes), thus = also in this case the ruling will be that two tricks are transferred, now = because the penalty for the revoke by East alone will be two tricks. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Apr 28 16:46:38 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:46:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML the big hole In-Reply-To: <16d.1bc6a947.2bde5da9@aol.com> Message-ID: <000701c30d9d$5b111aa0$6900a8c0@WINXP> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C30DAE.1E99EAA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Everybody knows . . . . ." ? ? ? ? ? I do not see the problem, and I do not see the point. But if you count everybody who does not bother to object as being in favor of your suggestion (whatever that suggestion really is) then of course you have a huge majority for it. Sven -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of HauffHJ@aol.com Sent: 28. april 2003 12:34 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] BLML the big hole Hi all, Everybody knows the big hole in Law 77 and 78. I refer to the fact that whenever at the end of a tournament a ranking list is produced, then there is a value attributed to the Non-scorer . ACBL and EBU use the negative value of the score. Until now, there is no official expression to this value. I propose that the expression C O S C O R E is used. It should be incorporated in the next edition of the LAWS under chapter 1 "definitions" and it should read: "Coscore" is the value attributed to a non-scorer at the same time, when a score is attributed to the Scorer conforme Law 77. Any objections ? Any other expression already used in national Bylaws ? To make it easier, only respond if you are against it. Paul Hauff www.bridgeassistant.com HauffHJ@aol.com ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C30DAE.1E99EAA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

“Everybody = knows . . . . .” ? ? ? ? ?

 

I do not see the problem, and I do = not see the point.

 

But if you count everybody who does = not bother to object as being in favor of your suggestion (whatever that suggestion = really is) then of course you have a huge majority for it.

 

Sven

 

-----Original Message-----
From: = blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On = Behalf Of HauffHJ@aol.com
Sent: 28. april 2003 = 12:34
To: blml@rtflb.org
Subject: [blml] BLML the = big hole

 



Hi all,
Everybody knows the big = hole in Law 77 and 78.
I refer to the fact that whenever at the end of a tournament a ranking = list is produced, then
there is a value attributed to the Non-scorer . ACBL  and EBU use = the negative value of the score.
Until now, there is no official expression to this value.
I propose that the expression
C O S C O R E
is used. It should be incorporated in the next edition of the LAWS = under
chapter 1 "definitions" and it should read:
"Coscore" is the value attributed to a non-scorer at the same = time, when a score is attributed to the Scorer conforme Law 77.
Any objections ? Any other expression already used in national Bylaws = ?
To make it easier, only respond if you are against it.
Paul Hauff
www.bridgeassistant.com
HauffHJ@aol.com

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C30DAE.1E99EAA0-- From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 30 19:36:26 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:36:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke and Claim (3) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20030501034650.00a0da00@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <000301c30f47$68be6a30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laurie Kelso > South was playing in a 5 level suit contract doubled, West cashed an ace > and continued the suit. This continuation was ruffed by East and > overruffed by declarer, who then claimed 11 tricks (conceding one more to > the defense). The defenders agreed and were about to return their cards > to > the board, when dummy indicated that the East player had revoked at trick > 2 > (when he had ruffed). Dummy then summoned the director. > > Has the revoke been established (ie do we have acquiescence)? Sure, see Law 63A3. According to your description both members of the offending side agreed to declarer's claim. No comments seems needed to the balance of your post. (Your ruling that the revoke was not established was definitely wrong). Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 30 19:41:41 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:41:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: <001001c30f43$cdb19a60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000601c30f48$246dbf60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French ......=20 > One, since the revoker did not win the revoke trick. There is no = penalty > for a second revoke by the same player in the same suit, other than > possibly a PP. Sorry Marvin, there are two possible cases for two tricks to be = transferred: At the time of the claim the H-J is the highest outstanding trump and = cannot avoid taking a trick subsequent to the revoke trick. This will make the revoke by East a two-trick revoke. But according to the description there was also a revoke by West making = it a case of two separate revokes; one by each defender. Regards Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 30 20:07:39 2003 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:07:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case Message-ID: <200304301907.PAA18828@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Apparently both defenders revoked when declarer played his H-K and again > when he played his H-Q. Thanks Sven. Sorry, everyone. I do proofread these things, but not well enough apparently. I switched the hands to make South declarer but didn't get all the switching right. > Now, because of the peculiarities in the description I wonder if the note > that West revoked is a typo and that only East did revoke. In that case we > have only one revoke subject to penalty and must investigate if East > actually did win a trick with his H-J. Yes, this was what happened. East had H-J hidden and revoked twice. West did not revoke at all. > Because the H-J now is the highest outstanding trump he must necessarily > have done so (there is no way he can avoid it after his revokes), thus also > in this case the ruling will be that two tricks are transferred, now because > the penalty for the revoke by East alone will be two tricks. This was the ruling given at the table and the one I thought was correct at the time. However, Laurie's post makes me wonder whether the second revoke should be considered "not established" and corrected. How does one decide whether the defenders have acquiesced to declarer's claim for L63A3? Alternatively, one could imagine that East discovers his H-J and ruffs the third round of spades, presumably leading to a L64C ruling. Is this a "doubtful point" to be decided against revoker? Corrected narrative... hope it's right this time! QTJ75 T8 K64 86543 92 953 9 J72 Q2 AK97 AKT76 A83 J842 AKQ64 JT Q53 South plays 1H. Opening C-A lead wins, then H is won by dummy's 8. Spade Q loses to K, second heart is won by declarer's A. On H-K, East discards a club (revoke). On H-Q, both defenders discard (second revoke by East). Declarer asks if anyone has a heart, and both deny. Declarer claims, stating he will play S-A then dummy's spades, discarding diamonds, ruff diamond, then concede the last two tricks. (David Burn would approve.) Defenders agree, and as cards are being mixed, dummy points out the revoke. East admits the H-J was hidden all the time. From adam@irvine.com Wed Apr 30 20:04:59 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:04:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:29:16 EDT." <200304301729.NAA18699@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200304301904.MAA28874@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > South plays 1H. Opening C-A lead wins, then H is won by dummy's 8. > Spade Q loses to K, second heart is won by declarer's A. On H-K, West ^^^^ > discards a club (revoke). On H-Q, both defenders discard (second > revoke by East). Just to prevent any confusion, was "West" a typo? I don't understand the "second revoke by East" comment unless the first revoke was really committed by East. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Wed Apr 30 20:38:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 21:38:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke and claim, real case In-Reply-To: <200304301907.PAA18828@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000701c30f50$022ba180$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willne ......=20 > Thanks Sven. Sorry, everyone. I do proofread these things, but not > well enough apparently. I switched the hands to make South declarer > but didn't get all the switching right. >=20 > > Now, because of the peculiarities in the description I wonder if the > note > > that West revoked is a typo and that only East did revoke. In that = case > we > > have only one revoke subject to penalty and must investigate if East > > actually did win a trick with his H-J. >=20 > Yes, this was what happened. East had H-J hidden and revoked twice. > West did not revoke at all. So then that peculiarity has been clarified. >=20 > > Because the H-J now is the highest outstanding trump he must = necessarily > > have done so (there is no way he can avoid it after his revokes), = thus > also > > in this case the ruling will be that two tricks are transferred, now > because > > the penalty for the revoke by East alone will be two tricks. >=20 > This was the ruling given at the table and the one I thought was > correct at the time. However, Laurie's post makes me wonder whether > the second revoke should be considered "not established" and > corrected. How does one decide whether the defenders have acquiesced > to declarer's claim for L63A3? There are two questions here: 1: The second revoke has also been established, no doubt about that. But there is no penalty for the second revoke in the same suit by the same player (Law 64B2) unless the equity rule (Law 64C) becomes applicable. 2: The fact that defenders are about to return their cards to the board without any dispute against the claim makes them acquiesce to the claim after which also the immediately preceding (second) revoke becomes established (Law 63A3) >=20 > Alternatively, one could imagine that East discovers his H-J and ruffs > the third round of spades, presumably leading to a L64C ruling. Is > this a "doubtful point" to be decided against revoker? No, it would lead to a Law 64A2 ruling: Offender won a trick with a card = he could legally have played to the revoke trick (and offending side won another trick after the revoke). Regards Sven From henk@amsterdamned.org Wed Apr 30 23:00:01 2003 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 May 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 bric@ixir.com Fri Apr 11 21:29:39 2003 From: bric@ixir.com (Ethem Urkac) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 23:29:39 +0300 Subject: [blml] re activate Message-ID: <000101c31343$aa3e92f0$d9edfdd4@ethemhome> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C30082.38F4ED70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please make me member of this list Thanking in advance ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C30082.38F4ED70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please make me member of this = list
 
Thanking in = advance
------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C30082.38F4ED70--